DOUBLE DECKER HYPOCRISY

I was riding "The Deuce" That's what they call the double decker bus that takes one down "The Strip" in Las Vegas. I wasn't there for pleasure. I was in LV because I was taking training to work on steam and gas turbines in power generation plants across the country and LV is where the school is. However, while there I did a lot of Bible reading and in order to hold myself accountable in such a place, I flashed my Bible a lot. That way everyone knew I was a Christian.

That would keep me from messing up and possibly lead to some evangelistic opportunities. Both branches of my strategy worked and while on my way back from buying a Bible for a fellow trainee, I met Frank. He was passing out tracts on The Strip. Frank's real! After a brief conversation he agreed to allow me to witness with him and a number of his friends the next night on Fremont Street.

All of that was for this story:

On my way to Fremont Street and Frank and company, I was on The Deuce. And that's where I met the face of what's wrong with Evangelicalism. As usual, I had my Bible on the seat beside me. Behind me were two couples. One was young. The others were parents-in-law. Well, the young husband pointed to my Bible and asked if I attended a church locally in LV. "No, I don't live here." I told them I was in LV for training, not pleasure. He told me that he lead the youth group in his church and he was quite Evangelical as if that was really going to get brownie points. Just why he wanted to impress a middle aged bald guy with more wrinkles than that twenty you found in your 12-year-old couch I don't know, but religion functions quite well for such things, I'm told.

Here's where things get interesting. Whether or not you know this, Vegas is a chamber pot--Sodom for heterosexuals, as well as a huge gambling den. Going on The Strip will expose you to actual full-length, billboard-sized pictures of naked women. It's nothing to which a Christian man ought expose himself unless he is prayed up and has a really good reason to do so.

In just such a sewer this young youth pastor had purposely brought him, his wife, and his mother! Just what he and his father were thinking I don't know. As the conversation went, I told him I was going down to Fremont Street to hand out gospel tracts and evangelize. Here is roughly how the conversation went at that point:

Me: I'm going to meet some friends and pass out gospel tracts and evangelize down on Fremont Street.

Pastorboy: (Enthusiastically) Oh, you mean down there where all the dancers (read strippers here) are?

Me (thinking): Now how did he know just where to find strippers in a strange town? And why did he use the euphemistic "dancers" instead of calling them what they are--after all, Fred Astaire was a dancer.

Me (speaking): I don't know. I'm not from here. You're here on vacation?

Pastorboy: Yes.

Me (looking at his pretty young wife and his mother and reeling with the incongruity and blurting it out like a gag reflex): I would NEVER bring my family here!

My words trailed off as I realized I had just accused Pastorboy of the sin he was engaged in right in front of his own parents as well as what had to be his very young bride. That was the end of that conversation.

Meanwhile, a lost man sat next to me, immediately telling me the story of why he was running from the law and how many women in LV he had been with and their names as if I'd asked. I waited for an opening (you know--when he stopped to take a breath) and started to tell him about God's coming judgment.

Well, Pastorboy's stop was before mine. "Keep up the good work," he said as if in pain.

Yeah. He was still pretending we were on the same team or something.

Amazed,
Phil Perkins.

THE ALARM

This morning two alarms went off.
The buzzer went,
My back was stiff.
I had to cough.

It's time to rise, to start my day.
I love my work,
But soon I'll die.
The end of day.

My clock marks the daily morning.
God's names my end.
Mine's for a start,
His forewarning.

Today I'll work, with God I'll walk.
Tick tock, tick tock.
Tick tock, tick tock.
Tick tock, tick tock.

It is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgment.

UNBELIEVERS THE NEW CHRISTIANS!!!

Yes, that's right. The new thing out now is that you don't have to believe the Bible to be a believer. I know that sounds stupid, but I have been assured by several people with very straight faces it isn't. Instead, it's just very "nuanced" as many say.

Funny. When folk like that say "nuanced" these days they say it as if the rest of us may not be smart enough to know what that means. So, I'll take a moment to straighten out you backward people who sit around reading just your Bibles all the time, because heaven knows you have to do a lot more than that just read your Bible in order to keep up with all the theological innovations made by the sort of folk who say things like "nuanced," "metanarrative," "missional," and stuff like that. So here's what "nuanced" means: It means I am trying to fit an old heresy that the church rejected hundreds of years ago in by calling it something else really new and different-sounding. The point of the "nuanced" thing is to make an old, rejected idea sound like something novel that only the "nuanced" person and his friends could think of and that no one else in two thousand years of Church theology, thought, Scripture-searching, and scholarship could ever have thought of. EVER.

Several times in the last year I have had discussions with folks I otherwise would have thought to be real Christians. These quazi-Christians have introduced me to a new doctrine. The doctrine simply states that one doesn't have to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture to be a Christian.

Now, that sounds much more nuanced than the way I first stated it in my opening paragraph. You don't have to believe in inerrancy to be a Christian. So one can believe in Christ, but doubt the factuality of the Bible He seemed to love and trust.

This is a very stupid thing to say and here's why: Jesus taught and acted as though the Scripture was a reliable guide to truth. He told His Father that His Word was truth. This presents the unbelieving believers with a logical problem. Specifically, they must make a case that those who believe in Christ don't have to believe Christ. Or, to put it another way, one may believe that Christ is the God of All Truth while believing this God of All Truth was either mistaken or lying when He said and acted as if the Bible is completely true.

This case cannot be made to anyone who is not on pot or a rock-ribbed Evangellyfish.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

READ THIS POEM

I read this poem for the first, when visiting this blog for the first time. It is by Steve Turner, a British journalist. Here is the poem:

CREED

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don’t hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that sodomy’s OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes,
UFO’s and bent spoons;
Jesus was a good man like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same –
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation,
sin, heaven, hell, God and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it’s
compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps
Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and
bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It’s only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will re-adjust.
History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth
except the truth
that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

EIGHT CHARACTERISTICS OF HELL FROM REVELATION 14--Part I

"THEREFORE WAIT FOR ME," DECLARES YAHWEH,
"FOR THE DAY WHEN I RISE UP TO SEIZE THE PREY.
FOR MY DECISION IS TO GATHER NATIONS,
TO ASSEMBLE KINGDOMS,
TO POUR OUT UPON THEM MY INDIGNATION,
ALL MY BURNING ANGER;
FOR IN THE FIRE OF MY JEALOUSY
ALL THE EARTH SHALL BE CONSUMED."
Zephaniah the prophet, chapter three, verse eight.

This study of hell is based on the words of John written in Revelation 14. The focus will be on verses 9-11, which says, "9And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, 'If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.'


I. Hell is one of God's great passions.
Hell is the result of God's passionate anger toward us. He desires to punish all sin and all sinful people.

God hates all who do iniquity.--Psalm 5:5. As a result, He is bent on punishing men. See verses 8, 10, and 19 in Revelation 14. The Greek word thumos is used for the passion of sexual immorality in verse 8. Add the prefix epi and the word becomes the common Greek word for lust. So thumos is definitely a word that denotes a deep, gripping desire. Next look to verse 10. There we read in the ESV, "...he will drink of the wine of God's wrath (thumos) poured full strength into the cup of His anger..." In verse 19 we read, "So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath (thumos) of God." Oddly, the common Greek word for God's anger is used here only at the very end and the first word for God's anger is thumos. Why not use the more straightforward word? Why use this very unusual word, that usually means passion or desire?

When God uses this word this way in Scripture it refers to only the most severe anger, a passionate, deep anger that lasts and burns. It appears in 12:12 to describe the passionate longing of Satan to destroy the earth. It appears in 14:8 to describe the lust of sexual immorality. In 14:10. 15:1. 15:7, and 16:1 it signifies God's wrath. This word also appears in some of Paul's writings and refers to the most severe wrath of either God or men.

Let's take a look at these passages translating thumos in its primary meaning:

14:10--...he will also drink the wine of God's passionate longing poured full strength into the cup of His anger..."

15:1--Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the passionate longing of God is finished. (So, evidently God is waiting in passionate expectation to punish all sin on the earth. He looks forward to the day when He will send all the wicked into destruction.)

15:7--And one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the passionate longing of God Who lives forever and ever...

16:1--Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, "Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the passionate longing of God."

As longingly and as passionately as the immoral man desires the fulfillment of his depraved lusts, God desires to squeeze the lifeblood out of the wicked. This is personal. God is no unfeeling sheriff's deputy that has to give you a ticket because it's His job and you were speeding. You have hated him and He has hated you. His passionate longing is for your punishment.

II. Hell is punishment.
Interestingly, the announcement of the third angel in verse 9 starts with the word "if." "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives the mark upon his forehead and upon his hand,..." If a man is evil in his thoughts and actions, he will be punished with the punishments listed. Verse 10 reads, "...indeed, he will drink out of the passionate wrath of God, which has been poured out unmixed in the cup of His wrath and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."--my translation.

God is not evil. We are. The torments are not a whim. They have a purpose.

In other words, the evils that God will inflict on humanity on that day will be in response to the evils men have done in thought (the forehead) and in deed (the hand.) Indeed, the Bible tells us that all are sinful. In Jeremiah 8:6 we read, "I have paid attention and listened, but they have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle." Why does a horse rush to its own death in war? Because he has a master who has trained him to do so. And he does so without thought or regret because he knows no other course. He has been mastered. Even so man has been mastered by sin. We know of nothing but our basest instincts, lusts, passions, and drives. We will eat and wipe our mouth on our filthy sleeve. We will take a virgin and think nothing of the bastard child or the wasting disease. We will kill our neighbor with knife, gun, or tongue because we just want to. We are men and we are vile.

