AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part VIII The Sins of Intellectual Freedom and Lazy Preachers.

REVIEW.

If you've not read the articles on the MENTAL GHETTO I define the Mental Ghetto as the condition common in Evangelical America. That condition is the purposeful ignorance of biblical things. I call this on-purpose ignorance aphronism. The folks in the pew like this condition because hard thought and study aren't required. Clergy like it because they don't have to strive for accuracy and they are allowed to teach just about anything. Corporate "Christianity" likes it because they can keep selling books, music, t-shirts, conferences, and baubles that biblically-informed folks would never touch. So the Ghetto Bosses have a lot to lose if the folks in the pews get wise. And those folks seem to like napping. The ghettos in American cities are populated by folks who get money to stay there and do so because they are lazy. Their enablers are politicians who sell the tax money of hard working folks for votes from lazy folks. The Mental Ghetto is populated by folks who'd rather watch TV than do Bible study. The enablers are preachers who don't want to hold them accountable or be held accountable by them. The pimps are Corporate Christianity in the form of pulbishers, conferences, the music industry and preachers who thrive in an environment where the market is full of folks who don't know much about Scripture and don't care much about the little they do know.

THE SIN OF APHRONISM IN THE PULPIT. Mentally lazy preachers dishonor God and deceive the folks.
A. W. Pink lived from 1886 to 1952 and he disrespected his preaching peers greatly for the sin of aphronism. He said that he and others like him made "the same charge against the majority of the preachers of our day, and against those who, instead of searching the Scriptures for themselves, lazily accept the teachings of others." (1) So, too, I disrespect the typical ME preacher. Only a very few are godly men doing God's work.

Too strong? Let me lay out some facts from my own experience, many of which you will be able to confirm from yours with only a little reflection. The best preachers preach out of the Greek or at least study the passages for their sermons in the Greek. And when we hear fellows like this, telling us what the text means in the original, we all know we are hearing one of the better workmen filling our pulpits. But wait.

Why only Greek?

Simple. Greek's easier. Greek covers only 27% of Scripture. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Why ignore 72-73% of the Bible? The pattern is skewed for our young preachers-to-be. They hear the Greek expounded, never the Hebrew. As a result, the language many of our schools offer is the Greek alone. They do this to get enrollment up. Money and numbers matter more than obedience. If they demanded that young men learn to read the entire Scripture, some would flunk and some would go to another, easier school. Fewer students means fewer dollars and a lesser stature in their denomination and the ME "church" in general. So they're not about to do the right thing. Isn't it logical to learn Hebrew first? The first Scriptures were written in Hebrew. In order to properly understand the New Covenant, don't we need to know the Old Covenant? How do you recognize a Hebraism in the NT if you don't know Hebrew literature? Indeed, most ME preachers don't understand ekklesia (church) because they've never studied qahal and eydah. A common error is that God's church started in Acts. I didn't. It started in Exodus. But since the OT is seldom sermonized or studied, few know that. The old time commentators knew that. Why don't we? Ancient Israel was constantly called God's bride and spoken about as the wife of Yahweh, committing adultery when she openly sinned. Yet, if you ask the typical ME preacher or member when the bride of Christ started or what it is, they will answer the "church", meaning the believing Gentiles from the time of Acts. They've been told that by lazy preachers who know neither their Bibles nor their history.

Did you know that the bride metaphor occurs only once in the NT, but many times in the OT? Probably not. Blame your pastor. Correct him at your own risk.

And if you think misunderstanding the Hebrew nature of the concept of ekklesia isn't important, you're wrong. Because many see the church as Gentile, many deny the restoration of Israel or even practice spiritual or political antisemitism. We aren't better than the Jews, nor are we their replacement in history. We are'nt a new thing. We are grafted into the old thing. We serve the Hebrew God. WE'RE the redheaded stepchildren, not the Jews. Read Romans 9-11.

