The Supreme Court of the United States listened to arguments today from a case formally known as Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was approached by two gay men, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, and asked if he would make them a wedding cake. When Mr. Phillips declined, he was sued.

Phillips said that he was glad to sell them any other product from his shop regardless of their sexual orientation. But he would not make them a wedding cake since it would be a romantic endorsement of something that as a Christian he did not believe was morally right. Marriage was created by God to be a life-long covenant between a man and a woman. Phillips is an artist, and he did not want to use his artistic expression to present a message he didn't believe.

When the two men took legal action against Phillips, the state of Colorado agreed that he had violated the state's anti-discrimination ordinance -- this was in 2012, before gay marriage was even legal in Colorado. Nonetheless, the state brought legal action against Phillips which was upheld by the lower courts. In an article published yesterday in USA Today, Phillips said that since being sued, he has received "hate mail, obscene calls, and death threats." So much for love and tolerance.

Praise God the Supreme Court has decided to take the cake... er, case... and already Justice Kennedy, likely the deciding voice, has said that Colorado has been "neither tolerant nor respectful" of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. This is not just about freedom of religion, but also freedom of speech: Can the United States government force a person to express a message that person does not believe?

I became familiar with Mr. Phillips this past summer when a video was circulating featuring him and his lawyer answering questions on The View, the morning talk-show that has become a bastion of integrity and fairness (I'm being wildly sarcastic). The question Mr. Phillips was asked that made the video so popular was whether Jesus would make a cake for a gay wedding. Comedienne Joy Behar said He would, Mr. Phillips said He wouldn't.

If I were on The View, this is how I would have responded to their line of questioning. This is not a knock on Mr. Phillips' responses. My answers would be a little different than his because a) I'm a pastor, and b) I'm not being sued (which could change tomorrow in our current cultural climate). The following are actual quotes presented by the ladies in that interview. Their comments are in bold and my responses follow.

From left to right: Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Paula Faris, Jack Phillips, Kristen Waggoner (Phillips' lawyer), and Sara Haines. Forgive me but I could not identify the woman on the end, so she will be called simply "Host."

Host: I understand the concern people have about government dictating to private businesses what their business should look like. But on this religious freedom argument, I struggle. It violates your religious freedom to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple, for example. Do you then, when straight couples come in, do you ask them if they've had a child out of wedlock, for example, if they participate in premarital sex, if they -- (audience applauds). Because, where do you draw the line then? Because that all could be deemed sinful, or sinful to someone who's religious as well.

That's a common argument when addressing cases of this kind, but it doesn't apply. Who is coming into a cake shop saying, "Hey, I'm having premarital sex. Could you bake me a cake?" In this particular case, two men have specifically asked for a wedding cake to celebrate something that Mr. Phillips doesn't consider moral.

I'm sure that if he was asked to participate in anything else he believed would be an endorsement of that behavior, he would decline. Mr. Phillips has said so: if someone asked him to bake a cake for an adult-themed party or Halloween or a KKK celebration, he would have refused in those scenarios as well. He has been consistent in his convictions.

Joy Behar: What exactly is your belief that prevents you from making that cake? What is it?

As Mr. Phillips expressed, he believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, as God created it to be. The Bible clearly teaches it.

Behar: But there are other things in the Bible I'm sure you don't believe.

No. I believe every word in the Bible, and I teach all of it. As a pastor, I go word for word through the Scriptures to help the hearers understand what God has said through His prophets and apostles.

Sara Haines: Well that actually brings me to my question, because one thing that's always confused me about this is that in the Bible it says many things if you read it.

Thank you, I have.

Haines: I was raised in the church, and it says do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. But it also says don't judge others. We're not the final judgment. It also says love thy neighbor. There are a lot of messages in there. How do you reconcile in your own spirituality which ones to go with, because in my mind, whether you believe in it or not, you should definitely not marry a man (laugh). But if someone else does, it's not my place to judge them because God will ultimately judge them (audience applause).

First of all, the Bible doesn't say not to judge at all. In John 7:24, Jesus said, "Do not to judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." You're making judgments now regarding Mr. Phillips. Secondly, God created marriage, and He said it is to be between a man and a woman. Jesus made this point also in Matthew 19:4-6. Whoever is having sex outside of that definition of marriage is guilty of sexual immorality.

We read in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that those who practice homosexuality or sexual immorality of any kind will be excluded from the kingdom of God. Revelation 21:8 says they will be cast into the lake of fire. God has already said what that ultimate judgment will be. So out of love for my neighbor, I do not want to encourage him in sin that will exclude him from the kingdom of God. Jesus died to forgive sin such as this, not so someone would persist in sin such as this. Wouldn't you agree it is actually unloving to encourage someone in behavior that will harm them?

Host: There are artistic endeavors that have no relation to same-sex couples at all that you decide -- I just want to be clear about that, because these other things that you do not (indiscernable). They're not related to gay marriage, or...

Okay.

Paula Faris: I have a question for you, too, kind of bouncing off of Sara's question. I know that you're a Christ-follower, and Jesus was even criticized by some of His followers for hanging out with the lowest of the low; the tax collectors and the sinners. Did you ever ask yourself: What would Jesus do in this particular situation? Instead of denying them, do you think maybe Jesus would have said 'I don't accept this, but I'm going to love you anyway'? Do you think that maybe would have had a more powerful testimony?

Jesus would not have encouraged someone in behavior that positioned them under the wrath of God on judgment day. He told the sinners to go and sin no more. Your question accuses Mr. Phillips of being unloving by refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. On the contrary, he told them they could buy anything from his shop regardless of their sexual orientation. But he could not encourage behavior the Bible says is destructive.

Faris: So you don't believe that -- I just ask, what do you think Jesus would have done in that situation?

He would have told a sinner to repent before something worse happened to them, as He did in John 5:14.

Behar: Oh, come on. Jesus would have made the cake.

Faris: Jesus could turn water into wine. He could do whatever He wants to do.

Behar: You can believe the Bible and everything, but Jesus, that's a deal-breaker. Jesus is gonna make the cake. 

The devil told Jesus, "If you are the Son of God, command these stones to become loaves of bread." Jesus replied, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." And what has come from the mouth of God is that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. Mr. Phillips is attempting to live in accordance with what God said.

Behar: Listen, I'm not judging what he did. I'm just speaking for Jesus right now. (Audience laughs and applauds.)

Jesus has spoken, and what He has said is in the Bible, which is the word of Christ.

Sunny Hostin: Let me ask you this, because we talked about this same issue yesterday on the show, and I can see both sides of this argument. When I put one hat on, when I put my legal hat on, I think it's a closer call than I think we're giving credit for. When I put my human hat on, I think, "Just make the cake." But let me ask you this. Lower courts have found [that Jack] broke the law, because there is an anti-discrimination law in Colorado. So lower courts have found that you discriminated against this couple, but you're taking this fight to the Supreme Court. Why not just make the cake?

If your argument is, "Why make a federal case out of this?" you need to ask that of Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. They're the ones who sued Mr. Phillips. Remember that this happened in a year in which gay marriage wasn't even legal. The state discriminated against Mr. Phillips, and so has everyone else who has threatened him and his family. As far as I can tell, he's been nothing but kind and respectful through this ordeal. Doesn't he deserve to have his case heard before the Supreme Court?

Hostin: Now, he's received death threats. [Has he] lost business because of this?

The court ruled that Mr. Phillips had to make wedding cakes for gay weddings. He had to. So Mr. Phillips stopped making wedding cakes, a significant portion of his business. Who's to say someone wouldn't try to bait him into refusing to bake a cake for another gay couple? He would face more lawsuits while this one is still pending.

Behar: You're losing business! It's a bad business decision!

I agree, it is a bad business decision -- made by the state of Colorado, not Mr. Phillips. This is a form of authoritarian oppression more akin to fascism.

Behar: But there's a large issue here. I mean, some people are saying you could set back the law. You know, the case would set back the law fifty years. Because anyone would say I have religious freedom to deny you my wares.

Denying a person their freedoms of speech and religion, which are expressly protected by the constitution, is usurping the law in this case. The right for two gay men to marry each other and demand a wedding cake be made for them is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. Over the last 60 years, sexual liberty has taken precedence over the basic fundamental rights protected by the constitution.

Hostin: It certainly is a close call, but let me tell you, we reached out to the couple's, the gay couple's attorneys. They declined to comment at this time. But on the day that the Supreme Court announced that it would be taking up this case, they said, "The law is squarely on David and Charlie's side because when businesses are open to the public, they're supposed to be open to everyone. While the right to one's religious beliefs is fundamental, a license to discriminate is not."(Audience applauds.) What's your response?

Well, Mr. Esseks of the ACLU, who issued the statement, is discriminating against Mr. Phillips. He believes his clients are right and Mr. Phillips is wrong to run his business based on his moral convictions. That's discrimination. Everyone discriminates. The NBA and the WNBA, the PGA and the LPGA -- these are discriminatory labels. The question here is whether or not the discrimination was legal.

Does Mr. Phillips have the right to refuse to participate in an activity that goes against his fundamental religious beliefs? The constitution says that he does. I hope the Supreme Court agrees. Again, I must reiterate this because the point seems to be getting lost: Mr. Phillips did not refuse business to anyone. He simply refused to make a specialty cake. They could still buy anything else they wanted from his shop.

Haines: That's evolved in a lot of those religions. Because my brother's gay and in our church, it's fine for him to get married. (Audience applauds.) And I was raised in the church, so there are a lot of God-fearing Christian gays who are accepted and loved and they are choosing to love someone else, and, so I do think that the Bible has not changed because it was written thousands of years ago and translated sixty-some times, so what we're reading even, if you studied the Bible is interesting enough. But faith has changed and it has evolved to accept people.

There is no such thing as a God-fearing Christian gay man. He would be choosing to be gay precisely because he does not fear God. It doesn't matter how religious convictions have evolved on the subject. Jesus said in Mark 13:31, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

Hostin: But is he allowed to have his faith? 

Haines: I totally agree with that, but I do feel it should be: I should know that when I go in, because when my brother walks in and can't buy a cake from him, I don't want to put my business there. It's my personal freedom. (Audience applauds her again, apparently able to make more sense of her than I can.)

Hostin: And what do you say to that? Because we discussed this. I know that we're running out of time, but we discussed this again yesterday. Would you be willing to put up a sign that says, you know, this is a Christian bakery, this is a Christian establishment, I will not make cakes for A, B, C, D.

Behar: He won't get any Jews buying cakes either, or Muslims, if you do that. You might be putting off other religions. 

Haines: I don't think a Jewish person would not buy a cake because he's Christian.

Behar: No, but if he said, "This is a Christian store," that could put people off.

Haines: Well he could list adult parties, Halloween, gay marriages, and just let everyone know: these are the things I do. 

John the Baptist was beheaded for having a biblical view of marriage, so I do understand the culture is always going to be against those who follow the teachings of Jesus. But I still hope that justice will prevail in this case on behalf of Mr. Phillips, and that is also for your benefit. May the Holy Spirit convict your hearts of sin and righteousness, and for your sake I hope you come to an understanding of who Jesus really is before the day of judgment comes.

Wu Yongning, a 26-year-old Chinese rooftopping daredevil, fell to his death while performing a stunt from atop a the 62-story building. The Xiaoxiang Morning Herald reported on Saturday that Wu was taking part in a rooftopping challenge that promised 100,000 yuan ($20,400) in prize money.

The former movie extra had been attempting to climb the Huayuan Centre, the tallest building in Changsha, capital of China's Hunan province. On social media Wu was referred to as "Chinese Superman" since he scaled such tall buildings without protective gear or safety harnesses, relying upon martial arts training and careful timing to perform these risky feats.

He'd post his videos on Weibo, a Chinese social media site similar to Twitter. Millions of followers watched as he would tiptoe along a skyscraper, stand atop a high tower, or hang by his fingertips over a ledge. His fans noticed that he'd stopped sharing videos online, and that's when his family broke the news.

His step-uncle Feng Shengliang told the Straits Times that Wu planned to propose to his girlfriend the day after completing the stunt.

Wu Yongning performing some of his risky stunts.

Wu is one of many who have died while rooftopping, a craze also called "urban exploration." This fascination involves amateur stuntsmen, or self-confessed skywalkers, scaling tall buildings or high-rise structures in order to snap the perfect photo. Some are so dedicated to this hobby that they travel the world taking such pictures.

There are many tragic stories of people falling to their death performing such stunts. One of the most notable is 17-year-old Andrey Retrovsky, who died while doing a building-hang in Russia, where the rooftopping craze is huge. That same year, 24-year-old Conner Cummings was killed in New York City while trying to climb the Four Seasons Hotel, a 52-story building.

Despite regular fatalities, rooftopping continues to increase in popularity. It's about more than just thrill-seeking. A GoPro video from a selfie-stick that goes viral promises millions of hits and thousands of dollars in revenue. It can also increase star-power. Some models have taken high-rise photos to set themselves apart from other models, attracting more attention.

But they are literally risking their lives for fame and fortune. For Wu Yongning, it cost him everything. Said the China Daily editorial, "With all the likes and comments, he overestimated his own abilities and finally lost his life because of that feeling. Had Wu not been so popular on live-streaming apps, he might not have died."

Proverbs 16:18 says, "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Regarding daredevil rooftopping, that's quite literal.

When a person falls while doing pretty much anything else, they can pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and try again, learning from the mistakes they made. But when a rooftopper falls... that's it. One wrong move and life is over. The mark they leave on the world will be the stain they left on 57th street when their body hit the pavement.

In case you've been living under a rock, and under that rock you dug a deep cave, and at the end of that cave you fashioned a bunker with thick, steel-reinforced concrete walls, cutting off the outside world, and making yourself impervious to any kind of radio, television, or internet frequency -- the latest Star Wars movie is out, Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

I've seen it, and it's a Star Wars movie. Don't worry, I'm not about to spoil it. Well, much of it anyway. There's just one tiny little scene I wanted to bring up, and then I'm going to spoil the outcome of that scene at the end of the blog. I'll put up a spoiler alert when I get there. If I remember.

If you saw the The Force Awakens (everyone dogged on that title, but I thought it was fine), then you might remember the rather disappointing conclusion when Rey found Luke Skywalker, handed him his lightsaber, then cut to John Williams music and blue credits. Luke had more dialogue in the previews leading up to that movie than he did in the movie.

Well, fret no more! We pick up at that exact spot in The Last Jedi (I won't spoil how Luke responds to getting his lightsaber back, but it's perfect). Rey wants Luke to teach her the ways of the force so she can become a Jedi knight like her father... er, wait, that was a different Star Wars movie. She wants Luke to teach her to become a Jedi. "I want to find my place in all this," she says.

Where Luke ended up going -- the most hidden part of the galaxy according to him, but apparently not hidden enough -- was an island where the last Jedi temple rests in an old, dead tree. There inside the tree is a single table with a few books -- the ancient Jedi texts.

So fiddle faddle fum, plot-plot and sub-plot, Luke won't leave with Rey, so she leaves on her own to  help the resistance/rebellion without him. Because Luke fears Rey is becoming like Ren/Ben, he decides to burn the whole Jedi thing to the ground. Literally. He lights a flare and walks up to the tree/temple. But before he can torch it, he's visited by a cameo appearance of Oz/Yoda.

Luke hesitates to act on his impulse, so the Green Goblin burns it down for him (in dead-Jedi fashion, of course). Having a change of heart, Luke is absolutely beside himself. You destroyed the last Jedi sacred texts! Yoda replies, "Did you ever read the texts?" And Luke stammers with an answer that was probably about to be, "Well I was going to!" Yoda says, "Page turners, they were not."

The whole Jedi thing has always been an excuse to put magic in a sci-fi landscape. There's nothing mysterious or deep about the Jedi religion; the filmmakers are just making it up as they go. Now the Jedi have ancient texts, and there's apparently only one copy left.

But the texts are not important. Of course they're not. Because being a Jedi is about feeling the force, not reading about it. There's no reason for texts. Remember Obi-Wan's first lesson to the young Luke: "Stretch out with your feelings." In this movie, Luke gives Rey that same advice. So what's the point of having a text if you don't need it? He never even read it! Which is the point Yoda makes with Luke.

Trusting your feelings is the lesson in almost every epic or adventure film I've seen: Follow your heart! Believe in yourself! It's the way of the world, exemplified in virtually all blockbusters. You can say, "Oh, it's just a movie." Sure, I won't argue with that. It's a cash-grab. I pay the money to be entertained just like you do. But all movies have messages, and that under-whelming philosophy is usually that you make your own way and your own truth.

The Bible says the opposite. You cannot make your own truth, and your feelings are not dependable. Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool (Proverbs 28:26), and the heart is so deceptively sick that no one can understand it (Jeremiah 17:9). You're following a dumb, sick guide when you follow yourself.

The Bible is our only objective, unchanging source of truth. On the days that you don't feel like you know your "place in all of this," you need the text to remind you. You were created in God's image for a purpose, and that is to worship God with everything that you are, giving thanks to Him in all that you do. There is a place for you in His eternal, imperishable kingdom.

But wicked men don't want to be with God. This world is fallen and subject to judgment along with everyone who is part of it. They will be destroyed when Jesus returns "with His mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus" (2 Thessalonians 1:5-12). That's not a truth you can feel. You read about it in the Bible.

For those who are in Christ Jesus, God has promised to deliver you and will give you an inheritance in His eternal kingdom. When this world gets to be too much, you will forget that. When the world looks alluring enough, you will give in to temptation. You would fall with this world if it wasn't for the fact that God upholds you by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3).

So you go back to God's word to be reminded of the truth. You're reminded of your sinfulness and your need for a Savior. This is what it says will happen to those who are clothed in the righteousness of Christ (Revelation 7:15-17):

Therefore they are before the throne of God,
and serve Him day and night in His temple;
and He who sits on the throne will shelter them with His presence. 

They shall hunger no more, neither thirst anymore;
the sun shall not strike them,
nor any scorching heat. 

For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd,
and He will guide them to springs of living water,
and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

Knowing the truth of Christ fills us with joy, something far more invincible than happiness or chills. You can feel goosebumps sitting in a movie theater with surround sound and lightsaber battles to John Williams music. But God's word is not verified by how you feel. It is verified by the never-ending, never-failing character of a gracious God, who gave us His word so we would know His love and believe in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Okay, and now here's a spoiler. Am I supposed to put that in all-caps? Is that the proper online etiquette for a spoiler alert?

SPOILER ALERT!!

At the end of the movie after Rey... well, never mind... Fin goes to a drawer on the Millennium Falcon to get a blanket, and when he opens it up, gasp! It's the Jedi books! Apparently Rey swiped them before Luke/Yoda could destroy them. You see them for just a flash, but my daughter Annie and I agreed they were the Jedi texts.

Whatever's in those books, the script doctors will make it up by the next movie (unless it's a plot twist they decide to drop). But I'm willing to take a guess: the books describe what the Jedi feel when they experience the force.

That's not what the Bible talks about. As Peter said of the testimony of the Scriptures, "We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:16). We follow the truth.

In 1 Timothy 2:11-12, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." The context here is church leadership, an instruction that continues into chapter 3. A woman is not permitted to be a pastor in a church (elder, bishop, overseer, etc.). Only a man can be a pastor.

This instruction is not limited to the time-period in which Paul was writing. It applies to all people in every place at every point in the history of the church. How do we know this? Because Paul goes all the way back to Genesis with his explanation: "For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (verses 13-14).

So the first reason the role of pastor is to be filled by a man is because Adam was formed first, and Eve was formed from Adam as his help-meet. The differences between the sexes and the different roles they are assigned are not a result of the fall. They were established at creation and have applied to all people in all cultures at all times.

The second reason a pastor is to be man is because Adam was not deceived by the serpent, but the woman was deceived and transgressed the law of God. This might seem unfair because Adam certainly sinned as well, and death came to all men because Adam sinned (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:21). But Adam wasn't deceived, and Eve was. So whether we're talking about a perfect, sinless world, or the fallen, sinful one we currently inhabit, God intends that a man be the one to shepherd the flock of God (pastor means "shepherd;" see also 1 Peter 5:1-5).

Elsewhere, Paul wrote, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak at church" (1 Corinthians 14:33-35).

This doesn't mean a woman is supposed to have duct-tape over her mouth from the moment she walks into church to the moment she walks out. The context is teaching the church, or administering the authority of the word of God over the gathered people of God. The role as overseer is set apart for specifically a man to fill.

Problem solved! (Just kidding, sweetheart.)

This also doesn't mean a church that obeys this instruction is oppressing women. Heavens, no! A woman sitting in that church during a gospel sermon is no more oppressed than any man in the congregation. The truth does not oppress those who listen to it -- it sets them free (John 8:31). It is a woman's delight to learn quietly with all submissiveness, and she does this in honor of the Lord.

Women serve an incredibly important role in the church. If a church was all men and no women, that would be a dysfunctional church (see Titus 2:1-8). The church is to be made up of men and women, young and old, complimenting one another in their strengths and weaknesses, working and growing together so that we may be a functioning body of Christ.