Just as the war horse drives into a phalanx unaware that this will be his last day to run, even so men without God do not have a thought of their impending destruction. Like the horse who ignores his impending death to obey his master, men stuff down any quivering of conscience and the briefest thought that God's avenging retribution may fit their actions so they may obey the sins that have mastered them. God is not mocked. He is ignored like a man ignores the stench of an open sewer.

But He is hated more.

III. Hell is public. The Display of the Damned.
It is often said, that hell is the absence of God for all eternity. That's a lie. In hell men will wish to get away from the God Who is torturing them. But they won't be able to. Instead, those in hell will see the redeemed in glory, cared for by their loving Father Who is, in turn, their fierce and eternal enemy punishing them forever. Hell is the absence of God's love, the ever presence of His passionate, destructive, white hot, long awaited, satisfying wrath.

Part of hell's punishment will be public humiliation in front of all the angels, God, and all the people who go to heaven. And all of them will give hearty approval of your punishment. Isaiah 66:24 and Romans 9 tell us something of this as does the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16:19-31. There we read this:

There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." 25But Abraham said, "Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us." 27And he said, "Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28for I have five brothers —so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment." 29But Abraham said, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them." 30And he said, "No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent." 31He said to him, "If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."

While the rich man was in torment in Hades, the saints saw him and he saw them. In heaven, the saints, the holy angels and God Himself will see the torment of the wicked. And while there will be a chasm between them, the very nature of the torment and the individuals being tormented will be evident daily to the residents of heaven. In Revelation 14:11 God says, "And the smoke of their torment will go up forever and ever..." (my translation) Smoke is something no one can ignore. Everyone smells it. This was written to a culture familiar with campfires and fireplaces. The smell of smoke was everywhere. The smell of burning flesh was common to a society who sacrificed animals. It was also death that expunged sin to the Jews. Now we know that only the death of the sinner can cover sin and cleanse God's creation. At Calvary, Jesus became sin for us. For those who reject Him, their sin remains. Their eternal death, not the death of Christ, will be required. And all in heaven will be eternally aware of you, your torment, and exactly why it's just that you suffer--if you remain without Christ.

Going back to Revelation 14:10, we read, "Indeed, he will drink of the wine of the passionate wrath of God, which has been poured out full strength in the cup of God's wrath and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb."

The most bitter irony of all eternity will be the fact that those who despised the God Who died for them, the God Who suffered so they did not have to, will find Himself satisfied only by the suffering they will do for eternity. The utter stupidity of their choice will be in their face forever. The saints they hated will look upon their suffering and know that God is just. The angels who ministered to the saints as they suffered will wonder at the justice of God toward the sinful, and His mercy for the repentant. They may look at the just punishment of the wicked, and then turn their heads to look over their shoulders and be amazed that God's elect are not in the flames as well, because they will know that the saints were once as evil as any resident of hell. Thus, they will not understand the kindness and justice of the amazing I AM. And the saints will share their incredulity. All heaven will have no choice but to fall to the ground in awe-filled worship!

It is not amazing that God sends men to hell. It is amazing that He chooses even one for mercy.

Isaiah 66:24 says, "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against Me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh." This is a description of the final state of the damned. They will be a curiosity to the saints. The writer describes three things that will fascinate the survivors. First, "their worm shall not die." Whatever that means, it denotes the destruction of the damned in some form. The destruction will never quit. Second, "their fire shall not be quenched." Like the rich man and Lazarus, the suffering man will make a pitiful figure, but, just as Lazarus was unable to help the rich man, no saint will be able to help any sinner in hell. Yet the saint will be unable to forget the sinner. His suffering and the fact the it will be forever, will eternally grab the curiosity of the saint--an eternal reminder, perhaps, that the saint ought to be ever grateful to His Elector. The third reason the saints will not be able to forget the sinners is that "they will be an abhorrence to all flesh." Whatever pity the saint may feel for the sinner will be overshadowed by revulsion at the utter sinfulness of the damned.

We, in our societies, know of people so evil they disgust us. In eternity, when the redeemed are completely changed, the friends and relatives we once loved, not being changed, but still in their sin will disgust us so that we will have no problem when God condemns them. Instead, the saints will be glad. To the suffering sinner who once ostracized the saint, the tables will be turned. He will be the outcast. Cast out from heaven, from life, and from any comfort. He will be a laughing stock and something which will cause all of creation to turn up its nose.

Romans 9 gives us another snapshot of the public nature and the humiliation of the suffering of those in hell. Verses 19 through 26 are both glorious for the saint and a fire alarm for the sinner:

"19You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist His will?' 20But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom He has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25As indeed he says in Hosea,

'Those who were not my people I will call "my people,"
and her who was not beloved I will call '"beloved."'
26 'And in the very place where it was said to them, "You are not my people,"
there they will be called(AM) "sons of the living God."'"

Did you catch verse 22? "What if God, desiring to show His wrath and to make known His power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
in order to make know the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy which He has prepared beforehand for glory..." God not only has the right to save whomever He wishes, and to destroy whomever He wishes just because He is our Creator, but He has done just that. And He has done so for a reason. That reason is to golrify Himself. This will be evident in eternity as all creation wonders at the just punishment of the wicked as it shows just how powerful God must be to clean the formerly wicked saints.

It is this very contrast between the wickedness of man justly punished and the mercy He bestows upon the chosen whom He saved for no other reason but to show off His power to creation that will be the greatest wonder of creation! So here we see punishment has two functions. First, it is to punish the wicked. But second, it is to glorify God by showing His most powerful miracle--the forgiveness of the repentant. As with all of God's creation, its primary purpose is the glory of God.

Yes, the wicked will glorify the God they hate by being tormented by Him forever.

IV. Hell is permanent.


V. Hell is painful.

VI. Hell is personal.
God hates men for three reasons. The way we think, the way we act, and the kind of persons we are.

VII. Hell is certain.
First class condition in verses 9 and 10. Ez. 16:20, 41-43.

VIII. Hell is appropriate

XI. Hell is barely avoidable.

BAD DOG! BAD, BAD DOG!

How depraved are we to love men more than we love God?

Dog Chapman, accomplished enforcer of the law and all around good guy, has been exposed as not being so good. He hates folks with African blood in their veins and it comes out his mouth in the form insults, denigrations, and epithets.

Bad Dog!

However, men hate God and the evidence of that hatred comes out their mouths, just like Dog. Just as we wish to make sure innocent folks are not maligned, do we dare suppose God will not avenge His name used in vain?

Just thinking,
Phil Perkins.

ABORTING SOUTHERN BAPTISTS

Two potential Southern Baptists were killed by their own mother. The mother's name is "Kayla." The story was on Fox News last night. Kayla is a pretty 17 year old high school girl. The vivacious blonde who usually shows a vibrant smile was shown weeping on an abortionist's table. Her mother (the grandmother of the child who had just been or was about to be murdered by the attending "physician") was at her side. Kayla had to tell an attendant that this was her second abortion. Kayla's mom was not aware of a prior abortion Kayla had so this was news to her. Pain registered on the grandmother's face as she learned that her first grandchild had existed and was murdered by her daughter.

The scene changed. The two women, Kayla and the grandmother, were in a cafeteria. Kayla expressed concern that in a Southern Baptist church a teen girl with a child might be looked down upon. Rather than face disapproval for fornication (WAH!), it was better to kill the kids, she reasoned, though not in such straightforward language. After all, straightforward honesty is not called for when excusing murder. But not to worry--the matriarch comforted Kayla. She said that even though the kids in the church would not accept her, Jesus would.

How is it that an older women, and a long time Evangelical, could lie so? Has she not read, "God hates all who do iniquity"? Or "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." Or "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Evidently, Grandma doesn't know these things. Jesus will NOT accept Kayla. Who will tell Kayla the certain truth that she is headed for hell unless she repents? Certainly not her own Evangelical mother. Kayla is both a murderer and a fornicator. And such will go to hell or the Bible is not true.

The news article ends with confirmation of this sad fact. Kayla's face is zoomed in on as she makes a vow to do "everything I can" not to get pregnant until she is "ready." This is confirmation of her unregenerated soul and her sure destiny in hell because there is no repentance. Repentance would cause her to vow never to fornicate again. Staying unpregnant is not something a single woman has to try to do if she obeys God's demands for purity.

Pull your pants up and get on your knees, Kayla. It's time to repent.

Who would like to bet that when their pastor finds out about this neither one is disciplined by the church?

Hoping I'm wrong,
Phil Perkins.

"GOD" ISN'T CUSSING ANYMORE

This weekend I saw a clip of a drag racer who had a hard time expressing himself in an interview immediately after he won a race by a small margin. He had deftly avoided an accident caused by a malfunction of his car. He said this:

"G__! I can't even talk. You guys won't let me cuss!"

Evidently, the network had given him the word that profanity would not be tolerated on their broadcasts. However, it seems using God's name in vain is just fine.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Worship WHAT?

The Heights Family Worship Center. That's the name on a nice new building about two blocks from where my wife, Diana, and I live. We weren't aware of it since we seldom come into or go out of the neighborhood from that direction. We saw it last night because there was a fire across the valley and, well......we wanted to gawk.

The name immediately struck me as having three characteristics. First, it's man-centered, not God-centered. God doesn't rate a mention. Second, it's something an Evangelical church would do--soft-pedal God and the truth. Third, it's cowardly. That's why Evangelicals like it. We want to be accepted be everyone. It seems to say, "We're friendly, not holy. So you'll be at home here. Godliness, no longer required." That's all I have to know about that church. They're focused on themselves. They won't stand persecution, even if it's just a disapproving frown. They are concerned that everyone love them.