Worse still, there are many, many pastors who learned Greek and/or Hebrew in school, but have allowed them to become rusty. I can't even relate to these guys. What are they doing in their study time? Having been given the privilege and responsibility to speak for God to men, they're nonchalant? Why aren't they straining every nerve to be accurate? Inaccuracy was a capital offense in the OT. Read Deuteronomy 18. How can a man be indifferent to that and pretend to be godly? Is this not a sham? It's worse than a sham. It's fraud. When a young man comes to a church and gives his credentials, which include the languages, he ought to use the languages. If he gets hired with these claims, and then doesn't even use the languages, he is defrauding the folks hiring him.

Even worse than "worse still", there are many preachers who've made no effort to learn the languages at all. If God called them to preach, fine. But, in a day when one can buy a grammar and get to work or even learn on the internet, why are they still reading only translations instead of Scripture itself?

There is even need for a caution about expositional preaching. Expositional preaching is an effort to mine the word of God. There's nothing wrong with it and the motivations that have popularized it in so many circles are the most godly imaginable. Preachers and pastors who do exposition from the pulpit are some of the finest we have. However, there's also a danger.

The danger in expositional preaching is an accidental myopia. The nature of the NT epistles is compact and doctrinal. Indeed, a preacher can easily find one verse that could be preached for months without exhausting it. But, it's wise to remember three things. First, even the epistles were letters to be read to a congregation orally. The aim, then was to present a doctrinal argument, detailed as the epistles are, in a single reading. That being so, it cannot logically or biblically be said that a simple reading of chapters or entire books at a time without comment to a church isn't profitable. The congregation will be spiritually fed and served if all that is done is a reading of Romans. Of course, it's quite a question if there is any congregation in America so interested in just Scripture that they'd listen long enough to do that.

Second, most of the Bible isn't compact doctrine, but narrative. Some is poetry. Some is apocalyptic. OLD Testament narrative is full of doctrine. Exodus doesn't expound a single doctrine. But it puts on brilliant display the doctrines of sovereignty, the holiness of God, corporate holiness, individual holiness, redemption, salvation, mercy, forgiveness, the responsibility of man under the sovereignty of God, and even the doctrine of the church. As a result of doing only expostion, some preachers seldom teach from the Old Testament, Acts, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, OT history, or the Gospels. This has led to deficits like the one mentioned above.

Third, even in the compact, doctrinal epistles, the overview is often lost on the congregation. The end result is two-fold. 1. The listeners often remain ignorant of the theme or general argument of a book and its place in the historical narrative and theology of Scripture even after hearing the preacher expose the entire book. 2. The listener actually learns to view a particular verse without reference to its immediate context, its context in the argument or narrative of the book, and the place it holds in the context of Scripture as a whole.

I'll end this section with a story. I know someone whom I consider one of the best in MEism. He is in full time ministry. I have urged him from time to time to "think biblically". And from time to time he has told me of his irritation with hearing that. Yet, he didn't understand the parable of the wheats and tares. Many preachers have misapplied the parable from Matthew 13 to mean that folks can't be kicked out of the church. What happened? He listened much to other preachers without reading the parable and Jesus' explanation later in chapter 13, just like A. W. Pink said most preachers did even in his day. And Pink was right to call it laziness.

There are many things plain to our forefathers which seem mysterious to ME preachers. How many could name the covenants? How many could tell you when the church began and get it right? How many could easily tell you accurately the doctrine of sanctification?

But lots of them can tell you quotes from Spurgeon and all about spiritual formation.

THE SIN OF INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM.
Charleston Heston fibbed to us. God's assembly was established in the book of Exodus and that book says lots and lots about God's people being freed from Pharoah's Egypt and the slavery there. And we've been taught that God told Pharoah, "Let My people go." That's a lie. He didn't say that at all. He said, "Let My people go that they may serve Me."

See the difference?

And God didn't say this once. He said it over and over.

Let My people go that they may celebrate a feast to Me in the wilderness. Exodus 5:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me in the wilderness. Exodus 7:16.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 8:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 8:20.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 9:1.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 9:13.
Let My people go, that they may serve Me. Exodus 10:3.

I'd say that's a theme.