But each according to their own purpose. God made men and women different from day one of creation... sorry, day six. He meant for men to fill certain roles and women to fill certain roles. We are one body in Christ made of individual parts, each functioning in their own way. One person is not to infringe upon another or take it upon themselves to do the task given to someone else. We all submit to one another out of reverence to Christ (Ephesians 5:21).

Bad Arguments for Women Pastors
Over the weekend, a friend got into a discussion over this topic with a feminist, and the feminist retorted with a list of names -- women of the Bible who were more than just "helps" but, in her view, were qualified to be pastors. That list was as follows: "Deborah, Hannah, Miriam, Ruth, Esther, Jael, Proverbs 31, Wisdom personified as woman in Proverbs 8 (present with God at creation), Phoebe, Lydia, Prisca, Mary, Mary Magdalene, [were] all just there 'to help'?"

This is a very common tactic when arguing for why women deserve to be pastors: throw out the name of a woman from the Bible. Boom! But that name is always taken out of context. There are no examples of a woman serving as a pastor in the church. None of the apostles were women, for that matter. I can say "period" and leave it at that. The instruction in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is clear.

But for the sake of teaching, I'd like to go through that list of names and explain why they're actually bad examples. While they are not examples of women pastors, most of them are certainly great examples for being strong women of God.


Deborah
The book of Judges captures a very dark time in Israel's history. In those days there was no king in Israel, and the people did what was right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6, 21:25). But God gave them judges to be their leaders, decision-makers, and deliverers.

The pattern of the story of Judges goes like this: the people sinned and worshiped false gods, the Lord sent an enemy to punish and oppress them, the people cried out for mercy, so God sent a judge to conquer their enemies and deliver a semi-repentant Israel. Wash, rinse, repeat. Three of the most famous judges were Samson, Gideon, and a woman named Deborah.

Deborah was a prophetess and a God-fearing woman who judged during a time when there were no God-fearing men. In Judges 4, Deborah confronted Barak, commander of the Lord's army, who was reluctant to do what God had told him to do: gather his troops and fight the Canaanites. Instead, Barak told Deborah, "If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go." So Deborah mommied him and led him by the hand to get him to obey God.

If you had been reading through Deuteronomy and Joshua, by the time you got to Judges 4, you'd recognize Israel's digression in faith and obedience. In Deuteronomy 1:15, the tribes of Israel had wise and experienced men as heads over them. In Joshua 24:1, these men met with Joshua to renew their covenant before God. But within a generation, Israel began worshiping the Baals and forgot what the Lord had done for them (Judges 2:10-12).

It got to the point that the men weren't doing what the leaders of Israel were supposed to do. So God placed a woman over them as though to say, "Sure, I'll deliver you from your enemies. But to your shame, I'm going to send a woman to do what no man will do." It was an embarrassment that Deborah was judge, not a high achievement (consider Judges 9:53 where it was to Abimelech's shame that he was killed by a woman and not a man). In Deborah's song of victory, she praised the tribes that stepped up to fight and lambasted those who stayed home (Judges 5:14-18).

Isaiah 3:12 says, "My people -- infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them." It is the judgment of God upon a nation when women occupy the roles that should be filled by men. Barak should have been the judge of Israel, following in the footsteps of Othniel, Ehud, and Shamgar before him. But because he was kind of a weenie, God gave Deborah to do what Barak wouldn't.

So using Deborah as an argument for why it's okay for a woman to be a pastor really isn't a good move. It would be to admit, "There are no godly men here, so a woman is going to have to do this job." When a woman is pastor, the church is immature and disobedient, just like Israel was when Deborah was judge. She is a great example of a God-fearing woman. She is not an example of a pastor.

Jael
I confess, this is one of my favorite Bible stories. Still in Judges 4, when Barak succeeded against the Canaanite armies, Sisera, the commander of the Canaanites, fled on foot to the tent of Jael, wife of Heber the Kenite, a descendant of Moses's father-in-law. Sisera hid in her tent and told Jael, "Stand here at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, 'Is anyone here?' say, 'No.'"

When Sisera fell asleep, Jael went and grabbed a tent-peg and a hammer and nailed his head to the ground. Yes, this stay-at-home wife pulled a stake from her tent, went over to where the enemy was sleeping, put the spike on the his temple, and with a mallet in her other hand, she pound, pound, pounded that stake through his head and into the dirt, pinning his cranium to the ground. A woman did that. That is so Judges.

The context of this story further emphasizes the lack of obedience among of the men of Israel. Because Barak hesitated to obey God, the Lord didn't give him the victory over his enemy. Instead, He embarrassed Barak by giving the final blow to the hands of Jael, a humble wife who was not even an Israelite. Likewise, when a woman stands in the pulpit administering the teaching of God over His church, it's an embarrassment to all the men under her.

Go on and call a stay-at-home wife weak. I dare ya.

Hannah
Hannah was one of Elkanah's two wives. His other wife, Peninnah, had children, but Hannah had none, and Peninnah made fun of Hannah for being barren. Troubled in spirit, Hannah prayed fervently before the Lord, and this was at a time when even the high priest, Eli, wasn't seeking God. She asked God to give her a son, and if He would so bless her, she would commit her son to His service.

God was gracious to her, and she gave birth to a son whom she named Samuel, meaning "heard of God," because the Lord heard her and granted her request. Samuel became one of Israel's greatest prophets. He anointed Israel's first king, Saul, and then Saul's successor, David. While Samuel grew in the service of the Lord, Hannah was blessed to have five more children.

And that's the story of Hannah. She is an outstanding example of patient submission and steadfastness. The ridicule of others, including the high priest, did not make her doubt God. She sought the Lord with all her heart. But she was not a person of authority and she never had a leadership role. If a woman wants to become a pastor, and she looks at Hannah as an example, she should consider what Hannah said in 1 Samuel 2:3: "Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by Him actions are weighed."

Miriam
Miriam was the sister of Moses and Aaron, and not as great an example of godliness as Hannah was. Miriam is mentioned as a prophetess in Exodus, but this is explicitly in the context of leading other women. Exodus 15:20 says, "Then Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women went out after her with tambourines and dancing."

Unfortunately, Miriam is most remembered for opposing Moses, her brother and Israel's leader. In Numbers 12, she and Aaron took issue with Moses being married to a Cushite woman, but this was only a cover for the real source of their animus: Miriam and Aaron believed they were just as capable and qualified to lead Israel as Moses was. They said, "Has the Lord indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?"

But Moses was a meek and humble man who did not try to defend himself. Instead, the Lord made Himself heard. He called the three siblings to stand before the tent of meeting, and said:

"Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?"

When the Lord departed from them, Miriam was struck with leprosy. Moses plead with the Lord on her behalf, and she was healed after seven days. This demonstrated to Miriam that not only was Moses God's chosen prophet, Moses loved her and still interceded for her even when she contested him and thought more highly of herself. It was because Moses did this for her that she was cured. In Deuteronomy 24:9, Moses told the people to remember what God did to Miriam so they would not make the same mistake by forsaking a prophet of God.

Perhaps from this story you recognize the irony of using Miriam as an argument for why a woman can be a pastor. The Lord has spoken clearly concerning this matter: a woman is not to be the teaching authority over a church, no matter how well she thinks she could do that job. She may be a great preacher. But if she thinks that makes her deserving of the position of overseer in Christ's church, she's as prideful as Miriam was.


Ruth and Esther
Just because a woman has a book of the Bible named after her doesn't mean 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is null and void. Context, people! Ruth and Esther were great and godly women, but they weren't pastors. They weren't even authority-figures. Yup, even Queen Esther.

Ruth was a widow from Moab, the daughter-in-law of a Judean widow, Naomi. The two of them were quite destitute when they returned to Judah, Naomi's homeland. But Boaz, their kinsmen redeemer, saw by her works that Ruth was a godly woman (1 Timothy 2:10). He showed kindness to Ruth and Naomi by taking Ruth as his wife. The Lord blessed Boaz and Ruth and they became ancestors to King David and later Christ Himself. Plot twist: the main character of the story actually isn't Ruth. It's Naomi (see Ruth 4:17).

Esther was a queen, but she had no authority. Ahasuerus (or Xerxes in some translations) was the reigning monarch. Do you remember how Esther became queen? Ahasuerus' wife, Vashti, stood up to him because she wouldn't make an appearance at his party as his arm-candy. So the king had her banished and replaced her with Esther, who had so little authority that if she entered the king's presence without being summoned, he could have her executed (Esther 4:11).

When the existence of the Jews was threatened by Haman's evil plot, Esther, herself a Jew, risked her own life to save her people. She was shrewd and she was wise in the way she earned the favor of the king so that an entire race of people would be delivered. The Lord put her in such a position "for such a time as this" (Esther 4:14). She was perfectly safe living out her days as queen. But Esther was obedient to God above all else, even if her obedience had cost her everything. Obedience is not a feminist's forte.

Proverbs 8 and 31
The picture of wisdom personified as a woman in Proverbs 8 is in contrast with the forbidden woman of crooked speech mentioned in the previous chapters. Which one will you go after: the adulteress who tempts the sinful passions of the flesh, lusts in darkness, leads to death, and forgets her covenant with God (Proverbs 2:16-17); or wisdom who is virtuous, is the way of kings and princes, walks in righteousness, leads to abundant life, and has been with the Lord since the beginning (Proverbs 8:13, 21-22)? The comparison is summarized in the next chapter. See Proverbs 9.

Liberal theologians love to use the personification of wisdom as a woman. Heretic author William Paul Young, in his manure-pile-of-a-book The Shack, even made wisdom the fourth person of the Trinity. Young's god was three parts woman and one part man. But Proverbs 8 doesn't mean wisdom is literally a woman any more than Jerusalem was literally a whore (Ezekiel 16) or that our best deeds before a holy God are literally a woman's soiled menstrual cloth (Isaiah 64:6). Point made?

The Proverbs 31 woman I rarely see in a feminist. Okay, I've never seen the Proverbs 31 woman in a feminist. The feminist is far too full of herself. But a woman who fears the Lord, "Strength and dignity are her clothing, and she laughs at the time to come. She opens her mouth with wisdom, and the teaching of kindness is on her tongue. She looks well to the ways of her household and she does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children rise up and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her" (Proverbs 31:25-28).

The Proverbs 31 woman is a wife and a mother who loves her husband and children, works at home, and is submissive to her husband, "that the word of God may not be reviled" (Titus 2:5). If that sounds awful and oppressive to you, you have no joy in Christ. A wife's submission to her husband is not oppression -- it is the delight of her heart, a willful obedience to God as a picture of the way the whole church is to submit to Christ (Ephesians 5:22-24).

Likewise, it is a joy for a woman in the church to humble herself before God, heeding the roles God has designated for men and those He has designated for women. Whether a wife, mother, or single, it is a woman's pleasure to follow in quiet submission and not rebel against what God has ordained.


Phoebe, Lydia, Prisca, Mary, and Mary Magdalene (Bonus: Junia)
Now we get to the grab-bag of names in the New Testment, none of whom are examples of women as pastors. I want to emphasize again that these women are all great examples of godliness. But strong women in the Bible do not equate to being pastors. A submissive woman is a strong woman. When anyone, man or woman, tries to put themselves in a place God has not given to them to serve, that is not strength. It's prideful, self-serving, and rebellious.

Phoebe is the first name mentioned in Paul's list of thanks at the end of Romans. She is a servant of the church at Cenchreae, neighbors to Corinth (which was where Paul was when he wrote to the church in Rome). The argument is often made that Phoebe was a deacon in the church, given that the English word "servant" is translated from the feminine form of the Greek word for "deacon." Wherever one falls in the translation debate of Romans 16:1, you would only be arguing for whether a woman can be a deacon, not whether she can be an elder or an overseer. An overseer must have an ability to teach (1 Timothy 3:2). A deacon does not have to meet that qualification.

After Pheobe comes Prisca (Romans 16:3). Prisca is a variation of the name Priscilla, wife of Aquila. They were a husband and wife evangelism duo, their most famous convert being Apollos. At the time they encountered him, Apollos was not yet part of the church and did not know the way of Christ (Acts 18:24-28). Women absolutely can evangelize and share the gospel with others. Preaching to unbelievers is not the same thing as being an overseer in the church. It's also okay for a sister to encourage a brother in the Lord. But this should not be done in private. Priscilla was with her husband when they taught Apollos.

Lydia was Paul's first convert in Philippi (Acts 16:14), and it's possible that the church at Philippi met in her home (v.40). She was the matriarch of her household which indicates that she may have been a widow. She was also wealthy as a "seller of purple goods." But she would not have been the pastor or an elder in the Philippian church, and there's nothing that suggests she was.

Mary was the mother of Jesus, a great woman of God. But again, not a pastor. Mary Magdalene was the first to tell the disciples that the tomb of Christ was empty and He had risen from the dead (John 20:1-2). What a gracious and wonderful thing that God chose women to proclaim this good news first, during a time when a woman's testimony was not even admitted in court. Indeed, women are just as instrumental as men in the spread of the gospel. A woman can do that without being a pastor.

Finally, there's Junia. In Romans 16:7, Paul says, "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me." The NASB uses the names Andronicus and Junias, and says they "are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me."

Some interpret "outstanding among the apostles" to mean that Andronicus and Junias were outstanding apostles. But all this means is that Andronicus and Junias were highly praised by the apostles, not that they were apostles themselves. Besides, there's debate as to whether Junia/Junias is a man or a woman.

Conclusion
The apostles were men specifically chosen by Christ, and pastors are men who continue to teach the word of Christ as first administered by the apostles, that we may grow together in love (Ephesians 4:11-16). Though it is not for a woman to fill this role, I cannot emphasize enough how needed women are to the service and growth of the church. The men must include and not hinder them.

Furthermore, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that women grow in godliness and holiness. Listen to the preaching of the word, and do what it says. Your selfish frustration in reading "quietly with all submissiveness" will cause you to miss the instruction "let a woman learn!" A strong woman of God is supposed to be a woman educated in the ways of God. Feminists hate this. They don't want women to be strong in the faith. They want them to be weak (2 Timothy 3:6). Strong women aren't easily manipulated by their lies -- the same lies of that ancient serpent who hissed at Eve, "Did God really say...?" (Genesis 3:1)

Men and women are fellow heirs in the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). Though God made us different and assigned to us different roles, we are to be one in the Spirit and in Christ Jesus (Galatians 3:38). Let us do our work without anger or quarreling, bitterness or jealousy. Humble yourself before the Lord, and at the proper time, He will exalt you. Consider others needs ahead of your own, in love and submission to our heavenly Father, to the praise of His glorious grace.

For those who read this article a second time, you might notice a few changes. Nothing was omitted, but a few additions were made. I took a nap and had a couple more thoughts. Thanks for reading and sharing!

Yesterday, the state of Hawaii fell into a state of panic. At 8:05 a.m, the state's 1.4 million residents and hundreds of thousands of visitors received on their cell phones the following alert: "BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL." The alert also blared on Hawaiian television stations.

People took screen shots of their phones and starting posting the pictures on social media. Islanders starting tweeting and texting their goodbyes. Parents lowered their children into storm drains. Friends and even complete strangers hugged in the streets and cried tears together.

Within twelve minutes of the alert, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard posted online that it was a false alarm. But it would take 38 minutes for another push-button notification to be sent out to everyone's cell phones informing islanders of the false alarm, and that there was no real danger.

What could possibly have been the cause of such a message? Very simply, it was human error. "A state emergency management employee apparently pushed the wrong button," reported Hawaii News Now. The state's emergency management was attempting to run a drill, but rather than a test, they accidentally ran the real thing.

Considering the rising tensions with North Korea, it's of little wonder why such testing would be so important. North Korea, under their tyrannical leader Kim Jong-un, has demonstrated their nuclear capability, not only by successfully detonating nuclear weapons but also launching an intercontinental missile that can reach Hawaii and further.

It's important to be safe, but surely the islanders were not happy about the unnecessary panic. The governor also expressed his frustration with the bungled drill. But all things considered, yesterday's false alarm could have been worse. A lot worse. And I'm not talking in the sense that it could have really been the real thing.

Had North Korea received word of the drill, which included the words, "This is not a drill," they might have assumed the United States was attempting to launch a preemptive strike. Maybe the U.S. wanted to alert their own residents of an inbound "ballistic missile threat" to prepare them for an inevitable retaliation.

This false alarm, this mistake, this error, could very well have provoked North Korea into launching a nuke. Like I said, it could have gone much, much worse. Praise the Lord that it wasn't.

I pray there are some strong evangelists on Hawaii's islands that are able to use this terrible experience to share the hope of the gospel of Jesus Christ will a population of still-shaky people. What if yesterday had been the day you would die? What would have happened to you? Are you prepared to die? Is your family prepared?

What do you think will happen to you on the day that you die? It is an incredibly important question. The Bible says it is appointed for a man once to die, and after that comes judgment (Hebrews 9:27). If you appeared before God in judgment, what would He say to you? Would He say, "Well done, good and faithful servant" and let you into heaven? Or would Jesus say to you, "Depart from me, I never knew you," and then cast you into hell?

Everyone has sinned against God (Romans 3:23). Sin is why there is so much misery in the world. It's why there's sickness and disease and death. It's why there's evil and injustice. It's why people fear the itchy trigger-fingers of hot-headed dictators that could annihilate millions at the push of a button -- because this world is full of wicked, fallen people.

What we deserve for our sin and rebellion against God is death (Romans 6:23). But two thousand years ago, God sent His Son to this world as a man, Jesus Christ, who lived a perfect life and died on the cross for our sins. He rose again from the grave in His own body, then ascended into heaven where He is seated at God's right hand. Everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but will have His everlasting life. Our sins are forgiven and we're made innocent before God by faith in Christ.

Everyone who believes in Jesus belongs to Jesus. If you belong to Jesus, you will obey Jesus (1 John 2:4-6). Whoever has Jesus Christ will have eternal life. No matter what happens to you in this life, you will not perish in the next. You will live forever with Him in His eternal kingdom, where there is no more dying, no more tears, no more suffering or panic of any kind (Revelation 21:4).

But whoever does not obey Jesus does not have life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:36). The wrath of God is on every person who doesn't follow Jesus. However you meet your end in this world -- accidental death, fatal disease, old age, or a ballistic missile -- it won't even compare with the suffering that you will endure for all eternity if you didn't believe in Jesus in this life.

But if you do believe in Jesus, the suffering in this world doesn't even compare to the glory that awaits us when we meet Him on the other side. You are saved from your sins by faith. Jesus took the penalty from you on the cross. He took the bomb of God's wrath so you won't ever have to know what that's like. Believe in Him, and do not be afraid. The Lord your God is with you.

On Monday, John Piper responded to a question at Desiring God regarding women as seminary professors. Since the Bible says that only men are permitted to serve as pastors and elders in the church (1 Timothy 2:11-12, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35), should women be teaching at theological seminaries where men, training to become pastors, would be sitting under their instruction?

Piper's answer can be summarized in this statement: "If it's unbiblical to have women as pastors, how can it be biblical to have women who function in formal teaching and mentoring capacities to train and fit pastors for the very calling from which the mentors themselves are excluded?" In fewer words, no, women should not be professors at seminaries. I agree with Piper.

Needless to say, the response has been uproarious. "Women are just as capable of being seminary professors as men!" the opposition argues. "Women can be just as gifted in teaching, leadership, and even preaching!" Sure they can. But that isn't the issue. It's not about whether a woman has the ability to teach. When it comes to having teaching authority over men, she's not permitted.

I say again: this is not a matter of ability, it's a matter of permission. Is a woman capable of being a gifted seminary teacher? Sure. But does God permit her to be a seminary teacher, holding teaching authority over those men who are training to be pastors? No.

Rebellion and bad arguments abound over this issue. The following are some of those arguments from the sphere of social media. Some of these comments were directed at me.

"These types of complementarians try to argue that they don't think women are inferior while simultaneously claiming women are fundamentally incapable of teaching men anything about faith, Scripture, and the Christian life." Rachel Held Evans, TN

Again, that is not the argument. No complementarians are arguing that women are incapable of being teachers. The issue is: in what capacity are they allowed to teach? However capable a teacher Evans believes she is, she has demonstrated over and over that she's virtually incapable of listening to and understanding a viewpoint other than her own on this matter.

Complementarianism, in case you aren't familiar with the word, is the biblical understanding that God made men and women different (duh) and designed them for different roles. Men and women are to work together complementing one another in their strengths and weaknesses. This especially applies to the way God designed marriage, but it also applies to the way God intends the church to function.

There are things God means for a man to do that a woman shouldn't do. Likewise, there are things a woman can do that a man cannot. Yes, a woman can teach. She can teach children and she can teach other women. She can even evangelize. She can encourage and admonish her brothers and sisters in the Lord. But she is not permitted to hold pastoral teaching authority over men.