Well.......everyone but God.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

BIG COMEDOWN FOR GOD

Driving through Kansas City, MO recently I saw a sign that really got my attention. It said, "Such and Such Church, Where Christ Is Lord!" My, my, my. All this time I thought (and so did God, evidently, since He said as much in the Bible) Christ was in charge of all things everywhere at all times.

Not so. He's only in charge (lord) at that particular church. Well, perhaps He's Lord at a few others that have made Him the Big Cheese at their place as well. I'm sure God's ecstatic about all this and hopes He gets elected to a second term.

In awe,
Phil Perkins.

THE DORK AT THE DOOR--Part I of IV.

Boy, did I get in trouble when I wore that tee-shirt to church. I had a tee-shirt with a picture of Sallman's "Christ at the Door" painting (as seen here to the right) on the front. Under the picture the shirt read, "This is a lie."

I recently got into a bit of a discussion with a man who put a picture up at his website. It is a picture of a "Jesus" statue looking down and it has been altered to make it look like its head is bleeding. Well, okay, it wasn't a discussion. He was hopping mad. I was, and am still, sick with severe bronchitis, so I got hopping mad that he was hopping mad at me for just trying to inform him of something in Scripture he was ignoring. (Of course, it may not have helped that I asked him who was the statue on his website with the red paint coming out of its hair.)

I told him about the entire Second Commandment and he gave me the lamest set of excuses a sentient mind could possibly fabricate for disobeying God ever heard on the planet. However, those excuses are typical of those who wish to make up faces and hair styles, put them together in a picture, and lie to kids by telling them that what they have just made up out of whole cloth is "Jesus." It's a lie.

BUT, getting back to my banned-from-church tee-shirt...that tee-shirt was inexcusable, actually. The picture isn't a lie. It's an entire universe of lies.

Stay tuned as we mentally explore some of the myths about "Jesus" pictures and some of the myths these phonied-up deities perpetrate on the naive. Meanwhile, get out Exodus 20:4-6. There you will read the Second Commandment. It does NOT say, "Thou shall not make any graven images." If you think so, you may have been lied to in Sunday School. I was.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Quote Of The Week 04-21-07

Night and day are all one to a blind man, truth and error are all one to an ignorant man. --Charles Spurgeon in response to those that say doctrine is a small matter.

Dri-Yup, Shweet Hot!

What's all the fuss about? So some thirty folks were killed at Virginia Tech yesterday by a mad man. So what? Another 4,000 Americans died yesterday at the hands of death care professionals. Some were torn into pieces while still alive and without any medication for the pain. Others had their skin burned off chemically without anesthetic. Others were suffocated. Others were thrown into trash bins to die slowly from exposure and/or hampered breathing. And none will receive a proper funeral. Instead, many of these folks will have their cadavers raided without their knowledge or permission, for spare parts sold by the murderers to who knows--maybe you. They were aborted so their American parents can have sex whenever and with whomever they want.

So, you'll excuse me if I don't bawl my eyes out for Virginia Tech.

Dry-eyed,
Phil Perkins.

The Truth About The Virginia Tech "Massacre"

I find it really interesting to hear the folks speculate about just why Cho Seung-hui killed all those people at Virginia Tech. On the right we hear that if someone in those class rooms had just had a conceal-and-carry permit for a grenade launcher, then that student or professor could simply have set up the launcher, put the criminal in the cross hairs, pulled the trigger, and yelled "Incoming!!!" That would have been that.

From the left, however, come calmer voices. Voices of reason. Voices of wise women. Voices of men who wish they were wise women, but their insurance doesn't cover the surgery. Simply outlaw guns. Tougher gun laws keep people from being killed. We know that because men of integrity like Ted Kennedy say so all the time. And so does Dan Rather. And he never lies.

As it turns out, Virginia Tech (unlike the rest of Virginia) has the toughest gun law possible. No guns are allowed. Virginia Tech is a gun-free zone.

Here's the shocking truth behind this so-called massacre: It didn't happen. The government-media-military-Hollywood-Vatican-Trilateral-Commission-Illuminati-CIA-FBI-USDA-FDA-USPS complex simply faked it, like 911, in order to keep the citizenry frightened and in line. The fact is that since the school is a gun-free zone, we know this "massacre" didn't really happen at all. Cho, if he exists at all didn't really have any guns because he was in a gun-free zone. In fact, I have yet to see any real proof that there is this "Virginia Tech" where this "massacre" supposedly happened.

Maybe a guy should yell "fore" in a situation like that.

Chuck Colson And Mystics?

I used to listen to Charles Colson every morning for about 5 minutes on a local radio station. He has a short editorial program each week day called Break Point. I loved that program for years. It gave one a quick take on some current event or trend in the arena of politics, religion, society, or entertainment from a Christian perspective. However, he started to associate with characters who are not orthodox. And I don't mean he went to lunch with them or worked with them on projects that had little to do with the faith. No, he engaged them in ways Christians ought not do. For instance, he has recently worked with Rick Warren on a project about faith and worldview.

Today, I tuned in for the first time in a while. He was plugging a show on PBS. It was about a really spiritual man and Colson spent quite some time telling his listeners just how good and wonderful this man was.

This man was Henri Nouwen, a catholic mystic and syncretist, who sought to mix mysticism and psychology with Catholic theology. (Yeah, just press the puree button and stand back.) I don't trust Charles Colson any longer. And neither should you.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Quote Of The Week 04-01-07

You do not have to be culturally sensitive if you are biblically accurate.
----Paul Washer, sermon "I Am Under Obligation"

THE DECLINE OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IN AMERICA--Part III of III

The Church Conformed To The World In The Sanctuary.

As stated in my first installment in this series of three articles on the decline of the Evangelical church in America, I named 12 foundational distinctives that make Christianity what it is supposed to be. Here I will deal with the last 4. (Find all three together in reverse order here.) These last 4 are not about the world around us at all. Nor are they primarily about how we interact with the world. Rather, we will consider the radical paganization of the Evangelical church within its walls. We have bastardized Christianity with an eclecticism that is shameful.

NUMBER 9. SCRIPTURAL PRACTICE. By this I refer to the idea that no pagan religious practice be brought into the church and approved. Here again, I will appeal to our collective memory. While most will not remember some of the changes I have written of to this point, this new change is recent and electrically fast, and it shows the acceleration of wickedness in our circles.

"Christian Yoga" was the first paganization I remember. It has percolated for quite some time, but now it is fully integrated with the "Christian faith" of some church goers. Zondervan has published a book called Yoga for Christians: A Christ-Centered Approach to Physical and Spiritual Health through Yoga by Susan Bordenkercher. In 2003, the Osgood Files had this to say about Bordenkircher:

"However, Bordenkircher says the movement and rhythm of hatha (physical) yoga made her more centered and reflective and more able to pray. Hindus strive for wisdom, knowledge and inner concentration, which clearly overlap with Christian goals, Bordenkircher says. 'My feeling was it's worked for them, why shouldn't we be able to do that?' she says. So Bordenkircher combined poses with Christian references. During the warrior pose, she talks about breathing in the Holy Spirit. She relates the child's pose to being at peace with God. And the balance poses are about finding spiritual balance. 'If it feels good for your body and soul, you should do it.'"

Notice how that last sentence takes us back to the sixties and seventies theme which said, "If it feels good, do it."

I want to be very clear here. There is nothing magically evil or magically good about the physical exercises done for the benefit that exercise has for the body. But look at Bordenkircher's words about it. She is pushing it as a spiritual exercise. She says it gives one "spiritual balance."

Recently we've seen an influx of "spiritual formation," "contemplative prayer," "prayer" labyrinths, candles, and incense. All of these are derived from mystical religions and most Evangelical leaders are not opposing them at all. At counterpoint to this is what Moses said to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 12:29-32. He warned, "When the LORD your God cuts off before you the nations which you are going in to dispossess, and you dispossess them and dwell in their land, beware that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, 'How do these nations serve their gods, that I also may do likewise?' You shall not behave thus toward the LORD your God, for every abominable act which the LORD hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it." I think that would include yoga, don't you?

Yesterday, I was in a Christian book store and found prominently displayed a flyer for Rob Bell. He's a young man who has made quite a name for himself by selling videos of breathing exercises and meditation to young church goers. These are practices borrowed from Hinduism and Budhism. Not only is he not censored in the church, he's a celebrity.

Again, the very fact that the debate rages on in the Evangelical camp over whether or not to accept pagan practices into the church and use them is a disgrace and 50 years ago, it would have never taken place.

NUMBER 10. GODLY ZEAL AND DOCTRINAL VIGILANCE. The lack of godly zeal has actually been a danger to the Evangelical movement from the start. The reason is a bit subtle, but worth looking at.

The beginning of the Evangelical church in America was a reaction to the collision of three forces. One force was godly men and women who wanted to obey God. Many of them called themselves Fundamentalists, just as many of us call ourselves Evangelicals. The Fundalmentalist movement began as a wall against the incoming liberalization of Christianity from German scholars of the 1800's and early 1900's. Schliermacher, Bultmann, and others wanted to change Christianity to become more acceptable to modern man. The Enlightenment was still a fresh idea. The impact of the Enlightenment on the European mind was to reject the God of Scripture as unnecessary. Hence, Neitzche said, "God is dead." We didn't have to postulate a God to understand the universe. We had science for that. All causes were natural and material. Miracles were not conceivable. So the virgin birth, resurrection, healings, and walking on water were myths. Now it was too great a change for Europeans to simply jettison the religion that had shaped their nations, so they simply set out to subtly change Christianity. Genesis is true, but only as a myth. Myth was redefined to be any story with a moral to it. So the Bible was a crock, but a very nice crock. With a moral, of course.