When I was in college, I wasn't saved, but I was very religious and I went to Campus Crusade. A coed that also attended was preparing to go to seminary. When I asked her about her career plans for after grad school, she said she wanted to be a pastor. I brought up the instruction of Paul concerning men, not women, as overseers. I can remember her answer to this day. The reason I remember it was because at the time I was disturbed by all the church goers who just seemed to be ho-hum toward the strictures of Scripture. It seemed to me that many saw biblical interpretation as a game, as if asking, "What sorts of different positions can I come up with and choose from?" They seemed to consider it quite clever and intellectual to discuss, but not decide. And as long as an argument could be proffered, any position was legit.

That's why I remembered my friend's answer. I don't even remember her name after all these years, but I remember EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, her answer just like she said it. When I mentioned that Paul said only men should be pastors, she said, "You can get around that."

Oh.

Does the Bible give us that sort of intellectual freedom? Is this intellectual freedom or just old fashioned lying? The Bible says we're slaves. Before regeneration we're slaves of sin and Satan. After regeneration we're slaves of righteousness and God. The issue isn't freedom as conceived by most Americans. It's a question of who your master will be. Romans 6:16 says, "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?" This is important in the Mental Ghetto because intellectual freedom is used as an excuse so often that it's hard to understand just why studying is all that important if life in Christ is multiple choice non-test on almost every issue.

Paul wrote specifically and directly to our thought life. We have no freedom except from the tyranny of man and Satan. (And against that tyranny, WE ARE TO BE RADICALLY REBELLIOUS.) God is our Master. II Corinthians 10:5-6 says, "...destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, and we are ready to punish all disobedience, whenever your obedience is complete."

Notice two things about that passage:

1. Speculation is a "lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God". Imagination, speculation, subjectivity, and "listening for God's voice" internally have no place in Christianity.

2. Speculation and NOT being an intellectual slave to God's revealed will in Scripture is worthy of punishment. That is why we shun false teachers and those who follow them and strive for biblical accuracy in our own lives.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.

(1) Pink, A. W.; The Attributes of God; Sovereign Grace Publishers; Lafayette, Indiana; copyright 2002 by Jay P. Greene Sr.; ISBN 1-58960-320-6; p. 27.

PS--Sorry for going too long. The sin of sensitivity and the hypocrisy it breeds will have to wait for next time.

Comiing in Part IX:
THE SIN OF SENSITIVITY.

SENSITIVE HYPOCRITES.

A QUICK WORD ON THE DANGERS OF MEN LIKE HENRY BLACKABY.

If you haven't read my last post, Part VII in the series AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO, I' really like you to, please. It's hard reading, but more important than just about anything I've ever said. I wrote about what I believe is the most insidious and successful attack on sola scriptura in MEism. The attack is the emphasis on "feeling" the truth, instead of knowing the truth. MEs substitute their feelings by "listening" to emotions during personal devotions and group worship and judge one another based on how they make each other feel while interacting.

A man who did much to popularize this sin is Henry Blackaby. His starting point, as I pointed out in that post, is that the ancient Hebrews didn't consider they knew anything unless they had an intimate, personal experience with it. I pointed out this is a lie and we can know so easily by just a quick reflection. That is to say, the Hebrews, like anyone else, had to have lots and lots of things they knew, not by intimate, personal experience, but simply by being told verbally. For instance, if a shepherd asked a merchant the price of a tent, the merchant simply answered with the number of shekels, homers of wheat or what not. He wasn't likely to ask the shepherd to roll around in the folds of the tent and surmise the price by feeling the qualities of the tent.

I want to give one observation about this whole situation and then ask three questions.

The observation:

The problem isn't Blackaby. Anybody could be Blackaby and anyone could have written a book that promoted feelings as the primary way of coming to an intimate knowledge of God. The condition that made it possible for this man to make millions of dollars hoodwinking the church is the MENTAL GHETTO conditions in the pew. How is it that so many Evangelicals could listen to someone in a Sunday School class say that the Jews didn't know anything simply by reading it without being at least disturbed enough to raise a hand in class and ask some pointed questions? We have been trained to receive uncritically. Criticism and questioning is judgmental and bad (unless, of course, you're questioning and criticizing the one asking the critical questions--then, JUST LIKE MAGIC--it's okay). The attitude that we're in a ghetto, receiving from on high and questioning is bad allows nonsense like Blackaby's to be said regardless of the fact that there's no biblical evidence for it. Indeed, in Blackaby's case, there are boat loads of evidence against it. Common sense ought to have taken over when folks read or were told in Sunday School class that they couldn't know anything until they had a mystical experience. The teacher should have been laughed out the door. Indeed, he would have been if the class had to do with stock investing, chemistry, or calculus. Only in matters of the spiritual are we supposed to become mental slugs, feeling our way alone the sidewalk of life until we find something that makes our antennae wiggle just so, hoping we don't get stepped by the boot of truth.