It's perhaps to no one's surprise that Evans thinks a man can be a woman. Not all theological egalitarians (who believe the Bible permits women to be pastors) also believe men can be women, but it's often a revealing issue. Unless Evans repents, her theology remains fatally poisonous. Rachel Held Evans can teach. And she teaches falsely.

"If you are interested in going to Seminary, please do not give your time or your money to an institution that does not hire female faculty. For the love of God, we do not need any more people serving in the church who have only been taught by men." Melissa Moore, TX

Melissa is Beth Moore's daughter. She works for Beth's ministry, Living Proof Ministries, and has taught through the ministry. Is this Beth Moore's position, that men must be formally taught by women in order to be properly equipped for the pastorate? Does she believe no one should fund or attend a seminary that teaches otherwise? Among my concerns here, LPM continues to demonstrate they are outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

Lest anyone be asking themselves, "Wait, can women attend seminary?" let me clarify with a resounding, "Yes!" This discussion is not about whether a woman can attend a seminary. She can. But she shouldn't be a teacher there. Theological seminaries are beneficial institutions of higher learning for both men and women. I compiled a short list of seminaries I recommend here.

"I will never stop arguing for the equality of women within the church. How sad it must be to search for God in a book and ignore the wisdom of a living reflection of God, created because it was not good for man to be alone." Colin, CO

No person has more wisdom about God than the Bible has, which is God's word.

"Gabe, I'm curious why you think God used women as the first people to share the gospel news of Jesus' resurrection if God doesn't want women preaching." Morgan, NY

I responded to that argument here. Again, no one is saying that women cannot share the gospel. [Edit: Watch a beautiful example of a woman publicly sharing the gospel here, cued to the spot.] They are not permitted to serve in the formal capacity of overseer, shepherding the flock of God, His church, by His word.

Unfortunately, God's word seems not to matter much to Morgan. He later tweeted, "Thinking this morning about how the arguments for the abolition of slavery in this country went beyond the Bible, and our arguments for LGBTQIA inclusion and egalitarianism should, too." I looked at Morgan's profile and he's currently battling cancer. Morgan, if you don't repent, this false teaching that you've embraced will do far more damage to your soul and the souls of others than cancer is doing to your body. I have prayed for you.

"You're misinterpreting a dodgy passage to justify your misogyny. So-called Christians did that for centuries with slavery and anti-Semitism, too. Pathetic." Anonymous

Dodgy passage? There are literally no examples of women pastors in the Bible. The subject of women in leadership is addressed in more places than 1 Timothy 2:11-12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Those are just the most hot-button passages. Isaiah 3:12 says that one of the signs God is judging a nation is when women are ruling over men.

We read in 1 Timothy 1:10 that those who enslave others are behaving contrary to the sound teaching of the word of God. So those who once used the Bible to justify enslaving people and those who use the Bible to justify women pastors are both abusing Scripture.

"So you are okay with subjgating women but not having slaves. Got it. Just misogyny not racism. You're a peach." Leigh, TX

A woman sitting in church under the pastor's teaching is no more being oppressed than a man sitting in church under the pastor's teaching. Are men who aren't pastors being subjugated? Then neither are women who aren't pastors.

"Any time you think you are above others and that they don’t have the same rights and privileges as you simply because they were born female or black or with red hair or whatever—you are treating them as less-than. I don’t believe that’s what Jesus would do." Leigh, TX

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness." This is a great privilege. It is not oppression. A woman, especially a wife (Ephesians 5:22-24), is a picture of how the whole church is to submit to Christ. If you find no joy in this, you're saying to God, "I hate your way."

"Aw—thanks for mansplaining the Bible to me. Since I’m just a dumb girl, I couldn’t possibly read it for myself and understand. Dude—I’m a deacon and a Sunday school teacher and a graduate of Baylor. Enjoy your patriarchal church. I’ll stay at mine that values me and all people." Leigh, TX

This may come as a shock to you, but we have great women in our church who serve, teach, understand the Bible, are college graduates, some with advanced degrees, and are greatly valued as much as men. My wife has completed a higher degree of education than I have. She served on a school board before we were married, and I've boasted about that. I'm proud of her. This idea that complementarians don't value women shows your prejudice, not mine.

"Literally every Christian females worst nightmare. [WWUTT's] comments are literally everything I’m working to bring down. Your interpretation of Scripture is harmful and inaccurate and you use God’s Word to oppress women simply because of our gender -- which is not God’s idea." Sierra, PA

When I asked her to clarify how this was a Christian woman's worst nightmare, she refused to engage and insisted I was the one unwilling to reason. If teaching what the Bible says, that women are not to be pastors and seminary professors, is "literally every Christian female's worst nightmare," does she mean to suggest my wife and daughters are living in a perpetual hell? And I'm the unreasonable one?

I have pastored hundreds of men and women. I have never heard -- not one time -- a single complaint from any woman in my church that she's living a real-life nightmare because she's not being invited up to the pulpit to preach. "That's because you're oppressing her! She's afraid of speaking out!" my critics might say (I know this because I've heard them say it). Pardon me for being blunt, but you're being an idiot (Proverbs 12:1).

Do you know what I regularly hear is a Christian woman's worst nightmare? That her husband is not a Christian, that her children are not Christians, or that her parents aren't Christians, and they might die in their sin and go to hell. Then we pray and cry together. My eyes filled with tears just typing that sentence.

In the words of Paul, "Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame" (1 Corinthians 15:34).

"Gabe, it brings me no joy to tell you you're wrong and need to repent. But I will rejoice when you do. If you can't accept disagreement on this small point, you need to examine what you think the gospel actually is. Hint: it isn't having the 'right' ecclesiology." Brent, SC

I tweeted last week that this isn't an essential doctrinal issue, nor am I making it one. A person isn't saved to heaven or condemned to hell based on whether or not they think a woman can be a pastor. While it isn't an essential issue, like I said, it's certainly a very telling one. Does God's design and intention for men and women matter or not?

In the first chapter of the Bible, we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Genesis 1:27). In the second chapter, we are given details into the creation of the first man and woman: Adam was formed first, then Eve as his helper (Genesis 2:18). Adam's description of her and his union with her becomes the first song sung in Scripture (Genesis 2:23). These issues are not just important. They're beautiful!

It is a beautiful thing to behold a man and the way God created him, and to behold a woman and the way God created her. He did not create them at the same time. He created them separate and for different purposes, but He redeems them in Christ as fellow heirs of the same reward (1 Peter 3:7). To see a man or a woman as anything other than what God made them to be is to see them as less than what God made them to be.

These issues do not exist in a vacuum. We're having this debate about God's role for men and women in ministry in the midst of a culture that thinks it's criminal to say a man is mentally ill if he desires to mutilate his genitals in order to be a woman. Are we as Christians going to stand on the side of God and His word and what He has said about whom He has created in His image, or aren't we? Are we going to follow His word or the word of the culture?

Joshua said, "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve Him in sincerity and in faithfulness. Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the Lord. And if if is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" (Joshua 24:14-15).

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. As the man of my house, it's my responsibility to make that decision for my wife and for my children, and lead them according to His ways. That's in Ephesians 5:25-27 and 6:4. I can confidently conclude this blog saying, "Thus saith the Lord."

I'm presently working on manuscript for a book entitled Jesus Called (and Here is What He Said). As you can probably tell by the title, the book is in response to the bestselling devotional Jesus Calling by Sarah Young. But more than being a criticism, I want to teach people what Christ has actually said in His word, the Bible. That's how Jesus speaks -- not in your head or through strange women who claim God has personally addressed them.

In case you're not familiar with it, Jesus Calling is written from the first-person perspective of Jesus, as though Jesus actually said the things Young wrote in her book. If that were true, then Jesus Calling is Scripture. Young has said that she was inspired by another book entitled God Calling by Two Listeners, an admission that her publisher, Thomas Nelson, appears to be trying to conceal.

Both Jesus Calling and God Calling were written by way of a new-age spiritual technique called "automatic writing." It is a pagan practice, not a godly one. A blogger for the website Mind Body Green describes this process here, which is eerily similar to how Sarah Young and the Two Listeners say they wrote their respective books.

You'll have to wait for the finished manuscript to read my critique of Jesus Calling (or maybe I'll post some of it on the blog at a later time). I hope to be finished by next month and maybe have the completed book available in late spring. I've been asked a few times to do a critique of God Calling by Two Listeners, edited by A.J. Russell. The following is an excerpt I have written. Some of this has been adjusted for use in a blog.


In 1932, English journalist Arthur James Russell published a book entitled For Sinners Only about the Oxford Group and its founder Dr. Frank N.D. Buchman. The Oxford Group was an evangelical movement that combined social life with Christian ethics, containing "no hierarchy, no temples, no endowments, its workers no salaries, no plans but God's plan." Perhaps their most recognized contribution to the world today is the addiction recovery program Alcoholics Anonymous, started by two men from the Oxford Group.

The Oxford Group followed four spiritual practices that included sharing with other Christians about sins and temptations, making restitution with all who have been wronged, listening for God's direction, and then surrendering to that direction and following it. Buchman believed that if you gave God enough quiet and uninterrupted time, He would tell you what to do. "Listening means an unhurried time when God really can have a chance to imprint His thoughts in your mind," he said.

Buchman used to begin every morning with Bible study and prayer, but he found this to be unproductive. Evangelist F.B. Meyer, friend to D.L. Moody, convinced Buchman that he needed to be silent and "let the Holy Spirit guide you in all that you are doing." So for an hour every morning, he would sit in what he called his Quiet Time, just listening for God to speak. The results were so life-changing that he wanted to share his new method of meditation—which he considered thoroughly biblical—with the whole world.

As Buchman's teachings were gaining notoriety, two English women read A.J. Russell's book and were captured by the practice of what the Oxford Group called Guidance. Russell shared of a time he told Buchman about visions he had, and Buchman interpreted his visions for him. At the end of their meeting, they sat in "prayerful silence," pen and paper in hand. Russell wrote down all the thoughts that came to his mind, and Buchman "pronounced them to be God-given thoughts."

The two women were so inspired by Russell's account of receiving thoughts from God that they decided to try Buchman's method for themselves. What they wrote from their meditations was compiled into a book entitled God Calling by Two Listeners, edited by Russell and published in 1935 in England (today it's published as simply God Calling). The two women remained anonymous; "They seek no praise," Russell wrote in his introduction.

One of the Listeners explained at the start of the book how the book was written: "We sat down, pencils and paper in hand, and waited. This was in December 1932." She described herself as skeptical, but her friend as deeply religious. Here is what she said:

"My results were entirely negative. Portions of texts came and went, then my mind wandered to ordinary topics. I brought it back again and again, but with no success. To this day, I cannot get guidance in this way alone.  

"But with my friend a very wonderful thing happened. From the first, beautiful messages were given to her by our Lord Himself, and every day from then these messages have never failed us. We felt all unworthy and overwhelmed by the wonder of it, and could hardly realize that we were being taught, trained, and encouraged day by day by Him personally, when millions of souls, far worthier, had to be content with guidance from the Bible, sermons, their Churches, books, and other sources."

She concluded, "This book, which we believe has been guided by our Lord Himself, is no ordinary book. It is published, after much prayer, to prove that a living Christ speaks today, plans and guides the humblest, that no detail is too insignificant for His attention, that He reveals Himself now as ever as a Humble Servant and Majestic Creator."

Where Two or More Are Gathered?

In the opening of God Calling, Russell featured a single page with these words from Jesus in the Bible: "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:19-20, but the reference isn't given in the book.)

Russell meant to suggest that because these revelations were shared by two women who were "gathered together" in Jesus' name, the Lord was with them and the words they wrote were His. But when you look at that verse, Matthew 18:19-20, in context, you will see it's about correcting an offending brother or sister in the body of Christ concerning their sin:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."

Jesus was talking about church discipline, not how to authenticate secret voices or visions or messages from God!

If the standard of true revelation is simply that two people heard a voice or shared a vision, then Mormonism must be true. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claimed to receive the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood from John the Baptist in the woods of Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, and were then baptized together in the Susquehanna River.

But we can verify without a doubt that Mormonism is not true. We do this by using the Bible. Smith said he received the Melchizedek priesthood, but Hebrews 7:24 says that Jesus Christ holds that position aparabaton, which in the Greek means "permanently" and "without successor." That word appears in all of the earliest texts that we have of the book of Hebrews. Which is more likely: that the Bible is wrong, or Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were conspiring liars?

Now, whether these two women "gathered together" to conspire and lie, I cannot say regarding the intentions of their hearts. We don't even know who they are, as A.J. Russell never gave up their names—or if they, ahem, even exist at all. What I can say is this: using the same standard we use to test Smith and Cowdery's claim—testing them with the Bible—we can likewise verify without out a doubt these Two Listeners did not hear the voice of God.

The book was written as daily devotionals from the perspective of God speaking to them. Most of it is rather choppy spiritualism: "Love Me and do My Will. No evil shall befall you. Take no thought for tomorrow. Rest in My presence brings Peace. God will help you. Desire brings fulfillment. Peace like a quiet flowing river cleanses, sweeps all irritants away" (January 5).

Some of it borders on the weird and insensible: "You will absorb an atmosphere" (January 7). What on earth or in heaven does that mean? "Joy is the God-given cement that secures the harmony and beauty of my mosaic" (January 16). Uh huh.

But then there are the parts of God Calling that are clearly unbiblical. The Listeners, in the voice of God, wrote, "You need me. I need you" (April 19). No, the Bible is unreservedly clear that God does not need us or any thing. Acts 17:25 says that God is not "served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything." Romans 11:35-36 says, "Or who has given a gift to Him that He might be repaid? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen."

The women claim God said to them, "I await the commands of My children" (April 3). That is absurd. If I knew a word other than "prideful" to describe such a deep level of human arrogance, I would use it. Do you believe we can command the Creator of the universe? A mouse would sooner tame a lion, teach it to roll over and play dead, enroll in college, receive his doctorate in dental surgery, and remove all of the lion's teeth before any one of us command God to do anything!

Psalm 115:3 says, "Our God is in the heavens; He does all that He pleases." Lamentations 3:37 says, "Who has spoken and it came to pass, unless the Lord has commanded it?" Acts 17:30 says, "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent." We do not command God. He commands us, and we must obey Him. It is our delight to obey Him! Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15).

The women wrote that God said to them, "I do not delay My second coming. My followers delay it. If each lived for Me, by Me, in Me, allowing Me to live in him, to use him to express the Divine through him, as I expressed it when on earth, then long ago the world would have been drawn to Me, and I should have come to claim My own" (November 6). This is a common false teaching among new-revelation charismatics, claiming that we determine when the Lord returns.

Seventh-Day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White said she knew when the world would end. She made multiple predictions in 1843, 1844, 1845, and 1851. When the end of the world didn't happen, White blamed her followers: "Thus the work was hindered and the world was left in darkness. Had the whole Adventist body united upon the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, how widely different would have been our history."

Mike Bickle, founder of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, teaches that the second coming of Christ is either sped-up or delayed based on the church's spiritual maturity and readiness. Most Christians are passively waiting for Christ to return, but if they want it to happen, they're going to have to make it happen. Bickle said, "There's a number of really crystal-clear precepts or principles or things that God wants done, and He's not going to do it except that the praying church prays and releases them." Is Bickle also saying that we command God?

We have absolutely nothing to do with what day Christ returns. In Acts 17:31, the Apostle Paul preached that God "has fixed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness." That day is fixed. He knows which day and what hour He will judge the world (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32). Jesus said that the one who says to himself, "My master is delayed," is a wicked servant (Matthew 24:48). Peter said to watch out for scoffers who will say, "Where is the promise of His coming?" (2 Peter 3:3-4).

The two women of God Calling quote familiar Bible phrases like "Take up your cross daily and follow me," or "In my Father's house there are many mansions." But these verse fragments are often taken out of context. They wrote, "Is not the message of My servant Paul now plain: 'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,' because My Guidance is intensified immeasurably in power, when the two are one in desire to be with Me—but so few have understood it" (April 14).

Well thank heavens those women were around to tell us what God really meant! It's ironic they cited that passage—2 Corinthians 6:14. Paul was not talking about gaining more Guidance power. He was confronting those who were in rebellion against true Apostolic teaching!

If one is familiar with the Scriptures and then reads God Calling by Two Listeners, they will notice a distinct difference in tone between the Bible and this cheeky book. God Calling doesn't sound like the voice of God that we read in the Bible—it sounds like an early-nineteenth century English woman.

Surely by now you've heard about Gloria Copeland's Jesus-is-your-flu-shot video. Gloria, wife of famed televangelist Kenneth Copeland, made international headlines last week after she posted a video on Facebook saying that you don't need to get the flu shot because Jesus is your flu shot. All you have to do is say you won't get the flu, and you won't get it. The video began:

"Well, listen, partners, we don't have a flu season. We've got a duck season, a deer season, but we don't have a flu season. And don't you receive it when someone threatens you with, 'Everybody's getting the flu!' We've already had our shot. He [Jesus] bore our sicknesses and carried our diseases... Jesus himself gave us the flu shot... Just keep saying that I'll never have the flu. I'll never have the flu."

This name-it-and-claim-it garbage doctrine deserves to be ridiculed, and it has been made fun of by  newspapers to talk shows. Comedian Jimmy Kimmel grabbed the video and made a mockery of it on his late-night program. As Todd Friel pointed out, even Kimmel knows Gloria is a hack!

What Gloria Did and Did Not Say

With all the derision Gloria's video has rightfully received, Kenneth Copeland Ministries responded yesterday with an article posted through Charisma News intended to explain Gloria's comments. "Let's clear a few things up about Gloria's talk about the flu," they said. "Gloria did not say or imply that you shouldn't get a flu shot or see a doctor."

Oh, yes, she did. Even Charisma Magazine (which, by the way, is the same as Charisma News) acknowledged what everyone else heard. In an article titled Gloria Copeland: Skip the Flu Shot and Inoculate Yourself With God's Word, Taylor Berglund wrote, "Gloria Copeland said that flu shots were unnecessary because Jesus provides total protection in a recent Facebook video."

In the same article, Berglund pointed out, "In 2013, the Copelands' church was the site of a measels outbreak, in which 21 people became sick, apparently due to lack of vaccination. One church member told the Associated Press, 'To get a vaccine would have been viewed by me and my friends and my peers as an act of fear--that you doubted God would keep you save... We simply didn't do it.'"

The rotten fruit of the Copelands' rotten teaching is on full display in their rotten church. Everyone in their congregation knows what the Copelands teach -- the reason why they are there is because that's what they want to hear! And anyone who follows such teaching does so at their own peril. Somehow their church is still full.

The rest of the Copelands' article in Charisma News contained more lies to cover up the previous lies. They said, "Gloria did not say that if you had contracted the flu, you were a bad Christian who did not have enough faith or who did not pray enough."

Anyone who has a modicum of familiarity with health-and-wealth prosperity teachers knows they say this all the time: if you're sick, it's because you didn't have enough faith. You didn't pray hard enough. You didn't believe hard enough. You didn't name it and claim it enough. It's not the teacher's fault you're not healed; it's your fault you're not healed.

It's true Gloria said a prayer for those who already had a flu (spoiler alert: she didn't "bind up" anyone's flu with her prayer). But for those who did not have the flu, she clearly told them that they could prevent the flu by inoculating themselves with the power of positive words.

The article went on, "Gloria did not say that by simply speaking words, you will not get the flu." Well, it's evident to everyone she did say that. That's why she's getting made fun of. On my podcast today, I played a clip of Gloria saying that you don't ever have to be sick again if you just say you'll never be sick again.

But I don't even have to provide a clip of Gloria saying such a thing because Kenneth Copeland Ministries contradicted themselves in the very next sentence of their article! Here it is in context so you can see the contradiction:

"Gloria did not say that by simply speaking words, you will not get the flu. Instead, she demonstrated how to resist the flu by expressing out loud what the Word of God says about your healing."

That is hilariously stupid. I'm over here on my side of the computer laughing at how absurd that is. Once again, "Gloria did not say that by simply speaking words, you will not get the flu." Rather, "she demonstrated how to resist the flu by expressing out loud..." In other words, she said you can prevent the flu by speaking words!

This is what the Bible calls a seared conscience. They lie to cover their lie and they do not see the contradiction and feel no shame about it. The Apostle Paul wrote, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared" (1 Timothy 4:1-2).

What God Did and Did Not Say

Jesus is not your flu shot. He's not your health-and-wealth prosperity doctor. He is your God. He will inflict fiery judgment on those who do not know God and did not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, and He will show unending love and mercy for His saints and to be marveled at among all who have believed (2 Thessalonians 1:5-10).

Who are His saints? How does He show this mercy? His plan of redemption is much more glorious than inoculating us from the flu. In love, He sent His Son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sins and rise again from the grave. All who believe in Jesus will be forgiven their sins and will not be destroyed in eternal punishment. They will be clothed in His righteousness and receive eternal life. These are His saints, those who are being made holy by God.