As this sort of thought floated across the pond, men like Harry Emerson Fosdick decided that preaching a new and improved Christianity was a good thing. He was a Baptist minister in New York and he took the east coast church by storm.

To stem this tide of sewage, east coast Christians, lead by orthodox Christain scholars on the faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, began to meet in conferences. The conferences began meeting before Fosdick came on the scene, but he served to intensify the efforts of orthodox people to make lines of demarcation between liberals like Fosdick and themselves. The conferences began in the late 1800's and continued until about 1920 in upstate New York, with at least one at Niagara. The fruit of these conferences was what they called the "fundalmentals of the faith." That is, those doctrines one must believe in order to be a Christian. The exact doctrines decided upon varied from conference to conference, but usually included these five: 1. the virgin birth, 2. the bodily, substitutionary death of Christ for sin, 3. the bodily, immanent return of Christ, 4. the inerrancy and authority of Scripture, and 5. the deity of Christ. These were the five decided on in 1910 by the assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church.

So one force was the original Fundamentalists. Their enemy, the liberals, was another force. The third force was a number of folks within the Fundamentalist camp. Remember the early Fundamentalists were Presbyterians with only five or six rules. They were really minimalistic in their approach. They were not more narrow than Scripture. However, as time went by, some in the Fundamentalist camp came to add cultural markers and rules that were not biblical. They became the third force. As the orthodox Fundamentalists battled liberals, some Fundamentalists became hyper-Fundamental. As the Fundamentalist-liberal war raged, of course, most of the unsaved world sided with the liberals. Fundamentalists were branded as obscurantists, ignorant throw-backs, and worse. As the hyper-Fundalmentalists became more prominent, it was easy for the world to make the charges against real biblical Christians stick.

In the 1950' many church-goers wanted to be Christian without being marked out for ridicule. As a result, beginning with men like Billy Graham and Carl Henry, a new movement started. It took its name from the Greek word for "gospel," the Evangelicals. Most Evangelicals wanted to be orthodox. All wanted to distance themselves from the Fundalmentalists. It was America. We all wanted to be happy. Why face scorn?

Did you notice two things about this story that might sound familiar to those in the modern American church? First, the trouble started when the liberals set out to improve on the gospel to make it relevant and acceptable to the worldly mind. Second, otherwise orthodox Christians were not willing to accept the scorn of the world. They wanted to change their name so that no one would hate them. In so doing, they added to the scorn of many real brothers and sisters in Christ. Even today, many godly people call themselves "Fundamentalists." I cringe everytime I hear an Evangelical talk down the Fundalmentalists. At one time the Fundalmentalists were the only ones holding the fort. If you're an American believer, there's a real good chance you wouldn't have heard the gospel if not for the Fundamentalists many of you hate.

In this way, the seed of compromise in the Evangelical church was planted. The Fundamentalists were zealous for God and His Scripture. The Evangelicals were more interested in getting along.

To this day, in the Evangelical church, the man who points out error is hated by many, if not most. That's who we are.

NUMBER 11. FEAR OF GOD. Some years back someone started lying about the fear of God as presented to the saints in the Old Testament. When I was young, the first two church songs I learned were "Jesus Loves the Little Children of the World" and "Jesus Loves Me, This I Know." When I heard that I was supposed "fear God," it was a shock. Obviously, the contrast between the love of God and His fierceness can cause a great deal of consternation. It's tempting to pick between the two, discard the other, and not deal with the cognitive dissonance these biblical twins cause. You can only imagine how long it took a little kid in Montana to warm up to the idea of the fierceness of an angry God who hates sinners. I knew I was one. So I had a problem with the fear of God.

It turns out, so have a number of pastors and theologians. They are liars. There is no faith without the fear of God. The lie goes like this: "Fear" doesn't mean "fear," it means "respect" or "reverence." It's funny to me how little a vocabulary God has that He should mispeak so easily and so often. The fear of God is mentioned dozens of times in the Psalms and Proverbs alone. If God meant "reverence," why didn't He say so? The Spirit says, "The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether." This lie started in the 70's with the bromide, "Don't be negative." "No one will follow you if you're negative," we'd say to each other. We were helping God. We were getting rid of all the hellfire stuff and concentrating on personal fulfillment. You know--the fun stuff.

I distinctly remember first being gripped with the fright of hell when I was very young. Jesus mentioned hell in 42 verses in the gospel of Matthew alone--many more times than any mention of heaven. Evidently, He had the idea that being scared of God's judgment is a good thing.

Because we do not fear God, we hate reproof, we tolerate false teaching, we despise those who seek truth over relationship, and we spurn doctrinal clarity of any kind. Because we don't fear God, many of us will go to hell.

When Jesus starting preaching, His message could easily be summed up the way Matthew did in chapter 4, verse 17 of his gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Not exactly seeker-friendly. It was a warning. If all of Jesus' ministry could be summed up in a warning to repent to avoid punishment and to participate in God's kingdom, we should follow His example. Instead, we follow after preachers who give us five steps to a happier whatever through the Spirit, Jesus, or God. Such sermons are really blasphemous because they remake God into a waiter, not The Warrior. One of the most common names of God in the Old Covenant is "Yahweh of Armies." In the King James and many other translations, it is "LORD of Hosts," "Hosts" being armies, and LORD being a euphemism for His Name, Yahweh, or "HE is." This is the personal name He gave Moses at the burning bush in Exodus 3. There He said, "Ehweh asher Ehweh." That is "I am that which I am." Change the verb form to "Yahweh" and you get "He is." That was God's personal name. "God" is a title or description. I am a man. "Philip Daniel Perkins" is my personal name. I am "Phil a welder." God is "Yahweh owner-leader of armies." He is a warrior and He will one day war against all the unrighteous.

As you read through Matthew, Jesus mentions hell about 40 times. He does so in a number of different ways, but you will find the following items mentioned over and over again: "everlasting," "weeping and/or wailing," and "gnashing of teeth." When was the last time you heard a sermon on these things? Jesus talked about them all the time. We ought to as well.

NUMBER 12. THE WRATH OF GOD PREACHED. MAN VS. GOD. At the risk of repeating myself, my last point has to do with something that is associated with the absence of teaching about the wrath of God. That is the primacy of man in evangelical preaching.

Here we have a chicken-and-egg question. Did humanism/cowardice seeping into our churches cause us to no longer emphasize the wrath to come, or did that compromise lead to a man-centered pulpit, prostituted for the popularity of the preacher and the comfort of the church-goers?

Based on my personal recollection of the times--approximately 1960-1985--I personally believe the driving force was the cowardice of individual pastors, parents, and Evangelical organizations. It was at that time the sexual revolution was happening. The youth were in full rebellion. As the culture became darker and darker, Christians, Christianity, and those who remained faithful were marginalized more and more. Parents became intimidated by almost everyone else in society. So did pastors. Whole institutions from schools, to churches either had to change or be seen as dinosaurs. And rather than being passed by in favor of those more hip, many in the church compromised.

I went to college from 1975-1979. From 1981-1987 I stuffed a 3-year seminary degree into only 6 years. The transition from God-centered to man-centered pulpits began when I was still in junior high and high school. By the time I was in seminary the new make-everybody-happy "gospel" was in the house. All it had to do was to make itself at home. Get in the furniture, settle in, change the drapes, make a stay of it. The buzz word of the time was "relevance." It was the job of the clergy to make the Bible "relevant" to folks. No matter what.

This may seem rather milk-toast to some, but I assure you the change was cosmic. Before this time, the job of the man of God was to study the Scripture and tell the folks what it said as accurately as possible. Other than that, his only duty was to plead with people to make their lives and beliefs come into conformity to the Scripture.

With Pastor Human in the pulpit, things were different. As a preacher-in-training my greatest role model was Chuck Swindoll. His word for "relevant" was "winsome." He constantly harangued against the Christian who was too somber for his tastes. He was wrong and he lead many Christians astray. Another name that was big in those days was Tony Campolo. Campolo is still a dymanic speaker. His entire schtick was relevance, left wing social issues, bombast, and oozing out at least three quarts of sweat during any one sermon or lecture. We weren't relevant. We needed to take up left wing causes and if we didn't we'd never reach the folks. A third name in those days was James Dobson. Dobson has always stood for biblical truth in matters having to do with family. However, the fact that he was a psychologist added weight and credibility. Many faithful teachers and pastors said all the same things he said, but without training in psychology. All they had was the Bible. As we began to honor man over God, we even turned to man's wisdom for spiritual answers. Dobson was a perfect answer. He was a "Christian psychologist." So we could look to a source other than Scripture and still feel as though we had not compromised. But we had. Big time.

Well, we layered all that stuff on top of the Bible. Did it help? No. We are stuck in an anemic church full of believing infidels heading for hell. Swindoll is getting cozy with Emergents like Dallas Willard. Tony Campolo has written a book with Emergent heretic, Brian McLaren, and his wife endorses a gay-friendy church. And you can go to the local "Christian" book store and buy them all.

So what's the answer? It's not complicated. It's on your shelf. Read your Bible. Promise yourself and God you will obey it. Then become vocal in your church and denomination. Pay the price.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Pulpit Pimp Video

There's a video worth watching at Pulpit Pimps. Notice the title Melvin Jones gave it--very appropriate.

Nigerian Flags In Our Churches?

Did you ever ask your pastor why an American flag is right next to the pulpit? I did. Couldn't get an answer, either. I asked him if we weren't supposed to be worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel. Eventually I got some mumbo-jumbo about being a good citizen. When I asked if being a good citizen as a German Christian meant I had to put a Swastika up over the altar, the pastor got mad. He never told me why.

Nigeria has recently outlawed homosexuality. They seem to think law should have something to do with righteousness. I guess they never heard of Thomas Jefferson, who (according to liberal politicians and their constituents) said that righteousness and government could never have anything to do with each other. Nope, those Nigerians might be in the sun, but we Americans are the enlightened ones. We know better. In fact, we did the right thing. We got 250 of our best religionists to sign a petition telling the Nigerians that Christianity demands sodomites go unpunished. Stop the "persecution." (Yes, that's the word they used.) I noticed there was no petition for the Christians being slaughtered by Muslims in Sudan and Indonesia, or the Christians imprisoned in Canada, the US, and Britain for preaching repentance from sodomy. I'm sure those 250 nice folks, so concerned with Nigerian deviants, will soon get around to protecting Christians, too. Yes, I'm sure they will...any time now...soon, I'm sure...I think...

So anyway, the next time I'm in church and the preacher is in Leviticus, I'll just ignore him (or her) and look at that big old flag raised high above the altar and the Bible and wonder how long before God burns it down.

Sickened,
Phil Perkins.

Pulpit Pimps

This weekend I found a few new blogs and all were really worth reading. I have gotten permission to link to only one so far: Pulpit Pimps by Melvin Jones. Evidently, when some ungodly fence-straddler decided all Christian men were to become so polite they had to be nice to false teachers, Jones burned his copy of the memo.

Melvin Jones seems determined to expose the lies of the Word-Faith movement. Word- Faith is the brand of non-christianity that includes folks like Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland, and so forth. Some call it Word-Faith, Word of Faith, Prosperity Gospel, Health and Wealth, Name It and Claim It. (I like Blab-it-and-grab-it myself.) These folks have gone well past simply being Charismatic and pushing certain gifts all out of proportion. They have actually gone into damnable heresy--the sort of heresy that will damn a man's soul. For instance, Copeland has said outright that God has a body, making him more Mormon than Christian.

So, Jones is making war on these folks. He's in a segment of the body of Christ in which he will pay a heavy price for his convictions. But he doesn't care. Pray for our brother, Melvin Jones. He is doing a great work and it seems he has a lot of readers. That's good.

While surfing this weekend I came across three other sites like Jones'. They are all good. There is Theology Today,
Doctrinetalk.com, and Pastor John's Site, in addition to Pulpit Pimps.

Pastor John's Site is by Rev. John Coleman. His site is not dedicated to battling Word-Faith heresy. It is a general site from an LA pastor and it includes warnings about Word-Faith along with general teachings. He has an excellent section on the nutty, heretical quotes Billy Graham has made over the years.

Getting back to Melvin Jones and Pulpit Pimps, I don't want to overdo my praise of the guy. I barely know of him. However, what's refreshing about all these sites is their straight talk. (Read Jones' "About Me" section and see the price and hassle he has already overcome to become straight in the faith.) They talk like men. Godly men. Go read their stuff. Then go read Team Pyro or Tim Challies. The difference you will find is both staggering and significant. At Pyro, if you find an article on an Emergent heretic for instance, you will first read a number of paragraphs about what that particular heretic says that is right. Couldn't you do the same with a Watchtower magazine? Or the Book Of Mormon?

A better question is, "Is that what Jesus, the apostles, and the prophets did?" The obvious answer is "no." Jesus made it clear to all who heard Him that the teachings of the Pharisees and Sadducees were wrong. No one had to guess or parse words to understand. So why don't we talk like men? Are we cowardly? Too afraid to be disliked, so that we have to put sugar on the medicine so nobody notices, not even the ones who need it most? Is this a hangover from the pop-evangelical bromide of the 70's when we were told over and over it's bad to be negative? We were supposed to be always positive. Back then I would ask if the Bible was always positive and the answer given was "no." But then biblical reasoning didn't really make much difference.

Some of you will remember when I had the nerve to suggest at Team Pyro that we ought not use gender-altered Bible versions because they were intentionally changed for reasons that had to do with pleasing certain political groups. Phil Johnson and Frank Turk then proceded to make excuses as to why it's okay to do so and chastise me for being a hillbilly in a straw hat who didn't even know the languages anyhow, so why don't I just go away and shut up. My, my. How dare I, calling sin sin. When I told them I have taught both Greek and Hebrew at the college level I didn't get an apology--big surprise, huh?.

On most sites you will find Evangelical males (notice I did't say "men") who, when they have to deal with false teaching, do so in such a gentle way one has to read for 20 minutes before one can find out whose side they're on. Why? Because it's considered impolite to say things like "liar." Why have we become so uncomfortable with such a word? Jesus said much worse than that all the time to false teachers. We're women, not men. Shame on us.

I pray that brothers like Melvin Jones and John Coleman never become like the rest of Evangelicalism. That would be a sad day.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--If you're doctrinally straight, but won't stand, what difference does it make? Fear Him Who has power to destroy both body and soul in the flames of hell.

Quote Of The Week 03-26-07

The spotless purity of truth must always be at war with the blackness of heresy and lies.--Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from The Truth War by John MacArthur.

Joyce Meyer Claims Infallibility!

Yes, that's right. Joyce (the voice of a liar) Meyer is claiming to never be wrong. I found this quote from her on a great website called Theology Today.

Here's what she had to say:

“I am going to tell you something right now. I no more believe that my God is going to let me stand around and believe a lie than I believe that I am going to turn green in the next two minutes. God is my source and He loves me and I am after God with my whole heart. And if I am accidentally, or any other way, getting into error, I am going to have a bell go off on the inside of me that is going to be so loud that not only am I going to hear it, but so is everybody else.”

Yes, you read right. If she was wrong, you'd hear bells. So, unless we all hear bells everything she says is right. God wouldn't have it any other way.

May God strike her "ministry" down.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Why I Don't Believe In The Power Of Prayer

Who introduced the phrase "the power of prayer" to the church? I have a real problem with that and have for some years. Just the other evening I began writing an article on Erwin McManus and the subject was brought up in his book, The Barbarian Way. So I got to thinking about it in more depth than before and came to a conclusion or two.

First, the idea of "the power of prayer" is a pagan idea, closer to sorcery and witchcraft than biblical prayer. What I mean is that in witchcraft the power is thought to be in the spell or the act of speaking to the unseen power. To the Christian--Bruce Wilkinson and Kenneth Copeland notwithstanding--there is no real power in prayer. Read the prayers of Moses, David, and Jesus. They were not formulaic and the speaker acted as though he was addressing a Deity Who held the power to protect them and provide for them. They did not exercise their own power by speaking to God. They were asking, not telling. They went to this God, not prayer, for answers. They reacted to the circumstances of life by going to the One they trusted. To the One they needed.

Second, the idea that the power is in prayer itself is arrogant. It places God at the bottom of a three-level pyramid. On top, making decisions and giving orders, is the human praying. The human has his hands on the levers of the great machine called prayer and if he moves the handles just right, the god will be induced or influenced to do this, that, and the next thing. The middle level is the prayer. It is, in effect, insturmentalized, personalized, or even deified. It is not just the act of getting an audience with God any more. It has powers of its own. We can use it to achieve certain ends. On the bottom is the god of prayer. It must act in certain ways or is induced or influenced to do so because of the prayer made by the human who decides to enlist the power of prayer. This is topsy-turvy. The Bible says God acts sovereignly. He brings circumstances into our lives to shape us, Romans 8:28-29. We then react according to His sovereign plan and He further enacts His will by responding to His loved one who prays to Him humbly. Read the account of Abraham's prayer in Genesis 20 to see this principle in action.

To attribute the power we experience in answered prayer to the prayer itself, and not God, is a blasphemy and might explain why God will not answer our prayers. Why should He work for another's glory? He wants the glory and it's rightfully His. It isn't ours and it doesn't belong to our words.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Quote Of The Week 03-08-07

Every way of not doing evangelism is wrong.
--Carl F. H. Henry.

This quote is from an interview with Russell D. Moore. The next sentence completes the thought: "Every way of not doing evangelism is wrong. Every Christian--young and old--is called to evangelize."

Quote this when someone complains about how you are witnessing with a technique they don't like.

THE DECLINE OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IN AMERICA--Part II of III

The Church In The World And Conformed To The World.

In my first installment in this series, I listed 12 foundational distinctives that make Christianity what it's supposed to be. In the 20th and 21st centuries, all of these things have been eroded in the American Evangelical movement. That process has been on an acceleration in the last fifty years or so. When I was young you could see small accommodations slowly infecting the church over the decades. Now there is a new compromise each year. If you doubt me just take a casual trip around all the Christian blogs. The Bible was once the only guide to truth. Just a few minutes ago, I was in a comment thread at a good Christian website. The bloggers there are good brothers. There a man in the comment thread (not one of the site's bloggers) that sees himself as a Christian (and he may be) was arguing that doctrine is not static, but new revelation can come. When I was young, even the Charismatics did not say such things. That kind of talk came only from Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. Today, it is thought by many in the pews and pulpits in Evangelical circles.

These next four compromises are bound by a common thread. The world's ideas are now coming directly into the church. In fact, these new ideas seem to spread just about as quickly in the church as in the world. It's as though we want to be avant garde.

NUMBER 5. GENDER ROLES. Usually when an orthodox Christian addresses gender roles, you expect a diatribe against feminism and homosexuality. However, I'm going to start in the sixth grade boys locker room. That was the first place I was shocked by the degradation of our culture in regard to gender roles. I didn't even know what a gender role was back then, but I knew something was desperately wrong.