But even His saints get sick, since we are not yet made perfect. We have not yet taken off the imperishable and put on the imperishable. We still live in this fallen world, subjected to futility by Him who subjected it (Romans 8:20). Should you pray for healing? Absolutely. If it is God's will to heal you, He will. A faith-healer won't heal you because there's no such thing. God will heal you. You're still going to die.

Even the people Jesus healed during His earthly ministry got sick again and died, did they not? Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but Lazarus still died eventually. Jesus said it would be so. He told Lazarus' sister, "I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die" (John 11:25-26).

Your body is deteriorating. You will get sick. You will die. No amount of positive thinking is going to change that. God cursed this world because of our rebellion against Him. Sickness and death exist because of our sin. Not Ken nor Gloria nor you nor anyone else cannot straighten what God has made crooked (Ecclesiastes 7:13).

But when your body dies, if you believed in Jesus and followed Him in life, your soul won't perish. You will live forever in the presence of your holy, righteous, glorious Creator in His dwelling-place where there will be no more sin, sickness, or death. He has promised He will do this. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4).

How do you get such a wonderful reward? By faith. In that sense, you will be healed by faith! But you are not guaranteed healing in this lifetime. You are guaranteed that your lowly body will be made to be like His glorious body by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself (Philippians 3:21). Believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.

Believe in What God Says, Not What the Copelands Say

You will never hear that gospel in the Copelands' prosperity nonsense. When Gloria says, "By His stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5), she doesn't take that mean by Christ's shed blood on the cross we are cleansed from the sickness of sin and death infecting mind, soul, and body. She takes that mean Jesus is your vending machine and He will give you whatever you want. As she said in this sermon:

"It could be healing, it could be physical things, a car, a house, a perfect mate... I have to say to the problem, to the mountain, to the lack, to the situation, to the sickness -- I have to say these words: 'Be removed from me, and be cast into the sea.'"

Whatever you want, you just have to say it and you'll have it. That's what Ken and Gloria Copeland preach. That's what they've always preached. That's what she said in her Jesus-is-your-flu-shot video, and that's what she's always said. She lies about the Bible, and then she lies about what she lied about the Bible. Lies upon lies. She has the seared conscience of insincere liars.

The only people who benefit from the prosperity gospel are the prosperity preachers. She gets filthy stinking rich off her Jesus-is-your-flu-shot nonsense, but you only get filthy stinking lies. Gloria knows you won't actually get the healing she promises. How do I know she knows that? Because in the sermon I just referenced, she preached with glasses on.

Never trust a faith-healer with glasses.

Dear Pastor Hughes

I would like to ask you a few questions regarding this film [Finger of God]. I read your blog, but I cannot find any new information. The Church I attend is planning to show this film. Would you recommend we do? If not, why?. Any updated information will help me.

Thanks, Mario

Thank you for your e-mail, Mario. In short, no, I would not recommend that your church show this film. The creator of Finger of God, Darren Wilson, is the same creative mind behind Holy Ghost, a documentary film I reviewed here. Holy Ghost is a charismatic propaganda film completely devoid of biblically orthodox Christianity. Before Holy Ghost, he made Finger of God, and it's just as absurd.

Finger of God begins attempting to qualify some of the more ridiculous "miracles" said to be happening in charismaticism: gold dust falling on worshipers and preachers, perfect and pure gems appearing out of no where, Bibles spontaneously filled with manna (yes, the bread from heaven that fed Israel in the wilderness), and people receiving gold teeth. Wilson even interviews his aunt and uncle who claim God gave them gold teeth during church. Because it happened to someone he knows, it must be true!

None of these tricks have ever been verified as miraculous. In fact, undercover reporters have exposed them as lies. The cut gemstones supposedly showing up at these meetings have even been tested, and they're nothing but worthless cubic zirconia. The gold dust has likewise been examined and revealed to be gold glitter that you can buy in the craft section at Walmart.

The teachers doing these things are deliberately lying to people. But people want them to be true, so they allow themselves to be duped by such obvious gags. Either Darren Wilson is in on these tricks, or he wants so much to believe that the con is real, he forgets his role as an investigative documentarian.

Regarding the whole gag with the gem stones, Wilson says they're not cubic zirconia, but he doesn't take them to a jeweler to confirm that for his viewing audience. Wouldn't it be pretty incredible to get an expert on camera saying, "I've never seen a gem so pure"? No, we just have to take Wilson's word for it that these fake-looking gems (seriously, they don't even look real) are perfect and other-worldly.

The False Gospel of Fake Healing

If you're asking yourself, "Wait, where in the Bible does it say that God will make gems appear or He'll cover people in gold dust or He will turn their teeth into gold?" then you're asking the right questions. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, I have to wonder why God would fill a person's tooth with gold rather than giving them a brand new tooth. That would be an actual miraculous healing.

Finger of God is mostly a bunch of stories from people who claimed to do miracles, but none of those stories are ever verified. It's the same nonsense I detailed in my review of Holy Ghost -- laying hands on people in public, and those people claim they feel something, but that's it. That's not miraculous. Every single "miracle" in the documentary can easily be dismissed as either a con, an unsubstantiated anecdote, or the power of suggestion.

I remember laughing at the footage of a guy on crutches being "healed" of his sprained knee. A faith-healer walked up to him, prayed twice that his knee would be healed, and then told him to take his crutches away. The guy started limping down the sidewalk, saying, "I feel better!" Limping. Exactly the kind of gait you'd expect from someone with a sprained knee. The faith-healer probably hindered the guy's healing by telling him to stop using his crutches.

Just like Holy Ghost, Finger of God feels like a promotional film for Bill Johnson and Bethel Church. Johnson is a false teacher who claims that when Jesus was on earth, He was not God. Jesus was entirely human, and He modeled the perfection that any one of us are capable of achieving, Johnson says. That same false teaching is shared in Finger of God. But the gospel message about Jesus being the atoning sacrifice for our sins is never shared.

In the documentary, Johnson shares a story of Heidi Baker (who might be crazy) healing someone in Mozambique, and an entire village believed the gospel. Wilson goes to Africa and films her doing this, but we never see her preaching the gospel. How can someone believe in what they aren't told? The fact is, Johnson and Baker don't preach the gospel. To them the gospel is believing in miraculous signs and wonders. All you have to do is a "miracle" and people will believe in miracles, which is the gospel. No, it's not.

The True Gospel of Spiritual Healing

Miracles, as they were performed in the Bible, affirmed that the word preached by one of God's messengers was truly from the Lord. A miracle by itself is nothing. The word of God is everything. The Apostle Peter said, "And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place" (2 Peter 1:19-21). God's word, the Bible, has been spoken and verified. People hear it preached, they are convicted of sin, and they believe in Jesus. We no longer need miraculous signs to verify it.

Christian words like "gospel" and "miracles" in the name of "Jesus" appear in Darren Wilson's film. But it's a different gospel, different miracles, and a different Jesus. Even if one of the charismatics in this film did a true miracle -- like if I gave Heidi Baker the benefit of the doubt and she actually did restore hearing to a deaf person -- they don't preach the true gospel. Indeed, Jesus Himself warned that some will perform false signs in His name, but He either didn't know them (Matthew 7:21-23), or they did such signs to lead people away from the truth (Matthew 24:24-25).

The true gospel is this: "God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ -- by grace you have been saved" (Ephesians 2:5). That's the story of every follower of Jesus -- we were dead in our sins, but we've been raised to life by the One who raises the dead. We've been transferred from the kingdom of darkness that is under the wrath of God to the kingdom of light that is filled with His never-ending love.

That is the most incredible life-saving miracle anyone could ever experience. By faith in Jesus, His death on the cross and resurrection from the grave, you were made from dead to alive. Your life has been transformed from following the prince of the power of the air to serving the King of kings and Lord of lords! You no longer chase after sinful passions of the flesh, but you pursue His righteousness of His Spirit. That is the miraculous power of God.

But that's not the miracle Darren Wilson and company cares about. He likes parlor tricks and silly stories, not the truth of the gospel of Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, regenerates the hardened heart to believe, and permanently seals believers for the Day of Redemption. Wilson thinks the Holy Spirit is manifested in Walmart glitter.

Better Alternatives

Rather than Finger of God, perhaps you could encourage your church to go through Clouds Without Water II by Justin Peters. Talk to someone in your church, and if they're interested in doing it, I will personally buy you a copy and send it to you. Also, consider any number of sermon series online. G3 will soon be adding all the sermons from this year's conference free (all of the sermons from previous conferences are already there).

I would also encourage you to check out the new book Defining Deception by Costi Hinn and Anthony Wood. The book exposes many of the lies that have come out of Bethel Church, a center of attraction in Darren Wilson's documentaries. Thank you for your question, Mario. And I hope I've been able to provide you with a helpful response.

The whole collection of Darren Wilson films is to be avoided.

Hot on the heels of the action blockbuster Black Panther, Disney continues its theatrical takeover this weekend with A Wrinkle In Time. Starring Oprah Winfrey, Reese Witherspoon, and Mindy Kaling as the three Mrs. W's; Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw as the scientific parents; and Storm Reid, Levi Miller, and Deric McCabe as the child heroes. It's rated PG "for thematic elements and some peril."

The pre-release reviews haven't been good. Critics say the movie doesn't work, it has no flow, it's a mess, and a tragedy. (If Oprah was planning on using this as a pre-presidential campaign vehicle, it won't earn her any style points.) This is Disney's second attempt at making A Wrinkle in Time into a movie. The first was 15 years ago, a made-for-TV flop. This latest effort might be as good as the movie can get. The book is practically unfilmable (read: very strange).

A Wrinkle in Time is an over-hyped young adult fantasy novel written by Madeleine L'Engle, an Episcopalian who believed in universal salvation. "All will be redeemed in God's fullness of time," she wrote; "all, not just the small portion of the population who have been given the grace to know and accept Christ" (from A Stone for a Pillow, pg. 117). This theology of hers was not merely personal; she dispensed it in her fiction, including A Wrinkle in Time.

Christian themes are more overt in A Wrinkle in Time than they are in C.S. Lewis's allegorical The Chronicles of Narnia. L'Engle even quotes Scripture. But do not be fooled -- A Wrinkle in Time is about as Christian as a book written by Rob Bell; meaning that L'Engle's use of the Bible is not honorable but blasphemous and heretical.

A Warped Theology

The first of these abused references occurs in chapter four. The young main characters Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace travel to a distant world with three mysterious women named Mrs. Which, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Whatsit. Meg and Charles Wallace are a sister and her younger brother looking for their father, a scientist who has learned to travel via tesseract, or a "wrinkle" in time and space.

While on this new world, Mrs. Whatsit unveiled her true form, a centaur-like creature with giant wings. Her upper-torso now looks like a man, and it might be prophetic how the author struggles with pronouns: "He? She? It?"

Calvin is so amazed by Mrs. Whatsit's appearance that he falls to his knees, and Mrs. Whatsit promptly tells him, "No. Not to me, Calvin. Never to me. Stand up." This of course is like John bowing to an angel in Revelation 19:10, but the angel says, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God."

Lest you think this is L'Engle's way of saying, "Worship God," you'll understand in a moment why that's not her intention.

The children climb on Mrs. Whatsit's back, and they go for a ride. On their tour, they see other creatures like Mrs. Whatsit enjoying a heaven-like paradise. The creatures are all singing the same song, and this is what Meg hears:

"Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise from the end of the earth, ye that go down to the sea, and all that is therein; the isles, and the inhabitants thereof. Let the wilderness and the cities thereof lift their voice; let the inhabitants of the rock sing, let them shout from the top of the mountains. Let them give glory unto the Lord."

This is taken from Isaiah 42:10-12, and it's rather startling when it comes up. The book has given no indication prior to this of being "Christian." Suddenly we're introduced to these creatures quoting Isaiah (the reference isn't given), but we're not told how they know Isaiah, or even if anyone reads the Bible.

Mrs. Whatsit climbs higher and higher and shows the children a distant darkened "Black Thing" made of pure evil (the names are not terribly creative). They learn their father is on a world called Camazotz, a dark planet that has given in to the evil of The Black Thing, which Mrs. Which also refers to as "the Powers of Darkness."

But there have been fighters that have conquered The Black Thing before. Many of those fighters have come from earth. To give them a hint as to who they are, Mrs. Who quotes John 1:5, saying, "And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not."

"Jesus!" Charles Wallace exclaims. "Why of course, Jesus!" But there are others, and the children begin to name them: Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Bach, Pasteur, Einstein, Schweitzer, Gandhi, and even Buddha.

Yup, Jesus is just one of a line of great men who have fought a evil intelligence in science fiction. He's no one of any more significance or importance than Gandhi or Buddha or Shakespeare. If you do great things and fight the darkness, you can be just as important as Jesus was.

A Wrinkle in Time also includes a reference to Romans 8:28 (chapter 10). The children encounter some large, sightless beasts with tentacles, and these are revealed to be the actual angels of the Bible, "Messengers of God" (chapter 11). Mrs. Who quotes 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, which is of course taken completely out of context (chapter 12).

The religious pluralism and new age thinking smattered throughout the story are right up Oprah's alley. It's of little wonder why she took the role of Mrs. Which. She would never be aligned with something exclusively Christian. But to say that Jesus is just one of many great and good historical figures and not the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, is exactly Oprah's theology.

The story concludes suddenly with an "All you need is love" kind of ending. The author tells the story from Meg's vantage point and at times feels like reading a middle-school girl's journal. For example, every time Calvin touches or looks at her can be kind of awkward for the reader. She's also rather whiny and prone to mood swings (what middle-school girl isn't?). I didn't enjoy the book on multiple levels. Even taking out the blasphemy and the new agey-ness, the enthusiasm over L'Engle's classic is undeserved.

Conclusion

I don't recommend A Wrinkle in Time, neither the movie nor the book. Whether you let your child watch or read is of course up to you. Just be sure you talk to them about the story's "Christian" themes. Help them understand why this is not a Christian book or movie -- just because someone mentions God or quotes the Bible doesn't mean they are of God or love His word.

The moral of the story is that anyone can defeat evil with "love," or by just being a good person full of light. Everyone is basically good infected by some outside evil. But the Bible tells us we are evil from the core. The intention of man's heart is evil from his youth (Genesis 8:21). The heart of man is so deceitfully sick, who can understand it (Jeremiah 17:9)? No one is good, not even one person (Romans 3:12).

Only God is good (Mark 10:18). Jesus, the Son of God, is the only person who lived a good life -- not Buddha, not Gandhi, not Beethoven, not Bozo the Clown. Jesus is not a fictional character. He is really and truly God, who took on human flesh and lived a perfect life, dying on the cross for our sins and rising from the grave. All who believe in Him will not perish under the wrath of God burning against us unrighteous people, but through faith in Christ we will have eternal life. That's the good news of the gospel.

Neither L'Engle nor Oprah have understood that no ones gets to God but through Jesus Christ (John 14:6). God will judge all who did not believe in Him and did not obey the gospel. But if you repent and follow Jesus, He will "make you worthy of His calling and fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by His power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in Him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12).

Earlier today, a former Schlitterbahn executive was charged with involuntary manslaughter regarding the death of a ten-year-old boy who died in 2016 on their famous water slide called Verruckt, once billed "the tallest water slide in the world."

The ride is similar to a log flume that you see in most large fun-parks: several persons board a boat that drops down a couple steep watery slopes. Big splash at the end, fun had by all. But in the case of Verruckt, the "boat" that persons get into is a multi-seat raft that sits more on the surface of the water than in the water. This poses a higher danger than a log flume ride.

How dangerous? Well, the ride has netting over the slide to keep riders from being thrown off if the raft, which reaches speeds of 70 mph (112 kph), should go airborne. There were stories of rafts flying into the air when the ride was being tested, hence why netting was installed. (Seen above. I haven't been on the ride, but I've driven by it. It's on the Kansas side of Kansas City just two hours from where I live.)

What happened when the boy died was the raft he was in flew into the air, he hit one of the support hoops holding up the netting, and he was decapitated. It's an incredible and horrible tragedy, and it is right that Schlitterbahn is being held responsible.

Some are saying Schlitterbahn shouldn't be charged with wrongdoing. I saw one comment on Twitter where a man said they should just put up signs that say "Danger" and "Ride at your own risk," and that should be enough. Another gentleman said something to the effect of, "Why is this executive being charged for involuntary manslaughter? It was an accident! People know the risks of riding thrill rides. He didn't do anything criminal!"

Schlitterbahn is standing by their executive being charged with involuntary manslaughter, a felony in the state of Kansas. "He was conscientious and committed to providing visitors to the water park a safe and enjoyable experience," a spokeswoman with the company said. "We stand by him and are shocked by these allegations."

But Schlitterbahn should be held accountable. God's word, the Bible, has said so.

Deuteronomy 22:8 says, "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you may not bring the guilt of blood upon your house, if anyone should fall from it." God's judgments are always good and always pure.

Someone might say, "Well that has to do with a roof on someone's house, not a thrill ride!" Maybe so, but I think you can recognize the principle. The builder is responsible for the safety of everyone who uses the structure he has built. A roof in ancient Israel was as much a usable part of the house as anywhere inside. Builders needed to take necessary precautions to ensure people who used the roof didn't accidentally fall to their death.

Someone else might argue, "But Schlitterbahn did build a 'parapet!' They had netting over the ride to prevent someone from falling off!" I think you would agree a parapet on a roof and netting on a thrill ride are not the same thing. When someone hits a pole going 70 mph, they will likely die, and all the netting will do is keep their lifeless body from being thrown from the ride that killed them.

Now, I'm not a judge or a juror in this case -- there are many details I'm not familiar with and I don't know to what extent Schlitterbahn is at fault (it's unquestionable, in my view, that they are at least somewhat at fault). I'm simply making the point that from a biblical perspective, you can be guilty of involuntary manslaughter for building an unsafe structure that results in someone's death, even if it was an accident.

Of course, there are many cases where this concept has been abused and resulted in frivolous lawsuits. But the principle still stands. If you want to build the tallest water slide, you are responsible to ensure the safety of everyone who rides your ride. If you're going to tell people it's safe, a customer can safely believe they won't get decapitated if they ride it.

Fortunately, Verruckt is scheduled for demolition. It is clearly an unsafe ride, and it's insensitive for Schlitterbahn to say they're "committed to providing visitors to the water-park a safe and enjoyable experience" when a person got decapitated. They need to belly-up to the bar of justice and admit they got this one wrong.

My heart breaks for the family who lost their little boy. I pray that the Lord will heal them even as this case goes to court. I also pray that the executive being charged will take responsibility for what happened, as well as anyone else at Schlitterbahn who might be liable.

We live in a fallen world, full of death and tragedy because of our sin. Pray that the Lord Jesus will come quickly. All who believe in Him will be forgiven and spared the righteous judgment of God. "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more" (Revelation 21:4).

The following is from a sermon preached by Dr. Voddie Baucham on October 27, 2013, at Grace Family Baptist Church in Spring, TX. The text was Revelation 17:7-14.

The rise of evil kings at the end of the age is not the fault of the church. Please, hear this. Every time something goes bad in the culture, you hear people who begin to hem and haw and say, "Only if the church would...""Only if the church didn't...""Only if the church had...""Only if the church hadn't."

Folks, the rise of evil at the end of the age is not the fault of the church. The rise of evil kings and evil nations is not the fault of the church. There's another side to that: Being blessed in a nation that acknowledges God is not the fault of the church!

God is not sitting passively in heaven wondering what kind of country we're going to be. God does not look down from heaven and say, "Oo, I wonder what this Supreme Court decision is going to be. I wonder how this election is going to turn out. Oh, if the church would only..."

Enough already with the over-realized eschatology. The church is everything Christ says she is. She always has been, and she always will be.

The fact of the matter is that we live in a country where there is so much ease that anything can call itself the church, and most of what passes for the church is not. "Oh, if we could only get Christians mobilized!" Which Christians? And mobilized in what direction? As though we all are of the same mind -- We're not! There are many who are following false teachers.

Remember, in the last days people are not going to abide the truth, but instead they're going to turn aside to myths and accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires. Paul tells us that in 2 Timothy 4:3. How is that the fault of the church?

Be careful with Americanized arrogance. When we talk like that -- if Christians were only serious, if Christians were only prayerful, if Christians would only this, if Christians would only that -- here's what we do: we look at our experience as Americans, and we sort of generalize it as though it's the normal reality of the church and the way God has designed the world.

But please note that every time we say that, we are saying that every country in the world that doesn't have as much freedom as we do is in that state because the church there is not as faithful as we are.

"No, no, no, we're not saying that!" Yes, actually, we are.

If the only reason things are bad is because the church is not faithful, then that means in places where things are good, it's because the church is more faithful than in other places. Folks, if you've traveled this world, if you've been to third-world countries and worshiped with your brothers and sisters in Christ, you know that dog won't hunt.

Some of the most faithful believers in the history of the world have experienced the greatest persecution in the history of the world. Great faithfulness in the church usually doesn't equate to a nation that loves the church; it usually equates to a nation that persecutes the church.

So enough already with the idea that "If the church would only..."