Here is the situation that just devastated me: Being brought up in a very staunch Christian home, one thing was drilled into me both by the preaching of my Dad and by his example. That was the heroic role of the man. Yes, I said "heroic." It was the job of the man to sacrifice whatever was necessary for the sake of his God, his family, and his country if his country was in the right. The mark of a man was responsibility. And the degree to which any particular man carried out his responsibilities was the measure of that man's manhood. Even for non-Christians the number one arena for the man to take responsibility was toward his family. It was the job of the man to defend and provide lovingly and sacrificially for his woman and his kids.

The first time I heard an older boy actually brag about his conquest of a girl, I was shocked like you can't believe. Why wasn't he ashamed? Being in a very small country school that had all grades 1-12, I was exposed to the locker room talk of junior and senior high school boys when I was in sixth grade. Of course that sort of bravado had a very large effect on us younger guys. We all wanted to be like the big guys. I was too much of a coward to speak against it, so, like the others, I went along and laughed and showed outward approval. But inside, I was in severe turmoil.

The role of the male in our culture began to change radically in the 1960's. The Viet Nam War was raging and rock-n-roll was the new Sunday School. It shaped our minds more than God did. And our hearts. And our future. There was a new ethic never before articulated by and for the American male: "Love 'em and leave 'em." That referred to the act of messing around with a girl and then moving out of town when she became pregnant, leaving her to fend for herself and the baby. It was heartless. That was before the government got into child support enforcement and many women simply had their lives turned upside down by the promises of this new type of "man." Young men everywhere were saying this and seeing it as a mark of male achievement, turning the old ethic on its head. Previous generations had their cads, for sure, but actually saying it out loud and with such robust approval was new. For the first time an American male could find widespread approval for selfish abandon, not self sacrifice.

In the generation before mine NO ONE would approve of this publicly, though the more profligate would in private. This sort of treatment of women would mark a man out for ridicule and he would have virtually no friends. He would be an outcast in just about any community. He would not be considered a substantial man. Back then "playboy" was an insult. Both parts of the word were intended to sting. "Play" indicated that the man had not grown up. He was still trying to play. And that made him a "boy." A real man approached life with the idea that everyone in the community expected him to be responsible for his family and his community. He knew they expected him to sacrifice if things came down to that. And even if he didn't like that idea inwardly he knew that his status in the community hung on the perception that he would always be a man when it counted. So he at least pretended.

Even the term "man" meant something different then. If someone said, "He's a real man," that didn't refer to his athletics, his looks, or his muscles. And it CERTAINLY didn't refer to the number of women he'd played. It referred to his integrity, courage, and honor.

No longer.

The New Ethic Of Narcissism began to reshape our thinking about what it meant to be a man. It started with the elevation of the promiscuous male to respectability. Joe Namath was our poster boy. It would end with the degradation of all of society, even the killing of the children, the very first people the man of the past was supposed to be willing to die for. This even effects our financial lives. Today a young man will expect his wife to work so that he can afford the payments on the man-toys he can't possibly be expected to wait and save for let alone do without for the good of the family. As a result, the kids go to day care and later to juvy court and later to hell.

Now to those pesky feminists. Yes, the ladies got way out of line. They, too, bought into the New Ethic Of Narcissism. And just as men dropped their responsibility to care for women, women ran from their responsibility to care for children. But wait. Don't forget what the "men" did. If a man is to have his way with any woman he wants, the old ways would simply not do. Under the old way of thinking a man was to love, provide for, and protect a woman. If a man played with a woman, he knew he was playing with fire. If the community found out, he would be expected to marry her or clean up his act. It was called "making her an honest women." If she became pregnant, all his options came down to three. He could marry her right quick and be embarrassed about it for a good long time. He could leave the community and not return. Or he could stay in the community, not take care of the family he started and face the shame that was rightly his, possibly with severe legal ramifications.

What was the solution for the new male? Easy, make the woman go to work and be independent of the man. Then the man could play around and not expect any sort of obligations on his money or his freedom. Of course, the woman could pop up pregnant. Then what? Roe vs. Wade. The great debate of the early 1970's. Kill the kid so the man can play. As I related earlier, we all knew the debate was as much about men's wrongs as it was about women's rights. But we wanted freedom, not responsibility so we told ourselves the lie.

So there you have it. I have not really laid into the ladies and the feminism movement. The feminism movement drew its strength, not just from the rebellion of the females, but probably more from the irresponsibility of the males. The ladies had some very real reasons to be angry with the men. The men led into the feminist movement, not the women. Yes, the women are at fault, but don't forget to blame the men for making it happen. Women really didn't have much to respect in their new "men."

NUMBER 6. THE EFFICACY OF THE GOSPEL. Why is it so few are being saved in America? Why are the churches empty? Why aren't our neighbors being saved? Why is there this growing gulf between our culture and the church?

I'd like us to consider three possibilities for why so few Americans are being saved. 1. The people of America may not be receptive to the gospel. Think of Jesus' parable of the soils. 2. The gospel doesn't work in this culture. 3. The gospel is not being brought to the people.

1. If the people of America are not receptive to the gospel, then the church is excused. Certainly, America is wealthy and does not feel in need of anything. After events that bring uncertainty, such as 911, we see an upsurge in spiritual interest expressed in church attendance. But for the most part we are fat and sassy. However, in my experience if you really go out and witness the gospel, you'll find fruit.

2. If the gospel doesn't work anymore, then the church is excused to some extent. That, believe it or not, is the excuse used these days. It's never put in those words, but that is, in essence, what's being said. The words used usually are something like "we need to make the gospel relevant to the culture." Interestingly, the Bible doesn't say any such thing. The Great Commission has one command and two promises. Matthew 28:18-20 says, "And having come to them Jesus spoke saying, 'All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon the earth. Therefore, having gone, make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to keep all the things which I commanded you, and I myself am with you all the days until the end of the age.'"

The two promises are that He has the authority to accomplish anything in heaven or on earth and that He is with us until the end of this age. So we have the stuff to save His elect. The only real command is to "make disciples" of every people group.
In a sense there are three other commands: "go," "baptize," and "teach." However, the grammar makes these participles. Thus they are explanations on just how to do the main idea, "make disciples." First, we have to go. Well, if the target is America, we're here. Of course, we do have to go next door to see the folks we are supposed to disciple. And that implies an aggressive approach. Don't wait. Go. Next is "baptizing." This implies that we are not shy about the demands of the gospel. No, we tell them to repent and be baptized, just like in the New Testament. Last is just a reiteration and explanation of "make disciples." It is "teaching them to keep all that I commanded you." To make disciples is to make these folks be students. A disciple is a student. So to make a disciple, you teach a person.

Now I went through the specifics of the command for a purpose. Notice there is nothing in there about relevance or cultural accommodation. If you want to reach Nigerians, disciple Nigerians and send them out. Guess what. If you want to reach Americans, disciple Americans and send them out. They'll know the culture just fine.

The nitty gritty of the idea that the gospel isn't working in America is the lie that the gospel isn't good enough. We need to make it relevant. God was not hip. The truth of this issue will come next.

3. If the gospel is not being brought to the people in America, it's our fault. I'll make this very short. If you're one of the folks that think the gospel doesn't work without juicing it up a little with cultural relevance, stop now. Name or describe the last six persons you witnessed to in the last two months.

Yeah. I THOUGHT so.

The gospel is not working for the church because the church is not working for the gospel.

Acts 5:41-42 says, "So they went on their way from the presence of the Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for His name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they kept right on teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ."

To paraphrase an advertising slogan from the 1970's, we've come a long way, Baby!

NUMBER 7. SEPARATION FROM THE WORLD. When I was young, the idea of a Christian going to movies was dubious at best. We knew celluloid and popcorn wouldn't defile us. However, the idea was to keep our values and minds biblical and to spend our time and money in a way commensurate with biblical doctrine. We knew there is almost no such thing as entertainment that is spiritually neutral. We knew this world was not our home. I remember when Dad decided that the TV was going to be shut off when he or mom was not present. When I was young, there were no dirty jokes on TV, let alone dirty words. Dad decided to limit our TV because the use of alcohol was romanticized on quite a number of shows.

Now, don't get me wrong. These outward regulations are not biblically stipulated. However, the inward result sought by that generation is. We are to be separated. That's the idea of holiness. Today we hear little of separation from evil in the church. In fact, it seems we are often dead set on making our churches as near the world as possible.

What have we lost by this forfeiture of our separation? Three things. First, we have lost the idea of the untouchably holy. At Mount Sinai, a boundary was required by Yahweh to keep even the priests from coming too close to God. And when they got too close God told Moses to go back down there and get the people to get away so He didn't have to destroy them. When you go to church do you ever feel that you are dealing with Something so high and so holy you dare not look up? We raise our hands. We never get on our bellies. We're never made to feel like that anymore. I was recently in a mega church. It had coffee machines, soda machines, and pinball machines. Entertainment trumped holiness.

Second, we have lost personal holiness. In our insistence to never restrict our Christian freedom, we forgot to deny ourselves. Okay, you have the freedom to go to the movie theater. You don't have the freedom to laugh at raunchy jokes. You have the freedom to listen to any kind of music you want. You don't have the right to think on anything that would embarrass you in front of your Father. Many church goers would NEVER be willing to miss a movie just because it has a sex scene in it. Or because it uses the Lord's Name in vain. Or because it treats women like objects for men's pleasure. Or because it teaches kids to disrespect their parents. Then when we cuss and lust and our kids are awful, why are we surprised? Turn off the TV and get out your Bible. Skip the movie and spend a night with your wife, including a prayer time. Skip the concert and go pass out tracts to folks in line at the theater.