So there was a royal wedding this weekend. Did you know that? You've probably had little contact with the outside world in the last several weeks if you hadn't at least heard about it. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan Markle, an American actress, were proclaimed husband and wife yesterday during a fairy-tale wedding at Windsor Castle in the English county of Berkshire.

As you might expect, it was quite lavish: the bride wore a 16-foot veil, the couple rode in a 1968 Jaguar E-Type Concept Zero converted to electric, and they had a wedding cake worth more than I've ever made in a year. An estimated 1.9 billion people tuned in to watch worldwide. Yet I was not one of them.

I've always been fascinated by royalty, and Britain's is one of the oldest monarchies in the world (after Japan as the oldest, followed by Cambodia, Oman, and Morocco for your trivia pleasure). I've even watched the show Suits a few times (it was on right after Psych) and knew who Meghan Markle was. But I had other things to do on a Saturday. Hey, it's an internet age, and I can always catch it later.

Though I didn't watch the whole wedding, a brother told me that Bishop Michael Curry's sermon was great and I should listen -- it would only take me 10 minutes, he said. Actually, according to the YouTube video, the whole message was exactly 13 minutes and 37 seconds long, but who's counting (that was still considered long-winded to Piers Morgan).

No offense to my brother, but I was not impressed with the sermon. It was the kind of sermon a 60s era hippie would love. George Clooney and David Beckham had no problem being all-smiles during Bishop Curry's repeated refrain, "Love is the way!" Anyone can say that. Elton John says that (yes, he was among the 600 guests at the chapel). As Saturday Night Live joked last night, the Bishop's message could have been a Subaru commercial.

What is Love?

The Scripture that Bishop Curry opened with was Song of Solomon 8:6-7: "Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for love is strong as death, jealousy is fierce as the grave. Its flashes are flashes of fire, the very flame of the Lord. Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it." (I'm not sure what translation he read from, but his version didn't include "the very flame of the Lord," and not every translation does.)

Bishop Curry went on to say that we were made for love. "Ultimately, the source of love is God himself," he said, "the source of all of our lives. There's an old medieval poem that says, 'Where true love is found, God himself is there.'" Is that correct? Surely it is! The Bible says, "God is love." The Bishop went on to quote that passage as well, saying those who do not love do not know God, for God is love (1 John 4:7-8).

But again, anyone can believe that and not have to give up much to believe it. Without clarifying what godly love is, a person will believe that whatever they love must be of God. You can sleep with your boyfriend or girlfriend outside of marriage, and God is alright with that as long as you love each other. Hey, a man can sleep with another man as long as they love each other.

Lest you think I'm being hyper-critical of Bishop Curry's sermon, that's exactly what he believes. Rev. Michael Bruce Curry, an Episcopal priest, is a gay-rights activist. Why else would Vanity Fair be so praising of him? Or the leftist Vox.com, who pointed out Curry's liberation theology? Or the gay publication Pink News, who also loved that Bishop Curry quoted Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.?

Do not be led astray, my beloved: friendship with the world is enmity with God (James 4:4). Not everything the world calls love is truly loving. Many pair the words "love" and "God" yet do not know the love of God, for it is not loving to encourage people to engage in sinful behavior that God has promised He will judge with fire!

Bishop Curry says that Jesus "sacrificed His life for the good of others" and that His love was "redemptive." But Bishop Curry's idea of sacrificial love is the kind that sets aside the sound teaching of the word of Christ and encourages a man and another man to sodomize each other or pretend to get married. His idea of redemption is gaining possession of something you previously weren't allowed to have, like gay marriage.

Indeed the Bishop talked about Jesus sacrificing His life for others, before the royals and all the celebrities in that room and 1.9 billion people watching at home. But the Bishop does not understand the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, nor would anyone learn by listening to the Bishop's sermon what His death on the cross means for us.

An Atoning Sacrifice

Christ's sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice. When Jesus died, laying down His own life on our behalf, He took the wrath of God upon Himself that we deserved for our sins, and He clothed us in His righteousness. Whoever believes in Jesus, God sees not a man or woman deserving of His wrath, but a righteous son or daughter deserving of His love. No longer children of wrath, we become children of the promise! The promise of forgiveness and eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Therefore, you must live as a recipient of that promise. Do you not want to please the one who paid such a price for you, giving up His own life so that you might live? Then love Him, and to love Him is to obey Him. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments" (John 14:15). If you have been clothed in the purified garments of Jesus Christ, you must not return to a soiled life of sin and debauchery.

In Matthew 22:1-14, Jesus talked about another wedding, the wedding of a king's son. Guests were invited from everywhere to attend, but they had to wear a wedding garment. When the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there was a man who had no garment. "How did you get in here without a wedding garment?" the king asked. He ordered that the man be bound hand and foot and thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

In the book of Revelation, we read about the wedding feast of the Lamb at the consummation of Jesus Christ and His church. Those who will enter His kingdom forever will be those who have been clothed by Christ in righteousness. "For the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints" the Scripture says (Revelation 19:8). They displayed that they were recipients of His grace by turning from sin and obeying His commands. Those who did not obey and went their own way will be tread with "the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty" (Revelation 19:15).

Be sure of this, my brothers and sisters: God's love covers over a multitude of sin. His grace is greater than our worst sins. There is not a sin God will not forgive. There is no sin that will not be covered by the atoning blood of Christ. Whether you've lied, cheated, coveted, stolen, hated others, committed adultery, engaged in homosexuality, or blasphemed the name of God, you show that He has forgiven you if you have repented and asked God for mercy.

But then you must do as Jesus commanded: "Go, and sin no more" (John 5:14, 8:11). If you continue in the sins you were in before you asked for mercy, you show that you are still enslaved to your sin and you have not actually been set free from bondage to your flesh. No matter how loving you think you are in the eyes of the world, if you do not have the love of Christ, you're worthless (Romans 3:12). You're still whoring after the world rather than loving God.

A Wedding More Royal

Christ is even now sanctifying His church and preparing her for the day of glory. He is cleansing her, the Bible says, "by the washing of water with the word, so that He might present the church to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:26-27). If you love Jesus, you will love His word, the Bible, and be as a bride prepared for a royal wedding -- the most royal of weddings.

So while Rev. Michael Curry did talk about loving God and loving your neighbor, the most worldly people in that room would have agreed with everything he said. It was a gospel of the world, not the gospel of God. The Bishop even pulled a Joel Osteen and said, "Love yourself," when explaining how the first and second greatest commands summarize all the Law and the prophets. Wherever Oprah was sitting among the 600 guests, she was surely smiling.

It took an exclusive invite to get into that royal wedding, and it takes an exclusive invite to get into the Royal Wedding -- the one between Christ and His church at the end of all things. According to the Bible, those who will enter into God's kingdom, forever in His love, will be those who believed in Jesus, repented of their sins, and were clothed in His righteousness. And they will sit with Him on His throne forever. Amen.

Last week, Andy Stanley said something controversial about the Bible that would drop him into the category of a theological liberal. This week, he's doing interviews to clarify his statement, tell pastors why they need to listen to him, and throw academics under the bus for taking him out of context and not giving him a call. This has been Stanley's pattern for over a decade.

Less than two years ago, Stanley taught that in order to reach today's Millennials with the Bible, we shouldn't use much Bible. His argument was so rough, he had to write 7,500 words to clarify it (almost the length of two sermons) and reminded everyone whose son he was in order to distill the accusation that he had eschewed the inerrancy, sufficiency, and authority of Scripture.

In the next refrain of his ongoing movement to diminish the importance of Scripture, Stanley has told Christians that they need to "unhitch" the Old Testament from their faith. Owen Strachen at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary responded, "There's only one hitching you should contemplate: The unhitching of Stanley's unbiblical teaching from your ministry."

Stanley's "unhitched" comment is receiving most of the criticism, and justifiably so. But there were other troubling statements in Stanley's sermon, and in fact the whole series, that are contrary to sound teaching. The Apostle Paul wrote, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing" (1 Timothy 6:3-4).

The truth produces godliness (Titus 1:1). Teaching anything other than the truth produces godlessness. This isn't just a difference of opinion. This is serious. I offer this critique in love and with deep affection for you, the church of Jesus Christ, His body.

Theological Decay

Stanley taught through a three-part series in April entitled Aftermath. The purpose of the series was to confront the "Achilles heel of our modern version of faith" which Stanley claimed "is a misapplication of a very important reformation concept." There's a weak spot in the church today that will cost us future generations of Christians, and Stanley believes that weak spot is the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

"In the 16th century, there was a reformation," Stanley said, in which the reformation leaders "rescued Christianity from a tradition-driven, word-of-the-church version of Christianity." (For a more accurate summation of the protestant reformation and how it relates to today, click here.) The reformers, according to Stanley, said, "No, the Pope isn't the final authority, tradition isn't the final authority, Scripture is the final authority. Scripture alone will be the final authority for the church."

Stanley continued, "But over time, the idea of sola Scriptura, which is Scripture alone is the authority, has been taken to mean that the Scripture -- or in our case we would say the Bible -- is actually the foundation of our faith." The problem with that, Stanley said, is it turns Christianity into a house of cards: "As the Bible goes, so goes our faith."

He's preached on this before.

If you are convinced that any part of the Bible is not true, none of it can be trusted, and your faith will come crashing down, Stanley warned. To prevent this from happening, we need to help the next generation "step back on a more solid foundation as it relates to faith."

Yes, according to Andy Stanley, the Bible is not a solid foundation.

That is a foundational argument (ironically) for theological liberalism. Stanley exposed himself as a theological liberal a long time ago. I don't think he's descending into theological liberalism -- he already is a theological liberal.

Theological liberalism is a movement that started out of 19th century German enlightenment, influenced by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and fathered by the religious views of Friedrich Schleiermacher (one doesn't have to know this to be a theological liberal). It incorporates modern thinking and developments into the Christian faith while also being critical of the Bible.

After saying the Bible is not a solid enough foundation, Stanley went on to praise the intelligence of the four leading atheists of the new atheism movement and said they "have attacked persuasively and effectively the credibility and the morality of our Bibles." In the opening 10 minutes of this series, Stanley confessed that a bunch of disgruntled atheists changed his mind regarding how the church is supposed to consider and teach the Bible. He wants everyone to follow his lead, or it will cost us future generations.

But lest someone think Stanley is about to take his cues from a bunch of atheists and not the Bible, Stanley said, "We should take our cues about the foundation of faith [and our] approach to the Old Testament from the men and the women who were closest to the action: the first century first followers of Jesus."

This is the same conflicting error Stanley made with his "The Bible Tells Me So is Not Enough" series. The Bible is not a solid foundation for our faith. So what is a solid foundation for our faith? It's in the Bible. Head, meet desk.

The Apostle Peter -- who, by the way, was one of those figures "closest to the action" -- said that the foundation for our faith is the apostolic witness to Jesus Christ, and the written prophetic revelation of God in Scripture (see 2 Peter 1:16-21). In other words, the foundation of our faith is the Bible. How do we even know God's Son, Jesus Christ, or His gospel without it? The Bible tells us the good news that Jesus died on the cross for the forgiveness of sins and rose bodily from the grave so that all who believe in Him will not perish under the wrath of God but will have everlasting life.

The gospel is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes (Romans 1:16). Yet Stanley's teaching ministry seems to want to unhitch Christians from the Bible which is our source for the gospel. Following Andy Stanley's liberal and reckless teaching will lead a person away from biblical fidelity and toward more and more ungodliness.

Theological Decay Leads to Moral Decay

Aftermath: Part 3 was the sermon that got the most attention -- the one where Stanley suggested that you need to "unhitch" your faith from the Old Testament as he insisted the New Testament writers did. To make his point, Stanley taught from Acts 15 and the story of the Jerusalem council.

Some Judaizers were telling Gentile Christians that they needed to be circumcised in order to be saved according to the law of Moses. A conference was held at the church in Jerusalem to discuss conditions for Gentile membership and how to respond to the disruption being caused. This council included Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James, the half-brother of Jesus, among others.

Peter stood up and confessed that with his own eyes, he witnessed the giving of the Holy Spirit to uncircumcised Gentiles. They have heard the word of the gospel and believed. He pleaded with the council, "Why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" referring to the Mosaic Law. "But we believed that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will" (Acts 15:10-11).

Likewise, Paul and Barnabas shared with the council what they had witnessed -- the gospel has been preached to the Gentiles, "and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed" (Acts 13:48). Then James, leader of the Jerusalem church, stood up and referred back to the prophets and the Old Testament texts to defend the inclusion of Gentiles into the church by the grace of God.

With these arguments made, James said, "Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues" (Acts 15:19-21). The church agreed that's what should be done, and a letter was sent with Paul and his missionary brethren to Antioch.

How do I know the apostles were baptists? They knew how to have meetings.

When Stanley explained this conclusion, he said the four Old Testament-sounding commands -- abstain from the things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from what has been strangled, and from blood -- were derived from the dietary laws of Moses, and they were given by the council to keep the peace in the church between Jews and Gentiles. But that clearly can't be the reason. What does sexual immorality have to do with dietary laws?

This was not about keeping the peace. It was about being holy. These four commands had to do with idolatry, expressly forbidden by the law of God read every Sabbath in the synagogues. What is the first commandment? "I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me." What is the second commandment? "You shall not make for yourself graven images and bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God." The Apostle Paul warned the Corinthians that to even flirt with anything having to do with idols was to provoke God to jealousy (1 Corinthians 10:22). This was all in keeping with God's moral law.

Idol worship was a cultural norm in these first century Greco-Roman cities. It was everywhere. Food sold in the market had previously been offered to false gods. Temples to such gods were often filled with rampant sex and orgies as part of their rituals. People drank the blood of animals believing they could absorb the creature's life force. All of these things were idolatrous.

The Jerusalem council assured the Gentile Christians that by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, they were forgiven their sins and received membership in the church of God. In view of God's mercy given through the gospel (Romans 12:1), in order to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age (Titus 2:12), they were to keep themselves from idols (1 John 5:21). This was the moral law the Gentiles needed to follow in their current context as their spiritual act of worshiping the one true and living God.

But Stanley taught that the conclusion of the Jerusalem council was this: "The Old Testament, or the Law and the Prophets as they called it, was not going to be the go-to source for any behavior in the church." Here is how Stanley summarized it:

"To make this point, because this is so important, originally in my notes, I was going to put a screen up here that said, 'In other words, that means, "Thou shalt not obey the Ten Commandments."' But I knew someone would take a picture of that, and it would define me for the rest of my life. So I'm not going to put it up there, but I want you to hear me say it. Here's what the Jerusalem council was saying to the Gentiles: You are not accountable to the Ten Commandments."

Astonishing. In Andy Stanley's paradigm, you don't need to obey the Ten Commandments, even though Jesus said you do. Those who are in Christ will keep His commands. It is our delight to obey God and keep His commandments! But Stanley recommends you unhitch from the Old Testament and even God's moral law. As he said at the beginning of the series, he believes the authority of Scripture is not a solid foundation for faith.

I say to you, my brothers and sisters in the faith -- in reverence for Christ and His word by which the church is justified and sanctified -- Andy Stanley is opposed to the truth and disqualified regarding the faith (2 Timothy 3:8). I am not saying the man isn't a believer, but I am saying he's not a qualified teacher.

I want to give you an alternative to Stanley's method for reaching future generations. But before I do that, I want to make one more point. This has to do with how bad theology leads to bad behavior. If Stanley said the conclusion of the Jerusalem council pertained to Mosaic dietary laws, how did he explain the command to abstain from sexual immorality? Not well.

Moral Decay

Stanley said, "If I were to hand everybody a 3x5 card, and I were to say, 'Tell me what you think this [sexual immorality] means or what this means to you, how many different answers would I get? About as many answers as there are cards, right?"

I hope not. There's only one answer to that question. Sexual immorality is any kind of sex or eroticism outside of the covenant of marriage between a man and his wife. (Here's a :90 video with Scripture references.) God intended this intimate gift to be enjoyed in marriage only. Stanley left the understanding of a biblical sexual ethic much more open. You could conclude that any kind of sex is acceptable as long as you "love" the other person.

"To send a bunch of Gentiles this, to abstain from sexual immorality, what does this even mean?" Stanley said, "This was a general call to avoid immoral behavior but not immoral behavior as defined by the Old Testament." By what standard is sexuality defined for the church? Stanley went on to explain that it is, "defined by the Apostle Paul who had been teaching in Antioch for two or more years."

Okay, so given that the Apostle Paul spoke the words of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:17), you might suppose Stanley would tell his audience that sex is meant exclusively for marriage (1 Corinthians 7:2), that sex between two men is damnable (1 Corinthians 6:9), and Paul taught from the Old Testament that sexual immorality will result in judgment (1 Corinthians 10:8). Surely that's where Stanley went next, right? No, his explanation was much more ambiguous.

"Do you know what the Apostle Paul consistently tied sexual behavior to?" Stanley asked. "Not the Old Covenant. Not the Ten Commandments. The one commandment that Jesus gave us: that you are to treat others as God through Christ has treated you." That's certainly not wrong, but neither was it given any clarity. What does "treat others as God through Christ has treated you" have to do with a godly sexual ethic?

Are the specifics not important? Not in the church that Andy Stanley built. At North Point Community Church in Atlanta, they allow men in a homosexual romantic relationship to serve in the ministry. Stanley confessed this years ago in a sermon entitled When Gracie Met Truthy, which received criticism from Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

In this illustration of a family at North Point, the men on the left are a couple.

Stanley's solution is, "Love one another." Considering he wants to detach from Scripture, he's taken a very specific command and made it generic and subjective, whether or not that's his intention. Without an objective, moral standard, "love" is whatever you want it to be, not how God has defined it. Stanley's message was basically this: "You don't need God's word. You have a better one: love!"

This is the same theological liberalism that Rev. Michael Curry espoused in his sermon at the royal wedding this past weekend, and it has the same immoral outcome. "All you need is love," Curry said, but his idea of love is contrary to Scripture. Rather than trusting in God's word, the way of theological liberalism is to trust your feelings. Yet Proverbs 14:12 says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death."

Conclusion: An Alternative Method

I agree that we need to consider how we teach the Bible with our children and future posterity. I don't agree with Stanley that the Bible is an insufficient foundation. We need more Bible, not less. Specifically, we need more Bible rightly taught and applied. How can you lead your family in a right understanding of Scripture? Through catechism.

Catechism is a summary of biblical principles in the form of questions and answers to help Christians understand why God's truth is so important and how it is rightly applied. If you teach catechism, you and your children will be less likely to be duped by an "unhitched" sermon or snookered by atheist arguments as Stanley was.

Being a Baptist preacher, of course I'm going to recommend Baptist catechism. Keach's catechism is great and easy to find. I would also recommend going to Founders.org and picking up one of their Truth and Grace memory books. Not only filled with catechism, there are Bible passages for kids to memorize and work sheets for them to fill out.

Encourage one another to love the word of God, not be ashamed of it. Jesus said, "For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of Man be ashamed when He comes in His glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels" (Luke 9:26). Ultimately, that is the day we are being prepared for -- the day of the Lord -- and only the word of the Lord can make you ready to stand before God.

A few edits have been made for grammar and for clarity. Parts of this blog were taken from the teaching I did on the podcast this week. Listen here for Part 1 and here for Part 2.

"So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light, momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal." 2 Corinthians 4:16-18

Since returning from vacation a month ago, I have a suitcase sitting on the floor at the foot of our bed that hasn't been put away yet. There's only a pair of jeans inside, which I don't care to wear because it's been so hot. It would be easy to put the jeans in a drawer and store the suitcase back in my closet, but I never think about putting it away -- until I stub my toe on the suitcase in the middle of the night.

I don't know what it is about stubbing your toes that elicits such a unique sensation of pain. Maybe it's just me but there's a split second, that very moment my toes scream upon finding an object in the dark, where pain shoots through my foot and the thought bursting in my head is, "Lord Jesus, come quickly! Deliver me from this body of death!" It's like I've just stepped on a land mine and blew my toes off. The feeling lasts only a moment and then it's gone, but what pain when it happens!

The afflictions that we suffer through in this life are going to be like that. They're like stubbing your toe: painful in the moment they happen, but not all that big a deal in the overall scheme of things. It may seem horrible for the moment that you endure such trials and tribulations. But when viewed in light of eternity for all who believe in Christ Jesus, they are but light and momentary.

As Paul says elsewhere, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us" if we endure to the end (Romans 8:18).

As we look at this passage here in 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, I want to section this out into three points that you may know all the more the God who is "our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble" (Psalm 46:1). First, we are being renewed; second, we are being prepared; and third, we are being promised -- the promise of deliverance in Christ.

We are Being Renewed

Paul says, "So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day" (v.16). The "we" here is the Apostle Paul and his missionary brethren and the persecutions they have endured for the sake of the gospel. But Paul sets himself before the Corinthians as an example of suffering and perseverance.