Third, we have lost our sense of corporate holiness. The principle of fellowship requires that we care about our associations individually and as a church. In our circles it is common place to associate with ministries that are in open heresy. Christian radio and TV stations carry Kenneth Copeland and Joyce Meyer. Religious book stores carry Brian McLaren and Tony Campolo. Christians openly patronize these businesses. I'm in the Southern Baptist Convention. In my denomination it is common for us to have Emergent heretics and their books. If you protest, you will be punished.

I recently challenged a group of Christian bloggers for plugging a purposely altered version of the Bible, the TNIV. One said, "Do I smell guilt by association?" (I was too polite to ask him if I smelled theology by slogan.) The assumption was clear, though. You're never guilty by association. I told him he did smell guilt by association. Then I gave him some Scriptures that make the fellowship principle clear. He didn't write anymore on the subject. In our time it is considered okay for churches and Christian groups to work tightly with heretics and unbelievers. In fact, if you want to be black-balled, just raise your voice about it. Read Numbers 19. The red heifer was not to be touched. The corpse was not to be touched. The unclean thing is not to be touched. What was God trying to teach the sons of Jacob if not separation? Did not both Paul and John tell us to shun the false teacher?

NUMBER 8. UPRIGHTNESS IN THE PULPIT. Fifty years ago, no evangelical church would countenance a man in the pulpit who was divorced. Now we allow the newly divorced to stay in the pulpit during the divorce. We once expected to see a man there who was spotless in reputation. He could have been a hellion before his conversion, but scandals were not really heard of during their tenure.

I'm not going to go through the rogues' list. First, they're not necessarily rogue's, though some surely are. Some may be men of God who really messed up. Second, you already know enough to see it's been a problem.

Remember the story of Uzzah and the ark in II Samuel 6? King David was having the ark transported back to Jerusalem. Two things went wrong. First, it was set on a wagon, instead of being carried by priests holding it by the poles. That alone was a violation of God's instructions on its handling. Oh, it was a new wagon. It just wasn't what God wanted. Second, when it tipped, (which wouldn't have happened if it had been transported as God instructed) Uzzah grabbed it to steady it. God killed him. The punished sin was Uzzah's. The ark was never to be touched. But part of the blame belongs to David. The ark was to be moved by the priests on foot, carrying it by the poles. If that procedure had been followed the oxen would not have stumbled and the ark would not have needed steadying.

In this way, at least some of our fallen preachers have been helped along toward their sin by a church that was compromised. Many of the preacher sex scandals have come out of closed door counselling sessions. If we had not incorporated psychological methods and if we had insisted on the biblical practice of women discipling women and men discipling men, a number of these things would not have happened. These preachers are responsible for their sins, but we are responsible for our own compromise as a church. Our laxity has undoubtedly contributed to at least some of their falls. We've let the attitudes and practices of the world come in. Is it any wonder we act like the world?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--In the final installment we will look at four ways in which the church has lost its heart right in the sanctuary to worldliness. The Church Conformed To The World In The Sanctuary.

Quote Of The Week 03-03-07

Lost sinners have no knowledge of the glistening purity, of the absolute righteousness, and of the glorious holiness of Jehovah.
--Rev. John Wagner

Street Preaching III--Evangelicalism Sending People To Hell

Last night, I went out in a relief bus from Harvest Church. A married couple from that church ran things. It was a pretty nice converted ambulance and it was equipped with blankets, hot soup, coats, hats, and so forth. In addition to the married couple, Jeff and Susan, were Mark Johnson and Mike Martinez. Mark is a long time friend of mine and it was he who arranged for me to come along and minister to street people. Mike was brought by Mark, too.

Evangelicalism stinks--Case #1.
The first guy I tried to tell the gospel to was another "Mike." He was troubled. He'd lost seven brothers over a two year period. He didn't know why God had done this or how he could get over it. Eventually, I said that death is not normal; God did not make us to die. Then I asked him what he was going to do when he died. He said he had "accepted Jesus" so he thought he had "a shot."

So he had been told all he had to do was pray a prayer and that would save him, regardless of his lifestyle. Some Evangelical preacher told him that.

The second fellow I got to tell the gospel to was not interested in thinking very far ahead. He didn't want to hear of it. So we small-talked. He was shivering so I asked for and got a coat and a blanket for him.

Evangelicalism stinks--Case #2.
The third fellow I got to tell the gospel to was a Jesse Duplantis fan. Duplantis is a word-faith heretic. However, such are now considered Evangelical. Witness Joyce Meyer and Kenneth Copeland. Copeland teaches that God has a body and that Adam was equal with God before the fall. So Copeland is not even a Christian in the sense of historical orthodoxy. He's closer to a Mormon. However, under the big dung heap called Evangelicalism he is a legitimate minister to be found on the same stations and in the same book stores as godly men like John MacArthur or R. C. Sproul. (More prominently displayed, however.)

Well, this fellow was not homeless. He just saw free food. I asked him if he had a problem with God. No, he was going to be forgiven. God forgives everybody. Jesse says so. He gets Jesse's monthly publication. Everyone is forgiven. We all go to heaven. I am not familiar enough with Duplantis' ministry to know if he actually teaches universalism, but it is clear that a fan can listen to him for a long time and never hear that there is a hell to avoid. I told him that few will be forgiven and gave him a tract. He seemed a bit more quiet when told these things.

Evangelicalism stinks--Case #3.
Finally, there was the clean, handsome, young homosexual. I did not get to visit with him. Others did. He "followed the teachings of Jesus." Or so he thought.

I really loved going out to witness and will next week with them again. However, it is evident that to reach these folks we will have to overcome decades of Evangelical error before these folks know they need to repent of their sins.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Street Preaching II

I went street preaching again yesterday. The last few weekends the weather and other circumstances prevented it. Yesterday, however, I took the time to write my own tract. I went to a local skateboard park and passed some out. I also spoke with some of the young men there. I preached while their backs remained turned to me. However, after a bit of time a young man turned and said he was glad I was there and he had a genuine smile. He was raised in a Christian home and was away from God. So please, pray. I am going to be down there regularly, God willing. I want to make relationships. God has His elect in there. Pray for my purity and faithfulness. Pray for those young guys.

As to the tract I wrote, I am going to keep doing that. The tracts and my messages spoken are intended to be very hard edged. Law, wrath, and repentance will be the emphasis 90%. Then the good news is given. Another reason I am making my own tracts is that most tracts are very simplistic or they are printed in such tiny type they are irritating to read. I'm sure that many older folks are unable to see it. The ones that are not in very fine print are so limited in content that I don't like them.

I am making them on regular 8 1/2 x 11 paper. After I print the text side, I turn them over and print a title in very large print. For the tract I used yesterday I used two titles. One is "Come And Die" and the other is "Do You Have A Problem With God--Here's The Answer." This title is printed in large block letters and positioned so that when I fold them, the title shows.

On the text side of the flyer the headings are large and printed in a color, leaving the rest of the text black.

Anyway, here is my first tract:

------------------------
You have a problem called sin.
Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Genesis 8:21 ... the intent of man's heart is evil from his youth....
Isaiah 64:6-7 For all of us have become like one who is unclean,
And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment;
And all of us wither like a leaf,
And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
There is no one who calls on Your name,
Who arouses himself to take hold of You;
For You have hidden Your face from us
And have delivered us into the power of our iniquities.
Romans 3:10-18 10as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
11THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
12ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE."
13"THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,"
"THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS";
14"WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS";
15"THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
16DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
17AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
18"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."

You may not understand that you have this problem.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?

Because of your sin, God hates you and will destroy you.
Psalm 11:4-7 The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD'S throne is in heaven;
His eyes behold, His eyelids test the sons of men.
The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked,
And the one who loves violence His soul hates.
Upon the wicked He will rain snares;
Fire and brimstone and burning wind will be the portion of their cup.
For the LORD is righteous, He loves righteousness;
The upright will behold His face.
John 10:26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep. –Jesus Christ.
Isaiah 66:24 Then they will go forth and look
On the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me
For their worm will not die
And their fire will not be quenched;
And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."

Despite your sin problem, God loves you and offers you a solution.
John 3:16-18 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

To get this solution, you must be willing to die and follow Jesus.
Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Psalm 24:4-5 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
Who has not lifted up his soul to falsehood
And has not sworn deceitfully.
He shall receive a blessing from the LORD
And righteousness from the God of his salvation.
Romans 10:8-10 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

Questions or objections? Call 406-672-7450.
-----------------------

You may notice the glaring contradiction between "God hates you and will destroy you" and "God loves you and offers you a solution." That is for the purpose of causing thought. I want them to be faced with both wrath and grace. If it makes them angry at least they are thinking about it. Hopefully, they will call.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Quote Of The Week

"What happens in Vegas will go before the throne of God and await you in Judgment!"
--Bullhorn Girl at Faces Like Flint

THE DECLINE OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH IN AMERICA--Part I of III

The Church Relating To Scripture Like The World.

If you're a hard head who hates compromise in the church, I want to encourage you with this article. It is personal observations about life under the big tent of today's Evangelicalism. I want to share these observations so you can be reminded you're not alone and to encourage you to keep speaking out. Assuming you weren't in a coma since 1962, you might just have the feeling a moral and spiritual slide has taken place. Our big tent covers a dung heap. You can smell it. And I'll bet, if you're a righteous man who loves God, you have actually said something about what you smell. And you've been told to shut up over and over again. So you go to church and you listen and you watch.

And you feel like Lot in Sodom.