Knowing the promise of the eternal kingdom of God in Christ Jesus, Paul says, "We do not lose heart." No matter what happens in this life, there's no reason to despair because Christ has conquered death. "He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us into His presence," Paul said (v.14). We endure suffering in this life for a moment, but we will dwell in His kingdom forever -- perfect, imperishable, incorruptible -- forever.

For the moment, we are imperfect, perishable, and corruptible. Your body is breaking down even where you sit reading this. You probably felt it when you got up this morning. You're falling apart. You're wasting away. You get sick. You get hurt. You get depressed. You feel anxious. You feel pain. Spiritually, emotionally, physically -- there is not an aspect of us that cannot be afflicted in some way. "Our outer self is wasting away." But, the Bible says, "Our inner self is being renewed day by day."

The Lord is using even these moments to sanctify you. "Sanctification" means to make holy. When you came to faith in Christ, you were immediately justified: forgiven your sins and made innocent before your Father in heaven. But you had not yet been fully sanctified. Moment by moment, you are being renewed from the old, sinful man or woman that you were, and you are being shaped into the image of Christ. As we resist temptation, and as we rejoice in God even in our most trying moments, as we put off this world and long all the more for heaven -- we are being made like Christ.

Romans 8:28-29 says, "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers."

Colossians 3:10 says that in Christ, we "have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator." By reading His word, the Bible, seeing in its pages the person of Christ, imitating Him, obeying Him, you are being made more and more to be like Him. That's what it means to be sanctified. So even though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day.

We are Being Prepared

Paul goes on to say, "For this light, momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison" (v.17). I want you to understand the full measure of what Paul is referring to when he talks about a "light, momentary affliction."

At the start of 2 Corinthians, we read, "For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers, of the affliction we experienced in Asia. For we were so utterly burdened beyond our strength that we despaired of life itself. Indeed, we felt that we had received the sentence of death. But that was to make us rely not on ourselves, but on God who raises the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:8-9).

Understand that the struggles you endure in this life are to make you rely all the more on the God who raises the dead. Have you been through what Paul went through? Have you felt so burdened beyond your strength that you despaired of life itself? Have you felt as though you've received a sentence of death? And yet, in light of eternity, Paul refers to these trials a few chapters later as light and momentary afflictions!

I would like to further expound on what Paul refers to as light and momentary afflictions. Later in chapter 11, expounding on the trials of the ministry, Paul says:

"Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches."

Have you been through anything remotely as trying as what Paul endured for your sake to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the nations? And these things, as well as whatever you may be going through, are to make you rely more on God who raises the dead!

Now, I don't mean to belittle whatever you might be struggling with. You may be going through a trial in this moment that feels like the world is weighted on your shoulders. I'm not trying to slap you on the back and say, "Oh, buck up! It's all in your head. Rub some dirt on it. You'll be fine." Rather, I'm trying to lift your head that you may look to the one who will deliver you. Look to the one who has promised He will never leave you, nor will He forsake you.

Whether you are dealing with sickness or illness in your body; or a betrayal at the hand of someone close to you; or you are watching someone fall further and further into darkness and sin and it seems like they're never turn back. Maybe you're just struggling through the mundane, the daily grind, when one day looks just like the next and it's difficult to see any purpose or meaning or end to any of this.

Whatever your struggle, lift your head. Look upon Christ. Place your trust in Him who raises the dead. Everything that you go through in this life is preparing you for glory with Him. So honor God in all that you do. With thanksgiving, know that you work first for the Lord and not for men. Be grateful that He has given you life and redeemed that life. He will transform your lowly body to be like His glorious body by the power that enables Him to subject all things to Himself (Philippians 3:21).

God has supplied your every need through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Your hope is not in the things that are seen. Hope that is seen is not hope (Romans 8:24). Rather, your hope is in Jesus, the author and the perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross. Rejoice, for these are but light, momentary afflictions, preparing us for glory that is beyond comparison.

We are Being Promised

Finally, Paul says, "We look not to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient," that is, they are lasting only a short while, "but the things that are unseen are eternal." This is further assurance that our current struggles are but light and momentary. They are transient, just like everything else in this world.

Nothing in this world can bring us any lasting happiness. Happiness is cheap and fleeting. It's here for only a moment and can be taken from us in an instant. All it takes is one comment, and no matter how determined you were to be happy today, that emotion has been replaced with rage or hurt or sorrow.

Likewise, the things in this world are also fleeting. You know the new technology you just bought isn't going to last. Next year, they're going to replace it with an updated version, and then the model that once brought you happiness will be the object of your disgust until you can get the upgrade! The stuff of this world is perishing, and so are the feelings this stuff makes us feel.

We can certainly have pleasure in this life. There's nothing wrong with getting excited when your team wins, feeling a sense of pride over a job well done, or experiencing the joy of a good meal with friends and family. But even these enjoyments won't last.

Yet if we have placed our hope and our faith in the eternal God, these wonderful pleasures, which roll up into praise to God, are but a taste of the greater pleasures we will have in the eternal kingdom of God! Christ is ultimately going to win and destroy His enemies. To those who have served to the end, they will hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Then we will all sit down at the wedding feast of the Lamb, promised at the end of Revelation!

We don't place our hope in the moments of this life. We place our hope in the eternity of the next life. But with eternity in mind, the pleasurable moments of this life become glimpses into the next.

Now, that's only for the believer. For the unbeliever, these pleasures are not a glimpse into the life that is to come. Rather, the afflictions of this world are the glimpse for the unbeliever. Whatever suffering you go through in this life does not even compare to the eternal suffering you will be thrown into if you do not believe in Jesus and you have not repented of your sins. Even a Nazi concentration camp would seem like heaven by comparison.

Jesus said that hell is a place "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48). The worm that eats the rotting flesh never stops, and the fire that consumes never goes out. I plead with you not to spend another moment in rebellion against God. Turn from your sin and follow Jesus Christ. It is only those who believed on His name in this life that will know these present afflictions as but light and momentary.

At the end of all things, we are told, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:3-4).

Conclusion

I cannot promise you that the trial you are going through will turn out the way you want it to. The situation that you are in may not have the result you desire. Perhaps it will even get worse. What I can promise you is that it won't destroy you. Our promise is not this world -- our promise is the next one. Like the saints of old, we look not to an earthly kingdom, but to a heavenly one, prepared for us in Christ Jesus. God will bring you into that kingdom to be with Him forever, as He has promised.

So do not lose heart, believer. If you have placed your faith in Christ, your sins are forgiven. Though your outer self is wasting away, your inner self is being renewed into the image of its Creator. We will see Him as He is for we will be made to be like Him. These light, momentary afflictions are preparing you for an eternal weight of glory that is beyond all comparison. Look not to the things of this world. Look to Christ.

I'll be Frank, you be Surely (Shirley?). I did not care for Vice President Mike Pence's speech at the Southern Baptist Convention in Dallas yesterday. When he came to the platform, I stood to applaud, and likewise when he stepped down. It's proper etiquette -- he's the Vice President of the United States. But his speech didn't belong at the SBC annual meeting.

Oh, the speech had its high points. He quoted from the Bible a few times and shared his faith in Christ. He thanked the convention for their prayers and hard work. He spoke about the massacre at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, TX last November and referenced their pastor who was in attendance. We stood and applauded Pastor Pomeroy. That was a touching moment.

Otherwise, Vice President Pence's address was a Stump-for-Trump speech: President Trump is the greatest this and no other president in history has ever done that. Yes, we even heard that he wants to "Make America Great Again." Thousands in the convention hall stood and applauded with each political point as though we were attending a rally. The speech was as political as they get and, quite frankly (I said I'd be Frank), it was embarrassing for the convention.

Welcoming Vice President Pence to address the convention was poor judgment. As I understand it, the Vice President was the one who reached out to the convention, but whoever accepted the invitation should have politely turned him down. Instead, it looks like we got played.

There's nothing inherently wrong with a politician addressing a gathering of Christians. As Thomas Kidd pointed out, the SBC has a long history of politicians speaking at the convention, some good and some bad. Texas Governor Greg Abbott spoke to the convention on Monday. Senator Ben Sasse addressed the Gospel Coalition's biennial meeting last year. But the SBC should have been more discerning before they let a representative of Trump's administration speak to the convention.

"There will always be questions of wisdom at play in decisions like these," said Dr. Jonathan Leeman in an article for TGC (that has since been published in the Washington Post). However, he went on to say, "But the criteria I'm offering are, how does it comport with the biblical pattern of prophetic speech; and how will it affect the mission, witness, and unity of the church?"

Though Dr. Leeman believes matters such as welcoming a politician to address the saints of Christ requires discernment, he also argued that the biblical criteria is clear-cut. This is how he started his article:

"Here's a question for my fellow Southern Baptists and evangelicals more broadly: can you name a place in the Bible where God sends a ruler of a (non-Israelite) nation to speak to God's people?"

It's a rhetorical question, as though there isn't such an instance. Actually, there is. In fact, there are a few.

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to know the fear of God and wrote the fourth chapter of the book of Daniel. Neco, Pharaoh of Egypt, addressed Josiah, king of Judah, with words "from the mouth of God" (2 Chronicles 35:22). Cyrus, King of Persia, told the Jews to return to Jerusalem and rebuild it (Ezra 1:3). And let's not forget that in the midst of Israel's spiritual darkness, it was magi from the east following a star who came to worship the King of the Jews (Matthew 2:2).

Now, I agree with Dr. Leeman that the pattern of address in the Bible is typically the opposite: the man of God addressed the pagan king rather than the pagan king giving a message to God's people. Continuing his example, he said, "Moses challenges Pharaoh. Daniel confronts Nebuchadnezzar. John the Baptist Calls out Herod. And Paul appeals to Caesar."

But here's the problem. In using this analogy, Dr. Leeman is making it appear as if the Southern Baptist Convention is Moses, Daniel, John the Baptist, and Paul, while Vice President Pence is Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod, or Caesar. A thousand times no. As I've been wont to say to my own congregation, "You're not David, and your problems aren't Goliath."

Vice President Pence is a brother in the Lord. He is a Christian. I've been told he's even attended Dr. Leeman's church in Washington D.C. It is ungracious to compare him to a murderous oppressor like Pharaoh or Herod. We are not under the President's captivity. We are set free in Christ. By the Vice President's own confession, we have every reason to believe he is set free in Christ as well.

Within Christianity, both sides of the political aisle practice this kind of eisegesis -- imposing one's own will onto the text of Scripture. The people who love President Trump compare him to David, Solomon, or Samson, while the people who hate him think he's, well, Pharaoh, Herod, or Nero. President Trump is an unrepentant sinner by his own admission. I believe he's a judgment on this depraved land, and I pray he repents. But he's not Nero.

Dr. Leeman cautioned against the temptation to desire political access. That's good advice. He agrees it's a matter of wisdom as to whether or not a politician should, say, speak to the Southern Baptist Convention. I believe then that it would have been more proper for Dr. Leeman to appeal to the wisdom books of Scripture rather than making a comparison to oppression under pagan kings.

Proverbs 23:1-3 says, "When you sit down to eat with a ruler, observe carefully what is before you, and put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite. Do not desire his delicacies, for they are deceptive food." Proverbs 29:4-5 says, "By justice a king builds up the land, but he who exacts gifts tears it down. A man who flatters his neighbor spreads a net for his feet."

Or how about the always popular Proverbs 29:18 which says, "Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint, but blessed is he who keeps the law." We would have done well to pay more attention to the Bible during the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting. We are blessed to have God's word. We don't need the blessing of a politician.

Edit: Immediately after the Vice President was the convention sermon (which was originally supposed to be given by Paige Patterson who dropped out due to the recent scandal). The morning ran long and it was already lunch time. Thousands got up and left the meeting hall after the Vice President spoke. Maybe they were hungry, and maybe they were protesting something related to Patterson. But it made it look like the SBC was more interested in a politician's speech than biblical preaching.

Yes, we were played at the 2018 Southern Baptist Convention. But not just by the Trump administration. Dave Ramsey was given the stage twice, boasted in himself, favorably quoted a heretic, gave a horrible illustration which he claimed was biblical, took Scripture out of context, and stumped for his business. Our lack of biblical vitality was taken advantage of in a lot of ways.

Let us be wise to the ways of the world and the ways of the Word. Be convicted and follow the wisdom of our great King, the Lord Jesus Christ. He has shared His mind with us. It's in the Bible. Quite frankly, the SBC should pay more attention to it.

"From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, He is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to Himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making His appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:16-21)

This week, we are going to focus on only one verse of this section, and that's the first sentence in verse 16: "From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh." Hanging over our understanding of this verse is this word "reconciliation." It is such a beautiful word, and in its definition, there are undertones of the gospel. To be reconciled means to accept that which was not previously desired.

Before you came to faith in Christ, you were dead in your sins and our trespasses in which you once walked. You did not desire God, nor did He desire you in that state. But as Romans 5:8 says to us, "God demonstrates His love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." With Christ's sacrifice on the cross, He has taken our sin, and He clothes us in His righteousness (as verse 21 will go on to explain, and we'll get to that in a couple of weeks).

Having come to faith in Christ, you have repented of your sins and God has forgiven you. When He looks at you, He does not see the filthy, rotten sinner deserving of hell. He sees the righteousness of His Son. And we are received by God not because of anything we did, but because of what He did for us. We desire God because He desires us. As 1 John 4:10 says, "In this is love, not that we have loved God but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins."

Reconciled to God and to His People

Not only have you been reconciled to God, but you have been reconciled to God's people. We read in John 4:19, "We love because He first loved us. If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother."

This is why church attendance is so important. How else can we grow in our love for the family of God if we are not meeting regularly with the family of God? If you have been reconciled to God and to His people, you will want to be a part of God's people. If you do not want to be part of the people of God, you do not love God's people, you hate them.

Someone might say, "Oh, I love the people of God. I'm just not crazy about those people." Sorry. As you didn't get to pick and choose which family you were born into and which siblings you had, you don't get to pick which family you are born again into and which siblings you have. You don't choose who's in God's family. He does. God has adopted you into this family, and He has shown you through the visible church whom it is you are to love.

Over and over we are given in Scripture an instruction to love and grow with and mature with the people of God. You are not alowed to stay a babe in the faith. Your maturity benefits the rest of the body of Christ. Beginning in Ephesians 4:12, we are "building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes."

In this way, the church is a safety. When a church is committed to teaching the sound words of our Lord Christ, we keep one other from going off course and getting tossed around by false teaching and worldly philosophy. My heart trembles for those who leave this church because they don't like the teaching. They abandon the steady, upright ship of sound doctrine and follow whatever dingy false teacher blows in their ear the right way, potentially making a shipwreck of their faith.

We protect and take care of one another. Ephesians 4 goes on to say that "speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love."

If you think you are the more mature among your brothers and sisters, you have an obligation to consider their need for spiritual maturity. Romans 15:1-2, "We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the failings of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let each of us please his neighbor for his good, to build him up." We as the body of Christ consider one another spiritually.

From Now On, Therefore...

"From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh." Why do we regard no one according to the flesh? Because we've been reconciled. We've been reconciled to God and to one another. Once we were hated by others and hating one another (Titus 3:3), but since coming to Christ, we are a new creation. The old has passed away, and the new has come.

In the previous verse, 2 Corinthians 5:15, we read, "He died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for Him who for their sake died and was raised." The "all" for whom Christ has died, in the context of this verse, is His church. Those who are not part of the church have not been reconciled. Those who are part of the church have been reconciled. They've been reconciled to God and to the people of God. Now we as His church have been commissioned with the ministry of reconciliation.

When we preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, essentially what we are preaching is what Paul says here in verse 20: "Be reconciled to God." When Jesus began preaching, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew 4:17), what He was saying was essentially, "Be reconciled to God." Not just when we preach the gospel to unbelievers, but even when we correct a brother or sister who is walking in sin, we are saying to one another, "Be reconciled to God."

Since we who are in Christ have been reconciled -- once at enmity with God and now we are friends of God, through the forgiveness that is given in Christ Jesus -- once at enmity with one another and now one in Christ Jesus -- we regard no one according to the flesh.

What does it mean that we once regarded one another according to the flesh, and now we regard no one according to the flesh? To "regard" means to consider or think of someone a certain way. The Greek word here is oidamen which means to perceive something as though you would see it with your physical eyes.

We might think of the expression, "I see what you mean," or "I see what you are saying." You're not physically seeing what a person is saying, but you now understand what they are saying with such clarity, it's as though you could perceive it with your physical senses, but with your mind's eye. In Romans 12:2 we are told to be transformed by the renewing of your mind, and Philippians 2:5 says to have the mind of Christ.

So having a mind that is being renewed and conformed to Christ, we regard or we see no one according to the flesh. Now, there's certainly a sense here in which "no one" refers to the body of Christ. There's no one in the church whom we should regard according to the flesh. That's been the context of this passage, and that certainly applies. But let me ask you: having been given a mind that is being conformed to Christ, is there anyone whom you should regard according to their flesh?

When you look at a person, you may deduce that this person is either saved -- from the judgement of God by faith in the person and work Jesus Christ -- or they are not saved, and are therefore still under the wrath of God. Your concern is for their soul. You consider the soul, not the flesh.

Not the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their nationality, whether they're a republican or democrat, a nerd or a jock, a K-State fan or a KU fan, or even if they're a man or a woman. You see a person who either knows Christ or needs to know Him. This is how you regard every person you meet. You regard their spiritual position with God, not their physical position in the world. And so in this way, you regard no one according to the flesh.

Regard No One According to the Flesh

To regard someone according to their flesh means that you would consider their place in the world according to worldly standards and values as though their present physical life is all that matters. But it doesn't matter. In the eternal scheme of things, your skin color, your nationality, even your native tongue -- these things will not matter in eternity. When the book of Revelation says that people from every nation will worship God, what's described for us is not different colored people in different languages singing praise. They are one people lifting up one voice. Even now, we who are the church are called "a chosen race" and "a holy nation" (1 Peter 2:9).

My friends, race and nationalities are a result of the fall. Different languages and even different skin colors happened after the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11 when God confused the languages of sinful men and they scattered to settle in different places over the whole earth. This resulted in the different nations, each speaking a different language.

People who settled closer to the equator, where the weather is hotter and the sunlight more direct, over time their skin, hair, and eyes became darker. People who settled further north, where the weather is cooler and cloudier and the sun is less offensive, their skin, hair, and eyes became lighter. Groups of people that lived in close proximity with one another began taking on similar physical traits. But every single person on earth is still descended from one man, and that's Adam.

As Paul preached to a bunch of pagans in Acts 17, God "made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place." Paul went on to say, "The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now He commands all people everywhere to repent, because He has fixed a day on which He will judge the whole world in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed; and of this He has given assurance to all by raising Him from the dead."

When it comes down to it, and as I've heard Dr. Voddie Baucham preach, there are only two races. There's the race of the first Adam, and there's the race of the last Adam, who is Christ. We who are part of the race of the last Adam are reconciled to God, and we desire that those who are of the race of the first Adam be reconciled to God. In this way, we regard no one according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. We consider the soul of the individual, not their outward appearance.

Colossians 3:9-10, "Having put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all."

Galatians 3:26-29, "In Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ hav eput on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave not free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

Practical Implications

Now then, what are the practical implications of this? Well, we've talked about one already -- that we would view one another as either recipients of the gospel or someone who needs to receive the gospel. There should be no prejudice when it comes to preaching the gospel. There should be no prejudice when it comes to living out the effects of the gospel. We are all one in Christ. There is no regard according to the flesh.

And understand, when I say that we regard no one according to the flesh, I'm not saying there aren't boundaries. You would not raise a son the same way you would raise daughter -- at least you shouldn't, much to the chagrin of our culture. The Bible does detail for us roles that God has specifically for men, and roles that He specifically has for women. Men will not ever give birth to babies. God has designed that right only for women.

But when it comes to if a person is saved or if a person is not saved, or when it comes down to who is a recipient of the kingdom, these things are not determined by the flesh. Women are just as much inheritors of the kingdom of God as men are. Whether you're male or female, single or married, young or old, a pastor of a layman, everyone who is in Christ is an heir of the kingdom. Your flesh does not determine your eternity. Jesus does.

But those who are of the world do regard others according to the flesh. And here is where we must be careful. Though we are citizens of heaven, we still traverse this earth in bodies of flesh, and we are susceptible to the temptations of the flesh.

Romans 8:5 says, "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit." Galatians 5:17 says, "For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do."

If you are in Christ, you want to regard no one according to the flesh. But as you wrestle with the flesh, there is a temptation to regard others according to the flesh. You probably already did that this morning. You saw someone walking your way you didn't want to talk to, so you ducked down another hallway to avoid them. You must resist the temptation to be so prejudiced, for to regard your brothers and sisters in the Lord according to the flesh will divide the body of Christ, not unify it.

The Social Justice Movement

There is an incredibly persuasive movement in the western world today that has made its way into the church. It is known as the social justice movement. This is a radically prejudiced movement that regards others only according to the flesh, and its arguments are so sneaky that it has taken hold of the church, even our own Southern Baptist Convention.

Now, I want to be careful here, because in saying that the social justice movement has taken hold of the church, I am not saying that those who have been sucked into it aren't Christians -- that they are of the flesh and not of the Spirit. That is not what I mean to say. But though they have a desire to please God, in their flesh they have stumbled into something worldly minded, not heavenly minded.

They are like Peter who was rebuked by our Lord saying, "You are thinking with the mind of man and not with the mind of God." The church needs to be alerted to the dangers of the social justice movement so that they would repent of it and return to being a kingdom-minded people. Likewise, I say this to you to warn you not to get sucked in to such a worldview of the flesh.

To quote again from Dr. Voddie Baucham: "If the social justice movement went by its actual name, young Christians would not have been lured into it. Because the social justice movement is actually cultural Marxism under a new name. There's no such thing as social justice, people. Because in the Bible justice never has an adjective. There's justice and there's injustice, but there are not different kinds of justice. Something is either just or it is unjust."

The social justice movement is about putting people into various constituencies, which would be like voting blocks or demographics, only these constituencies are labeled according to their social struggles or their victim-status. Human dignity is taken from those people who have less of a victim-status and it's given to those who have more of a victim-status. It is arbitrary and subjective. It's tribal, motivated by cultural outrage and a sense of "I'm not getting what I deserve."

Another name for this is intersectionality, which works like this: Are you a white male? Then you are a person of privilege, and you don't have a very high victim-status. Are you a less privileged single black mom? You're single, you're black, and you're a mom. There's three victim statuses right there, and you are worthy of more human dignity than the white male. Are you a gay young man questioning your gender identity? Then you've been living under oppression with the least amount of opportunities, and you deserve more dignity than all the rest. We will even change the laws to accommodate you.

Going through these examples, perhaps you recognize that the character of people is being determined not by who they are as individuals but by the constituency that they belong to. The social justice movement has as its highest goal to achieve a certain equality between these different groups, which they will never actually attain. Someone will always believe they are not getting what they deserve. The only way that people will be reconciled to one another is through the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the only way. Unity cannot happen without the gospel.

Right Theology Unifies, Wrong Theology Divides

Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Church in the Atlanta area, made the statement earlier this year that unity was more important than being theologically correct. On the contrary, there is no unity without right theology. Theology is everything. If you've ever made the statement, "Well, I'm a spiritual person, I'm just not very theological," you've just made a theological statement. Whenever you open your mouth and talk about God, you are being theological. If your theology is not grounded in right orthodoxy, you might be a heretic. There is no unity without Christ. Yet people will go on trying to force unity based on appearances and not right biblical doctrine.

I've read dozens of articles implying that if my church does not have a certain ethnic variety, then we're still racially segregated and not fulfilling the great commission. Folks, I have nothing to do with the color of people in my church. That's a work of the Spirit of God. When I stand up here, I don't see shades of melanin. I see people who need to hear the gospel today. If you have ever walked into a church, and you have judged that church because everyone's skin was the same color, I've got news for you. The church you're attending isn't racist. You are!

At the conference Together for the Gospel held earlier this year in Louisville, KY, David Platt, outgoing president of the International Missions Board, said, "Why are so many of our churches so white? Why are many of our institutions, seminaries, and missions, so white? Why is this conference so white?" If this truly troubled Dr. Platt so much, I wonder why he didn't give up his position as a speaker and let someone else preach who wasn't so white.

Now, there are churches in America where racism exists. I could even tell you stories. But these are matters that need to be handled the same way we deal with any sin in the church -- following the guidelines that Christ has set before us for confronting sin in an offending brother (Matthew 18:15-20, Titus 3:10-11). We handle these things on a case by case basis. As Paul instructed, we should not consider one another as enemies, but warning each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord (2 Thessalonians 3:15).

But the social justice mindset takes individual responsibility out of church discipline. Everyone belongs to certain groups and everyone's experiences in that group are the same. Whatever one person has experienced, everyone in that group has experienced, whether good or bad. Furthermore, everyone's sins are the same. If a constituency is labeled as being at fault for the struggles experienced in another constituency, then everyone in that first constituency is guilty.

For example, the secular notion of "white privilege," which insists that white people in America inherently have a societal advantage over black people, with more opportunities and privileges irrespective of wealth, gender, or other factors. The social justice movement considers white privilege a cultural fact, as undeniable as water is wet. White people just have it better, and they owe something to people who aren't white, especially black people whose ancestors were enslaved by white people. If you deny this, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

What if a black man denies that white privilege is a thing? Well, according to Matt Chandler, Pastor of the Village Church in Dallas, TX, that black man is probably "trying to win approval or position." That is an incredibly prejudiced and disparaging comment. Even black people are not allowed to disagree with this approach or they are an embarrassment to their own race.

Samuel Sey, a Ghanaian-Canadian ministering in Toronto, has been outspoken against the counter-biblical narrative of intersectionality, white privilege, and social justice. In an article he wrote this past week, he said, "My inbox is full of angry words from white people who use racial slurs against me because they supposedly love black people."

This isn't unifying the church. It's tearing us apart. The Holy Spirit warns, "If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people, who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth" (1 Timothy 6:3-5). Tell me that doesn't describe what's happening.

Following the 50th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., Thabiti Anyabwile, a Southern Baptist minister in the Washington D.C. area, wrote an article entitled We Await Repentence for Assassinating Dr. King. In the article he said, "My white neighbors and Christian brethren can start by at least saying their parents and grandparents in this country are complicit in murdering a man who only preached love and justice."

Yes, you heard that right. Your parents and grandparents were complicit in the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. -- not James Earl Ray, who actually pulled the trigger. If we truly want to be reconciled to one another, you need to apologize for Dr. King's murder.

Again, in the social justice mindset, you're part of a constituency, and you're responsible for all the actions of everyone else in the constituency that someone stuck you in. This relational mentality is beneath us as Christians. When we're slanderous of one another in this way, suspecting one another of evils another person isn't guilty of, it causes dissension and constant friction. This is not the ministry of reconciliation -- it is division.

This past week, Intervarsity Press, one of the largest publishers of Christian books, announced an upcoming book entitled, Can White People be Saved?

At The Gospel Coalition Women's conference last month in Indianapolis, a break-out session for women of color was held, and ahead of the conference it was explicitly asked that white women not attend. Folks, this wasn't okay when white people were guilty of this kind of segregation, and it's not okay for black people to do it either -- especially under the banner of "the gospel."

On July 4, Dr. Eric Mason, part of the Acts 29 network and a pastor of Epiphany Fellowship in Philadelphia, said that when we forget about racial injustice and slavery in the United States, "we miss a key component of the gospel!" What does that mean? Racial injustice and slaver are key components of the gospel? Does that mean that we have to teach people about Civil War era slavery in order for them to truly be saved?

Ray Orlund Jr., one of the contributors to the study notes in the ESV study Bible, said this past May, "Moses renounced his social privilege, choosing to be mistreated with God's people. He didn't just decry his privilege; he crossed the line and left it behind, identifying with outsiders. And the Bible calls this saving faith."

Friends, not only is that not the story of Moses, renouncing social privilege and identifying with outsiders is not saving faith. It's bordering on heresy to add to the gospel in this way. I could give you more examples. This is happening over and over and over again. The language of the culture is beginning to infiltrate how the gospel is preached. This is not just affecting issues concerning race, it is also affecting issues concerning gender, and it is affecting issues concerning sexuality.

Just a few days ago, Brandon Robertson, a pastor in San Diego and a contributor to NBC and Time Magazine, said, "Folks think that they must either choose racial justice or LGBT+ justice. BOTH are inextricably linked and without justice for both, you’ll achieve justice for neither." The social justice movement is just another back door to usher in LGBT inclusivism. If we're not careful, we're playing right into the devil's hands.

Reconciled Through the Gospel

Now, I will grant you that some people are born into more privilege than others, and some have lives that are harder than others. That reality is certainly not lost on me. If you are born in the United States of America, you're already born into a position of privilege compared with most of the world.

But the Bible does not say it's the job of the church to ensure everyone has equal opportunity and privilege. The church has been called to preach the gospel. You are never promised your earthly situation will improve when you come to Christ. In fact, Jesus said the road will get more difficult when you become His follower. Broad is the way that leads to destruction and many will find that way because that's the easy way (Matthew 7:13-14).

As you walk this narrow way, you have the privilege of walking with others who have been called to this path. The Bible assures us that God is with us every step of the way. As we read at the start of our study in 2 Corinthians, "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God" (2 Corinthians 1:3-4).

You've been comforted, so you might be able to comfort others who need comforted. And no matter how dire your situation gets, you need to remember, "that this was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead" (2 Corinthians 1:8). Maybe your earthly situation won't improve, but your heavenly situation has certainly improved.

The Bible says, "Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again, rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God. And the peace which surpasses all understand will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:4-7). And need I remind you, Paul wrote that when he was in prison for preaching the gospel.

We must love each other as individuals, not as constituencies. In Romans 12:15, we are told, "Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly." Show no partiality. Regard no one according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit of our God, in whom we have been reconciled through Jesus Christ.

In Ephesians 4:1-6, the Apostle Paul wrote, "I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit -- just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call -- one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

I originally wrote this piece on September 12 but never published it. The discussion has resurfaced, and I've decided to share. I'll explain more at the very end.


On Sunday, September 9, Vice News (think Dateline for millennials on HBO) interviewed Matt Chandler about the changes that are happening in evangelicalism. Nothing of the interview was informative to me, mostly because the intended audience was unchurched millennials. I already know what's going on in the church. They don't.

Another reason this interview wasn't very informative was because Chandler's answers did more to muddy the waters than offer clarity. I've listened to the guy for over ten years, though increasingly less often. His preaching and his views have taken a turn into progressive territory. If you've been with him for a while, and you're reading the same directions he is (I'm referring to the Bible), you're going, "Um, where are you headed, Matt?"

The following is the interview between Chandler and Vice's Gianna Toboni. (By the way, "vice" means "immoral or wicked behavior," a curious title for a liberal news outlet.) The transcript is provided word-for-word in bold. My responses are in regular type.

Gianna Toboni: Evangelical America is changing quickly. At the annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest evangelical denomination in the country reported that it had lost more than 200,000 members in one year alone. But a new class of evangelical leaders are pushing through these challenges. We spoke to Matt Chandler, who is considered a rising star among young pastors, about how evangelicalism is changing in today's political environment.

So there's our lede. Evangelicalism in America is experiencing rapid change, mostly in terms of people leaving evangelical churches. To try and solve this problem, evangelicals are turning to new leaders who look, talk, and present themselves differently than those often termed the "old guard." Matt Chandler is considered one of the faces of the new class. What does Chandler think about how politics are affecting evangelicalism? Note that this will mostly be about how politics are affecting evangelicalism, not how evangelicalism is affecting politics.

Toboni (to Chandler): Can we agree that President Trump isn't of the utmost moral character?

Chandler: Absolutely. Like are people arguing other than that?

Toboni: So this is what I want to ask you-- To me, evangelicals prioritize morality, being Christlike, and yet they played a huge part in getting him elected. How did that happen? What do they like about him?

Chandler: I think people are frightened. I think they're frightened at the speed at which things are changing culturally. And so I think they began to grasp for something that might help.

That's a safe opinion, but I don't think most people voted for Donald Trump because they're afraid. I think people are more like Donald Trump than we want to admit.

It's true that many voted for Trump because there was no other winnable option. Hillary Clinton would have been worse. Anything but Hillary. So they voted Trump. But the majority of Donald Trump's supporters were not concerned citizens who simply didn't want Hillary. The majority of his voters really, really like Donald Trump. He was always the front-runner in a crowded GOP pool full of a lot of options. I think Toboni is more aware of that than Chandler was in this interview.

I said in September of 2015, over a year before Trump was elected, that I believed Trump was going to be our next president. The reason why I thought so was because he talked like most evangelicals that I encounter: he always goes to church on Easter and Christmas, always on a major occasion, he drinks his juice and eats his little cracker, he tries to be a good person, and the Bible is his favorite book. Meanwhile, he's incredibly self-centered, loves a good conspiracy theory, has a perverted mind, and can't control his mouth. This is like many Americans, even in red states.

Chandler: The Obama presidency, great man -- some of his policies and some of the ways he rolled out his policies, really, really scared evangelicals. And without any kind of real help from pastors and ministers, to help their people understand, the news media just whipped us into a frenzy, and made people feel desperate.

There's a lot of slight going on here. Chandler said Obama was a great man who scared evangelicals, and that's the fault of pastors and the media, oh, and people could be a little less panicky, too. But somehow Obama comes out "great" in that answer. Great as in how?

I'll say this about Barack Obama: All that we've seen of him seems to indicate that he loves his wife and his daughters. Democrats gave us a family man for president, and the conservatives, supposedly the "family values" party, came up with Donald Trump. That's extremely frustrating to me.

But though he might be a faithful husband and father, Obama was an abysmal president. This is the man who said, "God bless Planned Parenthood." His track record on abortion was worse than Bill Clinton's, having defended infanticide when he was a U.S. senator. No leader riding on a slogan of "Hope" yet advocates for the murder of the most vulnerable human beings can be called "great" anything but a great fraud.

In addition to abortion, same-sex marriage became legal in the United States under Obama, whom Newsweek crowned "The First Gay President." The sins of America are worse than Sodom's. For anyone to talk down about Trump and herald Obama as a "great man" is being hypocritical, to say the least.

Toboni (narrating): Chandler invited us back to his church, which is one of the fastest growing in the country.

Toboni (walking up to the church): This is not what I expected The Village Church to look like. We are in a shopping center. It kind of looks more like a Costco or a Target, sandwiched between Starbucks and Chick-fil-A. But there are more than 10,000 congregants that come to The Village Church. This is what churches in many American suburbs look like today.

If that's what many churches in American suburbs look like, why is Toboni surprised when she sees it? She said, "This is not what I expected The Village Church to look like." She unintentionally exposed how out-of-touch she is with evangelicalism, and probably middle America in general. What if I said Gianna Toboni is not what I expect a news reporter to look like? Would that not sound like I'm out of touch with the culture and I'm secluded in my evangelical bubble?

Toboni (taking to Chandler): What are the challenges today in keeping young people engaged here?

Chandler: My experience with the "de-churched," that's what I would call them, those who grew up in church and have left, is that it's a sense of hypocrisy that they picked up on. A kind of cowardice among the church to address things that are serious and significant pains of our day. So whether that be domestic violence, which the church has just been painfully quiet on. Or even things like racial reconciliation, which, man, you step into those spaces, you're going to draw a lot of flack from the evangelical world.

That's incredibly ungracious. Chandler makes it sound like the church ignores domestic violence and is largely racist, so much that if you address those topics they're going to attack you. That is "painfully" not true. First of all, not all that's called the church is the church (Toboni especially doesn't understand that). Secondly, there's a whole context to what Chandler has termed "racial reconciliation" that is not being explained.

But let's set that aside to stay on the topic. Millennials have been leaving the church in droves according to the introduction, and Chandler says the reason for that is the fault of the people who are still in the church for not addressing topics "that are serious and significant pains of our day." He even goes as far as suggesting that any church not addressing such topics is hypocritical, and de-churched millennials sniffed out this hypocrisy.

Four years ago, I wrote a blog about a liberal false teacher named John Pavlovitz who was gaining a lot of attention on social media. One of his popular articles was Dear Church, Here's Why People Are Leaving You. In the piece, he said an emphasis on teaching sound biblical doctrine drives people away, and the church doesn't address issues relevant to a broader group of people. That's the argument of a theological liberal, and Chandler is borrowing it.

The most recent edition of The State of Theology survey from Ligonier shows that the majority of evangelicals believe Jesus is the first being created by God (more than 80%), that even the smallest sins don't make a person worthy of hell (about 70%), and that God accepts the worship of all religions (more than 50%). So according to the results of this survey, most American evangelicals believe heresy. And Chandler thinks the problem with evangelicals leaving the church is we don't address enough culturally relevant topics?*

We read in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us."

That's why people leave the church -- because they were never Christians to begin with. The church needs the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness. Pastors need to be faithful in preaching the Scriptures. They should not be feeding an unhealthy craving for controversy (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Chandler: But I think especially around topics like homosexuality, we're quick to say it's a sin and you may not understand, which I'm not going to disagree that I would think from the Scriptures that that's not what ultimately God intends. But to pretend like that we're not talking about human beings with souls, who sometimes are deeply conflicted, it's just a great error. And to be right the wrong way, is to be wrong.

Homosexual behavior is sin, and unless it's repented of and a person follows Jesus Christ, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. Instead, they will suffer His wrath and will be cast into eternal fire on the day of judgment. I preach this knowing that this is about human beings with souls! That's exactly why I call attention to the seriousness of sin and point a sinner to the gospel -- because I love them, and I want them to be saved.

Chandler's answer was another one of his slights. Am I to understand that anyone who teaches "Homosexuality is sin" doesn't care about human souls? Maybe Chandler agrees men who practice homosexuality are living in sin (or "not what ultimately God intends" as he worded it), but if I actually say homosexuality is a sin, according to Chandler I'm right in the wrong way, therefore I'm wrong. Right?

Toboni: How do you think Democrats and media have isolated evangelicals, and where could they do better to be more inclusive?

Chandler: I think some of the blind spots on the Left is that the Left, specifically city Left, feels like the country is more progressive than it actually is. And the more it presses, the more it makes conservatives dig in their heels.

I agree, but with a caveat. Yes, the country is not as progressive as the Left believes it is. However, what's deemed conservative is often conservative by comparison. The Right is also progressive, just not as rapidly progressive as the Left. Chandler is progressive. The fact that he labels homosexuality as "not what ultimately God intends" shows a softening in his otherwise Christian worldview (though I would say his worldview is regressing, not progressing).

Chandler: When the bathroom bill had passed, and I'm telling you, people were terrified by that bathroom bill. More than anything else, the thought that their children were going to be in a bathroom with the opposite sex, right? And I know all the arguments around that, but I'm using the language that I think would make sense to most conservatives. That made them go, whoever the opposition is to that, I'm voting for. And then they lost their soul in it, many of them did.

They lost their soul in it? Is Chandler suggesting that anyone who had serious (and legitimate) concerns over the bathroom bill sacrificed their faith? Perhaps he's just using a figure of speech, but even if that's all it is, it's still ungracious. Concerns about the bathroom bill were not about who we're going to the bathroom with "more than anything else," as Chandler said. The bathroom bill quantified a depraved direction this entire country is headed over common sense issues like who's a man and who's a woman. Chandler was wildly out-of-touch on this response.

Toboni: How do you think the evangelical community will be different in 10 years versus 10 years ago?

Chandler: Golly. Well firstly, just that whole concept of what evangelicalism is is difficult right now. It is such a junk drawer. For some people evangelicalism now is like a political party, divorced from its theological roots.

The irony in that statement is, I believe, Chandler is fostering that. Chandler has fully embraced the social justice narrative which categorizes people into different constituencies or voting blocks. The social justice narrative is by its very nature prejudiced and political. It is neither social nor justice.

Chandler: I think you're going to see what we've already seen probably three or four times in Christian history. There are going to be those that try to reach the world by becoming like the world. And then there are going to be those that try to, by the grace of God, hold fast to orthodox Christian faith in a way that's compassionate and kind, and they're going to have to weather the backlash of all the wrong that's been done in the name of Jesus the last 50 years.

Again, that's ironic. Chandler shows symptoms of becoming like the world in that he's softening on how he refers to homosexuality, saying that conservatives "lost their soul" in the bathroom bill, and believing that the church needs to be more proactive on pop-culture outrage. I don't think Chandler is holding fast to orthodoxy. I believe he's loosened his grip.

Exactly what is "the wrong that's been done in the name of Jesus the last 50 years"? Is it Obama saying, "God bless Planned Parenthood"? Is it authors who claim sodomy is holy? Is it churches that tell people it's okay to be gay? Is it pastors who in the face of cultural pressure lie on national news? Is it teachers who say the church needs to unhitch from the Old Testament?

Since the interview with Chandler ends there and I have no idea what he said after the video concludes, I won't attempt to draw a conclusion to my question, even within the context of his other statements. Like I said, his answers did more to muddy the waters than clarify the issues.

Instead, let's go back again to our lede: Toboni said this was "about how evangelicalism is changing in today's political environment." Toboni's objective was to present how the church is responding to political issues that concern liberal-minded millennials. Chandler didn't respond, "With the gospel." At least, not in the edit we saw. Instead, Chandler gave answers that were more appeasing to left-leaning millennials.

What an opportunity to be able to say, "Here's what the gospel of Jesus Christ is. We're sinners who deserve God's wrath. We're full of evil thoughts, murder, idolatry, sexual immorality, theft, and slander. This whole world is fallen because of our sin. But God sent His Son, Jesus, to die on a cross and shed His perfect blood to save sinners like you and me. All who believe in Him will not perish but will be delivered on the day of judgment, when He removes all evil and ushers in His perfect kingdom. That's the gospel. Here's how that message answers these questions you're asking."