That's actually how I've felt for a looonnnggg time. Let's list some of the things we have seen compromised in the last 50 years:

1. The authority of Scripture.

2. The inviolability of Scripture.

3. The clarity of Scripture.

4. The sufficiency of Scripture.

5. The gender roles as laid out at creation and reiterated in the New Covenant.

6. The efficacy of the gospel.

7. Separation from the world.

8. Uprightness in the pulpit.

9. Scriptural practice only.

10. Godly zeal and doctrinal vigilance.

11. Fear of God.

12. Wrath of God preached.

I mentioned 50 years for two reasons. First, that's how old I am. So that's what I remember. Second, the acceleration of evil in both the world and the church seems evident to me. Let's take a quick look at the twelve compromised Christian distinctives I have listed.

NUMBER 1. THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE. When I was a kid, the only authority openly considered in any discussion of doctrine, practice, or message was the Scripture. Oh sure, the old folks were sons of Adam. They wanted to sin as much as you and I. However, at least the veneer was Scripture. The argument was never, cultural relevance or church growth. It was Scripture. Even the man who wanted to sin had to try to argue his case by twisting Scripture or hide it altogether. The ethic was Scripture. And so it served as a dam against the flesh which was always looking for leaks.

Now the dam has fish runs. We can call in the authority of psychology or the latest Christian author. Just before I went to seminary, psychology was introduced to Bible schools and seminaries. Why? Because to really minister to the folks, we needed Skinner and Freud. Paul and Moses weren't good enough. More on this under change number four. We call in the authority of church-growth gurus. We have churches putting aside the Scripture for weeks at a time to study other books, like the Purpose Driven Whatever.

NUMBER 2. THE INVIOLABILITY OF SCRIPTURE. When I was a boy and my uncle was inventing the wheel, my dad had a rule. He made sure my two brothers and myself never did anything disrespectful to the Bible. The lesson he wanted to burn in was the sacredness of God's Word. Even outside the Perkins household, never was there any thought to altering the Scripture to make it more appealing. "Appealing" was just not given a thought. Obedience was all. In the society at large, most would not consider changing the Bible. Debating it would be like debating the blueness of the sky. Mentioning the possibility would put one into the realm of the mentally touched. You'd be thought of as having something wrong with your thought process. There's something you don't understand here. This is the Bible we're talking about.

No longer. With men like Stuart Briscoe and John Stott endorsing the TNIV altered translation the unthinkable is now thinkable. We stand in judgment over the Word. The excuse is that poor old God just got tongue tied. He said stuff that might offend the ladies. So we straightened that all out for Him, like Uzzah and the Ark. Now the ladies will love God, too. Recently I caught a big name Christian blogger, Tim Challies, pushing an audio version of the TNIV. I wrote and asked him why he thought that was okay in view of all the Scriptural demands to always honor, preserve, and accurately transmit the Word from one to another. He didn't see fit to answer the question. Instead, he got angry. When I served notice of Challies' sin to the folks over at another really big name Christian blog, Team Pyro, they just circled the wagons. The excuses from Phil Johnson and Frank Turk ranged from ridiculous to dishonest. Of course, I was impugned as stupid and evil. That was step number one. Turk claimed that the Deuteronomy 18 admonition to reject a prophet who misrepresented what God had said did not apply to translators and translations. Johnson said it was okay to use a purposely altered translation as long as it was not altered to create "damnable heresy." Neither dealt with the sin of lying about what God had said. So they continue to endorse Tim Challies.

NUMBER 3. THE CLARITY OF SCRIPTURE. Theologians call this the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture. "Clarity" communicates it, though. This particular problem has been growing for decades. When I was in college, I knew a young lady preparing to go to seminary. I asked what was her career aim. She said she wanted to be a pastor. Knowing about Paul's teaching to Timothy I asked her about what she did with I Timothy 2. After 30 years I still remember her answer: "You can get around that!" I was shocked at that. The reason I was shocked, was her excuse. I'd never actually heard that particular excuse stated out loud. I had seen it practiced by folks purposely twisting Scripture, but I'd never heard anyone actually have the nerve to say it.

Today this sort of answer is common. The question asked in a doctrinal discussion is often, "What is your position?" Or, "Can you justify your position?" We never talked about that when I was a young drug-to-church boy. We only asked what the Bible said. Nothing else mattered. My position didn't matter and whether or not I could squint my eyes enough to see a Biblical text a certain way was not given a thought. The Emergent takes this uncertainty idea even further. They have excused any and all behavior and doctrine by saying simply that certainty is arrogance. The Bible says disobedience is arrogance, and I'm certain of that.

NUMBER 4. THE SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE. When I was in grade school the only authority we had as Christians was Scripture. If I had a problem in my soul, it was the Bible to which we looked. We knew nothing of addiction and recovery, we knew all about sin and obedience. We really did not read many Christian books. Instead, we studied the Bible. The first book after the Bible was a concordance to help study the Bible. Then, you might want to buy a commentary. That was pretty much it. The preacher on Sunday read and preached from the Bible. I can't remember hearing many quotes from other authorities.

By the time I was in college, however, three things had changed. First, psychology was fully integrated into our way of thinking. We had biblical doctrine, but to really counsel someone about deep things, psychology was essential in our minds. This lead to a number of bad things. We no longer thought of sin as the worst plague of man. Self-esteem became important. Self-actualization was the new ethic. Self-denial was what Miss Higgins taught us back in Sunday School, and, well, she was nice, but she didn't listen to current music and she was rather dull and negative, talking all the time of sin and obedience. Many of us, including myself, got degrees in psychology. We, including myself, thought of our parents as quaint, but not up to current thought. Most of our parents hadn't been to college and sometimes I wonder if that was not part of the ethos of change in those days. We loved our parents, but they were not educated. We wanted to be Christians, but not like our parents. We wanted to be educated Christians, not fuddy-duddies.

The second thing that happened to shake our confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture was a turning to our own psyches for answers to the deeper questions of life. It is legitimate to ask the chicken and egg question here. Did selfish narcissism lead us away from Scripture, or did our lack of confidence in Scripture lead to our self-centeredness? I don't have the answer. This inward turning led to more than an intellectual change. It lead to a societal change that was manifested both in and outside the church and the change was personal with each and every member in society whose thoughts were not strictly governed by Scripture. The change of which I speak was personal selfishness. This new personal selfishness worked itself out in private ways in our lives and in public ways that degraded the church and revolutionized American law.

For the first time ever, it was thought legitimate to justify behavior personally, ecclesiastically, or nationally because it lead to one's personal fulfillment. As a boy in 5th or 6th grade I knew that argument was just an excuse. Why didn't anyone else? I think they did. We all gave a national wink to each other and went on our merry ways. In the church, we didn't take the behavior as far as the world, but we did adopt "fulfillment" as the new ethic. It was disastrous. In the nation, in 1973, we decided that it was okay to kill babies. We had two very good reasons. We didn't want the baby to grow up unwanted and we didn't want the mommy to be burdened.

I was 16 in 1973. And still I was smarter than our nation's nine smartest lawyers. I knew abortion was not about caring for either mother or child. It was so Tommy could nail Suzy and not get in trouble for it. The Supreme Court couldn't figure that out, though. They thought they saw a penumbra.

About that time in California Governor Ronald Reagan got a law passed to have no-fault divorce. Because of the new ethic of personal fulfillment, marriages were not expected to be honored just because you promised on your wedding day. As a result the courts were flooded in California. In order to relieve the strain of this overload, the state simply decided to have a new kind of divorce. The younger among us will not recall the days before no-fault divorce. There was a time when a couple was expected to be faithful for life. Divorces were only granted if the one suing for divorce could demonstrate the other had broken the contract of marriage by violence, unfaithfulness, failure to support the family, or some other form of debauchery. If the court found in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant would pay a hefty price.

To clear the courts, California simply decided to do away with all that and grant divorce to just about anyone for any reason. The properties were then spit up according to a preordained formula and off go the happy non-couple. The devastation to the country that broken homes would bring was not a big deal. Fatherless children were not considered, either. In fact, the thought that a marriage vow be honored for the good of the kids was often and publicly scoffed at in order to normalize infidelity. These attitudes and ideas may not shock you as a resident of the 21st century, but to me, it was the dissolution of all that I had believed in and counted on. The sheer selfishness of the entire nation and this insidiousness seeping into the church was alarming to anyone who thought about it much.

So we tuned in the rock and roll and turned up the volume.

The third thing to shake our confidence in the sufficiency of Scripture was the proliferation of Christian publication. When I was in high school and college, it became fashionable for teachers and preachers to recommend books to read. And we did. The first real page turner I read was The Late Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay. I couldn't put it down. On the other hand, Haggai was a bit dry. From that point on it only got worse. By the time I was in seminary, there was no subject in Christian doctrine one could bring up without someone recommending a book. Of course, there was no popular Christian book on the subject of wrath or the mortification of sin, but those sorts of things were not spoken of much in Evangelical circles by that time. Those subjects didn't lead to self-esteem or fulfillment. Talented authors became Christian heroes. To really get the meat of a doctrine, one needed to buy the book. Study of the Bible was not enough. So we didn't do much of it.

Today I can go down to the Bible Book Store right here in Billings, MT and get quite a number of Christian books. Some will tell me not to study the Bible so much. For that, get Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Another will tell me that I cannot be sure if I ought to have much confidence in what I believe in the Bible. That is an easier subject to find. Pick just about any Emergent title for that. Interestingly, what started out as a supplement to help us understand the Bible became a replacement for it, and then a denial of it.

Now we are so far from basic familiarity with the Scripture in the Evangelical pew that we are losing even our biblical vocabulary. And that is an entirely different story and it will end in apostacy.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.