But that's not what we got. Progressives would have watched that interview believing the church is moving to their side. Meanwhile, I came away more concerned that left-leaning politics are changing Matt Chandler, not that Chandler is continuing to preach the gospel in the face of progressive leftism.

Conclusion

Why did I choose not to post this article when I'd first written it? Because when a discussion came up online over some of the more concerning statements Chandler had made, Chandler spoke up on Twitter and said the following:

"I actually called homosexuality a sin no fewer than 15 times in that interview but Vice didn't let me edit the show. Never done much of anything "sheepishly" when it comes to the Word."

That's a perfectly reasonable explanation. So I hesitated posting the article expecting that eventually we would hear from Chandler, either decrying the Vice interview as it was published, or maybe he would clarify or apologize for some of the answers he gave. But unless I missed something, we have yet to hear from him.

I've grown increasingly concerned about Chandler, a brother in the Lord. I'm also concerned about anyone listening to him. Chandler preached the gospel to me when I was in a dark place in my life, but he's gradually moved into some dark territory himself. Perhaps an article like this will reach him and pull him out of the shadows. I pray he is not losing his grip on the truth.

*The paragraph marked with a star was added on October 18 to what I had first written on September 12. Also, the concluding section of the article was added.

This week, a friend of mine e-mailed me the United Methodist Church's "Plan of Salvation." Okay, so they're not calling it that. It's called The One Church Plan (OCP) concerning how the church will save itself from division over the hotly contested issue of homosexuality. They will do this by accepting homosexuality and dividing the church. Really.

The intention is to split into two different denominations -- the Connectional Conference consisting of Methodist churches that approve homosexual clergy and conduct same-sex "marriages"; and the Traditional Conference consisting of churches that still teach what the Bible says about human sexuality. Supposedly this division will save the UMC from division.

The United Methodist denomination has leaned liberal for quite some time. It was over 60 years ago that they accepted the appointment of women into the clergy, contrary to biblical instruction and what the denomination's founder, John Wesley, taught on the subject. Yet when it came to joining the sexual revolution, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the mainline Presbyterians of the PCUSA have all preceded the UMC in appointing gay clergy and conducting gay "marriage." It's surprising really that the UMC has been slow to join.

There are two reasons for this. First, the UMC General Conference is held every four years. There are smaller, more local conferences annually, but the General Conference is where official doctrine and practices are determined for the whole denomination. Any progression on any issue would be extremely slow-moving when the assemblies are four years apart. Second, the General Conference includes every Methodist church from all over the globe, not just the U.S. Methodism is big in Africa, where churches are much more conservative and much more resistant to the gay agenda.

As it stands, the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline reads, "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." This is the part of the church's doctrine liberals want to upend. They know that they're not going to win at the General Conference, which doesn't meet again until 2020 in Minneapolis. So the gay agenda is being pressed in the smaller, more local, more regularly occurring conferences.

The One Church Plan was proposed in May of this year in Chicago. A special session to receive the plan will be held this February in St. Louis. The four day special session will "take up proposals related to church unity and homosexuality." Specifically, they're trying to figure out how they can approve of homosexuality in the church without dividing the church.

The Connectional Conference Plan, which is the part of the plan that means to ordain gay clergy and conduct gay marriages, is two-and-a-half pages. The Traditional Plan, the part that remains opposed to the acceptance of sexually immoral behavior, is two paragraphs. Here's the gist of their plan.

The One Church Plan

The One Church Plan refers to the gospel as a social mission, not the good-news message of salvation for all who believe in Jesus Christ. "The evangelistic mission of the church," it says, is "inviting them to the spiritual life. It's at the margin that we offer our ministries of mercy, service, and justice to relieve suffering, seek peace, and reconcile people. The role of leadership in the church is to direct the attention of the church toward those contexts, and therefore toward the mission."

As an example, the plan refers to the Apostle Paul, who became "all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings" (1 Corinthians 9:22-23, NRSV). They use this passage to make "space" for part of the church to connect with people who identify as LGBTQ, and part of the church to remain "traditional" for those who don't agree with that agenda. That way, they can be "all things to all people."

Here's what becoming "all things to all people" actually means: Paul became as a Jew unto the Jews and a Gentile unto the Gentiles. Even though Jesus fulfilled and nullified the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic law (commands pertaining to diet, cleanliness, the Sabbath, etc.), Paul maintained those practices when he was with the Jews so not to cause anyone to stumble. To the Gentiles, Paul did not keep such practices so they would not feel burdened to keep them. All of this was for "the sake of the gospel," to open a door to preach Christ and Him crucified.

In no way does "I became all things to all people" mean we must tolerate and encourage sinful behavior that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. Just three chapters earlier, Paul said, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

How does the OCP deal with language like this? Well, they don't. The UMC is going to push forward with this agenda regardless of what's in the Bible or their own Book of Discipline. They state:

"The One Church Plan is built on the belief that it is possible to live with more space while we focus on our common mission. The One Church Plan has no impact on conferences outside the U.S. that are located in countries where same-sex marriage is illegal or whose members desire for the current language of The Book of Discipline to remain applicable in their context."

Consider what's being said here: the UMC is driven by culture, not the Bible, nor their own statement of faith. The reason why other churches in other areas are not on board with LGBTQ inclusion is because their cultures are different than ours.

Hilariously, the document goes on to say that "our current impasse over marriage and ordination of homosexual persons does not rise to the level of a church dividing issue." Clearly it does -- for the purpose of the OCP is actually to divide to church into contradicting factions, and this is solely on the issue of homosexuality.

By accepting of the practices of "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) persons," the document states, the framers of the OCP believe the church will be able to continue its mission to alleviate suffering. How do LGBTQ persons suffer? "Currently they suffer as they are unable to live into God's calling on their lives to ordination or lay leadership."

No, God's calling on their lives is to repent of their sin. If they don't repent, the suffering they will face at the judgment seat of Christ will be far, far worse than whatever self-inflicted angst is currently causing them to gnash their teeth. What the United Methodist Church is doing is not a mission of love. It's a death-sentence. It's encouraging sin God has promised He will judge.

The Connectional Conference Plan

So now we get to the two factions of The One Church Plan -- the Connectional Conference and the Traditional Conference. But again, this is to maintain unity and not divide the church (tongue firmly implanted in cheek).

The Connectional Conference Plan begins by arguing that John Wesley would be in favor of ordaining gay clergy and marrying men to other men. Yes, I'm not kidding. To the best of my knowledge, Wesley never dealt directly with the issue of homosexuality. Nonetheless, he affirmed the primacy of Scriptural authority, followed by a secondary but lesser authority of tradition, reason, and experience.

Wesley's convictions have been expressly rejected by the framers of the OCP. Again, by their own admission, appeasing the culture is the driving force here. Throughout the document, Bible references are piece-mealed out of context to argue for the acceptance of the LGTBQ agenda. Likewise, fragmented quotes from Wesley's sermons, all having to do with "love," are given to present a false image of an otherwise God-fearing man who would not have tolerated such sin in his church.

Yet the framers of the OCP recognize that "Faithful Christians have come to different and contradictory understandings of God's will in relationship to the affirmation of sexual relationships between people of the same-gender." They go on to say, "The challenge before us is how to structure the United Methodist Church so that it embodies and spreads [what Wesley called] 'the fire of heavenly love over all the earth' given this diversity and contradiction in conviction and context." See, contradictions don't mean someone's right and someone's wrong. It's a diversity of ideas!

What follows is a series of Scriptural abuses, taking more verses out of context to justify the ordination of gay clergy and acceptance of gay "marriage." In attempting to justify themselves, they actually condemn themselves.

• "So then, if anyone is in Christ, that person is part of the new creation. The old things have gone away, and look, new things have arrived!" 2 Corinthians 5:17
• "Look! I'm doing a new thing; now it sprouts up; don't you recognize it?" Isaiah 43:19

The OCP framers think this means, "Hurray! We're celebrating a new thing now! Gay marriage!" But these passages mean that if you truly follow Jesus, you will stop behaving in your old, sinful ways and walk in the new life God has given you. Paul told the church that you are to "put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Ephesians 4:22-24).

Here's another passage taken out of context in the OCP:

• "No one sews a piece of new, unshrunk cloth on old clothes because the patch tears away the cloth and makes a worse tear. No one pours new wine into old wineskins. If they did, the wineskin would burst, the wine would spill, and the wineskins would be ruined. Instead, people pour new wine into new wineskins so that both are kept safe." Matthew 9:16-17

The OCP framers explain, "New structures and relationships are needed for a new time in our Church. Keeping the old structures in place could result in a fracturing of our church." You mean like fracturing it into the Connectional and Traditional conferences?

In Matthew 9:16-17, Jesus was responding to John the Baptist's disciples who asked Him, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?" Jesus was saying that He didn't come to patch up the old religious practices that the Pharisees had torn up with their legalism. Instead, He came to bring real growth in the kingdom of God and His righteousness, which was like pouring new wine into new wineskins.

The framers of the OCP are worse than the Pharisees. They're not merely tearing up tradition. They're leaving Christianity altogether and behaving as the heathens and pagans. Again, encouraging homosexuality will send a person to hell, not bring them into the kingdom. Romans 1:32 says, "Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them."

Another passage the framers of the OCP take out of context is this fragment:

• "I am the vine, you are the branches." John 15:5

The framers acknowledge Jesus is the vine, but the branches are the Connectional conference and the Traditional conference. Oh, brother. When you read the fuller context of this passage, it's rather alarming: "I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned" (John 15:5-6).

In verse 10, Jesus said, "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in His love." Among His commandments, God said that a man shall not lie with another man as one lays with a woman, for it is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22).

Here's another passage:

• "Christ is just like the human body -- a body is a unit and has many parts; and all the parts of the body are one body, even though there are many... You are the body of Christ and parts of each other." (1 Corinthians 12:12, 27)

The framers of the OCP state that "we are gifted differently" and their plan "creates space for those different gifts to be expressed in ways that honor conscience, while still maintaining connection to the body." Are they really arguing that homosexuality is a gift?

The Apostle Paul warned against false teaching, "for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness, and their talk will spread like gangrene" (2 Timothy 2:16;17). The picture here is that false teaching causes parts of the body to rot and fall off. That's what the framers of the OCP are encouraging -- not love of God, but love of the world.

Oh, but the framers believe that ordaining gay clergy will increase the reach of their church body to the world:

• "Then He said to His disciples, 'The size of the harvest is bigger than you can imagine, but there are few workers. Therefore, plead with the Lord of the harvest to send out workers for His harvest.'" (Matthew 9:37-38)

The implication here is that if we tell gay clergy that they're unqualified, there won't be enough workers for the mission field. Yet by ordaining gay clergy, the United Methodist Church is recruiting wolves to devour the flock of God. Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits... Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 7:15-16, 19).

"In conclusion," the framers state, "The Connectional Conference Plan attempts to find a way of structuring the life of The United Methodist Church so that it can embody the divine love in the midst of our diversity and disagreement."

Embracing and encouraging homosexuality, they say, is divine love. Blasphemy. Malachi 2:17 says, "You have wearied the Lord with your words. But you say, 'How have we wearied Him?' By saying, 'Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them.'"

The Traditional Plan

While The Connectional Conference Plan was full of Scriptural references and quotes from founder John Wesley, the Traditional Plan doesn't contain any of that. It's relegated to Appendix 3 of The One Church Plan and is exactly six sentences long, a total of 142 words. The closing sentence is this: "We should see the formation of a new Wesleyan denomination as an opportunity for a different type of unity created for the sake of mission." In other words: we must divide to stay united.

In Conclusion

As I mentioned earlier, the next General Conference of the United Methodist Church will be held in Minneapolis in 2020. The location of the conference is the Minneapolis Convention Center. In 2009, in exactly that same building, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America changed their policy to accept persons who practice homosexuality into the clergy. (At the same time they were considering such a move, a tornado hit the convention center -- in Minnesota!)

It seems history is repeating itself. Who didn't think the United Methodist Church was going to follow the ELCA and the PCUSA into the LGBTQ agenda? It was a less a question of "will they" and more a question of "when will they." Sin always divides. Prior to coming to Christ, we were "hated by others and hating one another" (Titus 3:3). The decision to divide the denomination and call it unity is a farce. They need repentance. Then there will be unity.

Jesus said to the church in Ephesus, "Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lamp stand from its place, unless you repent. He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God" (Revelation 2:5).

For those persons who do not repent, which will include liars, the idolatrous, and the sexually immoral, "Their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).

Hot on the release of the mediocre film The Shack (18% approval rating by critics on Rotten Tomatoes, 6.8 viewer rating on IMDb), the book's author William Paul Young has released Lies We Believe About God. It came out March 7, less than a week after The Shack hit theaters.

If there was any question about Young's theology, this book leaves no doubt. Personally, I had no questions about what Young believes about God -- it's all in The Shack. But this hasn't stopped scores of people from defending the book/movie as "just a story." For example, rapper Lecrae, featured on the film's soundtrack, defended it as just fiction and not theology, as though fiction gets a pass when it comes to the scrutiny God commands we are to give everything (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Aside from the fact that any talk about God is theology, Young has outright said The Shack is theology. In the forward to C. Baxter Kruger's book The Shack Revisited, Young wrote, "Please don't misunderstand me; The Shack is theology. But it is theology wrapped in story, the word becoming flesh and living inside the blood and bones of common human experience." (This is the quote given in the WWUTT video on The Shack vs The Bible.)

Kruger returned the favor by writing the forward to Young's book Lies We Believe About God. And it's a really weird forward. It's almost as if Kruger is saying, "I know the stuff you're going to read in this book is kind of wonky, but I can verify that William Paul Young is still a Christian!" In actuality, Young in his own words exposes himself as a heretic. Again, we shouldn't be surprised. He already did this in The Shack.

All of Young's chapters in the book are "lies we believe about God." There are 28 of them, chock full of man-centered doctrine. It's not kind-of man-centered. It's all man-centered. Here are ten of the titles of these chapters and the theology they contain. Again, the titles are all "lies" Young says most people believe about God.

"God is good, I am not." 
And again, I must emphasize Young believes this is a lie. He goes as far as saying that there are pastors who are allowed to stand in their pulpits and preach this lie that people are not good. Young has a tenuous relationship with the Bible. Sometimes entire chapters of his don't contain a single verse. So we don't know how Young deals with passages like Romans 3:12 which says, "No one does good," or verse 23 which says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Young repeats the liberal theological trope that everything God makes is good, and since I'm made in the image of God, I am good. But he misses the reality of original sin: since Adam, we have taken that image and desecrated it with our sin, exalting ourselves in the place of God, and for that we deserve His holy and divine wrath. Jesus, the only good man there ever was, satisfied the wrath of God with His sacrifice on the cross. All who believe in Jesus will live. That gospel message does not exist in Young's theology.

"God is in control." 
Yes, Young actually believes that God is not in control. He says, "God has the creative audacity to build purpose out of the evil we generate, but that will never justify what is wrong. Nothing, not even the salvation of the entire cosmos, could ever justify a horrific torture device called a 'cross.'" Does Young just not know that the Bible addresses this very thing? Peter preached at Pentecost, "This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men" (Acts 2:23). God foreordains, but this in no way absolves men from the guilt of his evil acts. What we mean for evil, God always means for good (Genesis 50:20). We are responsible to turn from sin and to Christ for forgiveness.

"God does not submit."
Young comes back over and over to the fact that we are created in the image of God and proceeds to draw false conclusions: Since I'm made in God's image, whatever I'm like, God must be like that. Since I have to submit, then God also has to submit. Young also believes the Father submits to the Son. He does not. Young goes as far as saying God even has to abide by the golden rule: He treats us the way He wants us to treat Him. But Jesus serving us (Matthew 20:28) is not the same thing as submission. To submit means to yield to authority. We have no authority over God. Absolutely zero. The only person Jesus submitted to was His Father in heaven. He submitted to God and served us as the ultimate example of what it means to love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. This fulfills the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17, 7:12).

"God is more he than she."
Young tells a very remarkable story about how his mother saved an infant child who then grew up to become an Anglican priest who tells Young's mother that Young was right to make God in The Shack into a large black woman named Papa. Ugh. He took a true, very heart-felt and inspirational story, and turned it into something self-centered and pretentious. Young says God possesses feminine qualities (nurse, mother, etc.); therefore, He can be a woman, too. Again, it's all man-centered and feelings-based, not biblical. God created man to be the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The husband is to be a picture of Christ laying His life down for the church, the wife is a picture of the church submitting to Christ, and the head of Christ is God our Father (1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:22-33). For all Young's talk about "submission," the one thing he doesn't seem to want to submit to is the Bible.

"You need to get saved."
Young says, "God does not wait for my choice and then 'save me.' God has acted decisively and universally for all humankind. Now our daily choice is to either grow and participate in that reality or continue to live in the blindness of our own independence. Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation? That is exactly what I am saying!" He goes on: "Every person who has ever been conceived was included in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. When Jesus was lifted up, God 'dragged' all human beings to Himself." He references John 12:32 which says, "And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all people to myself." It's the favorite verse of all universalists, and it's totally out of context. Previously in John 3:36, we read, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

"Hell is separation from God."
Since Young has already revealed himself as a universalist, surely you know he doesn't believe anyone goes to hell. In fact, he quotes Romans 8:38-39 which says nothing will be able to separate us from the love of God. Therefore, hell cannot be a place where we are separated from God. Rather, Young says, hell is God. It is "the continuous and confrontational presence of fiery Love and Goodness and Freedom that intends to destroy every vestige of evil and darkness that prevents us from being fully free and fully alive." But Jesus said those who do not believe in Him and do the will of His Father in heaven will go away into eternal punishment at the final judgment (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 21:8). Hell is a real place that real people will be cast into unless they in this life repent of sin and follow Jesus Christ. The Bible could not be more clear.

"The Cross was God's idea."
Young says God didn't come up with the cross -- we did. Again, the Bible addresses this point. See above. The Bible foretold that Christ would be crucified centuries before crucifixion was even invented (Psalm 22:16). This is not because God looked down the tunnel of time and learned something about the future, as though God needed to learn anything. That is a pagan myth rooted in fortune-telling and soothsaying. God knows the future because He foreordained it.

"Not everyone is a child of God."
This again is something presented in The Shack, that everyone is God's child. Logically, if everyone is made in the image of God, and everyone is good, and everyone is going to go to heaven, then of course according to Young, everyone is a child of God. He takes out of context a passage from Ephesians 4 to back up his point. But he missed the one in Ephesians 2 that says before we come to Christ, we are children of the devil subject to the wrath of God (see also John 8:44). God adopts us into His family through Jesus Christ, and we become the adopted sons and daughters of God (Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:15, Galatians 4:4-7, 1 John 3:1). Indeed, not everyone is a child of God. Only those who are followers of Jesus are children of God.

"Sin separates us from God."
Again, we're created in the image of God, and God doesn't create anything bad. Sin, according to Young, "is anything that negates or diminishes or misrepresents the truth of who you are, no matter how pretty or ugly that is." He then goes into a bunch of Osteenian affirmations of who the Bible says you are: "You are trustworthy! You have integrity! You are loving!" No, you're not. The Bible says very specifically what sin is: "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). It is willful, open rebellion against the High King of the universe. Everyone has done it (Romans 3:23) and everyone deserves death for it (Romans 6:23). But the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord for all who believe. Those who are in Christ will turn from a life of sin and pursue the righteousness of God.

EDIT: Someone asked me if in the book Young said Jesus was guilty of sin. Not exactly. Young postulates that Jesus made mistakes, like He misspelled a word or hammered a nail in the wrong place. His definition of sin is actually too soft for him to say that Jesus sinned. He basically says you are capable of living the human experience perfectly like Jesus did. Sin is when we think less of ourselves than we really are. It's still heresy because it's works-righteousness and if we say we don't sin His word is not in us (1 John 1:10). But Young doesn't commit the added error of accusing Jesus of sinning against God.

"God is One alone."
Young says that the God who "needs to be appeased, and failure is met by wrath and judgment" is a false one. Unfortunately for Young, that's the God of the Bible, only it's not the whole picture. He is indeed a God of wrath and judgment, but He is also a God of love and mercy. Young says those two things cannot co-exist. God says that they do (Exodus 34:6-7). He displays the full spectrum of His glory by saving for Himself the objects of His mercy, and pouring out judgment on vessels of wrath prepared for destruction (Romans 9:22-23). God is eternally gracious toward those whom He has saved and adopted as His children. He is eternally wrathful toward those who have rebelled against Him and rejected His Son. Repent of your sin and believe in Jesus Christ as Savior, and be saved from the coming judgment.

Conclusion
Young closes his book by presenting a quote from the god of The Shack, and says that's the god he believes in. Quite literally, he says the god he believes in is the god he invented in his own story. The Shack is a story, and it is a lie from the heart of a liar. With this new book, Young set out to "expose" lies we believe about God. Instead, he presented a lot of lies he believes about God.