The questions:

1. If the ancient Hebrews didn't think knowledge could be had simply by cognitive study, why did Moses and others write the Bible or pass on God's words to others, spoken or written? (In fact, why speak or write at all, since the deconstructionists are right?)

2. If real knowledge is possible only by direct personal experience, why did Blackaby write a book to read and study?

3. If, as Blackaby pretends, his teaching is biblical, then he came to this knowledge of God by studying the words of Scripture. Isn't this trying to have it both ways?

Just asking,
Phil Perkins.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part VII The Sin of Subjectivism

SPEAK, GOD! SPEAK! Sinning the sin of subjectivism.
I want to announce to the world that I've been having some queasy spells, intermixed with giddiness and even a little euphoria. So if God hasn't been speaking to me, He's at least mumbling a little. Anyway, just last weekend I felt something running up my leg and whatcha know! Just like Jesus gave the disciples the Lord's prayer, He gave me the Pastor's Prayer. It's to be prayed on Saturday night. Here it is:

Speak, God, speak. No, don't roll over. Speak. I have a sermon to give tomorrow and, well...I need to spice it up, so I need You to say something profound or at least funny. Come to think of it...funny actually works better. All I've got is the passage I said I'd preach about last Sunday and, well...it's all doctrinal. Why in Your Name did You have to put so much doctrine in the Bible? Don't You know how hard that makes my job? I need funny and I need it now.--The Pastor's Prayer.

Oh, yeah--um--ingeezusnaymuhmen. Huh--almost forgot.

If someone actually acted like that, it'd be fairly blasphemous. Lots of MEs do act like that.

There was a time when, unless you were in a seriously pentecostal church, never would you hear any preacher say "And God told me...yadda yadda yadda..." The reason's simple. The Hebrew Scripture makes it clear that anyone who claims to have heard from God who hadn't actually heard was very evil. He was to be killed at the hands of the first folks who heard him say such things with stones. The entire nation was to witness the execution. God sees this sin as so heinous that the OC (Old Covenant) called for death and the NC calls for expulsion and shunning. We aren't even to eat with someone like Pat Robertson.

Now, however, not only do preachers claim this sort of thing all the time, but folks in Sunday School classes and Bible studies stake their little plot of turf in God's revealed truth all the time and no one even challenges them. The goal of this post is to get you to tell anyone who sins this heinous sin ever again in your presence that they are no Christians at all and they are to leave your church, Bible study, or small group because they will infect the rest of us with a filthy slime that isn't welcome here--ever. They sin the sin of subjectivism.

WHEN GOD SPEAKS, HE DOESN'T MUMBLE.
Among the many sins of my generation in the ME movement, it's hard to pick the worst, but this has to be close to the top of the list: Devotions. It is one side of the quadripartite sin of subjective practices made popular by my generation--subjectivity in personal worship, subjectivity in group worship, subjectivity in personal relationships and subjectivity in determining truth (actually a devaluation of truth--as in "doctrine isn't important"). Devotions as practiced today isn't a biblical practice and I doubt that it ever was. Even if "devotions" was practiced as the biblical habit of studying and memorizing the Scripture, the name "devotions" is a name that seems to indicate something else. It seems to deal with the emotional, not the intellectual. It's like the term "inspirational". "Inspirational" side steps truth for the emotional. "Devotions" doesn't deal with truth. Just as one can be inspired by anything true or false, one can be devoted to anything, whether true or false.

True doesn't care if you're inspired or devoted. True's true whether you have a shimmy up your leg or not.

Stop having devotions. Crack the Book and start learning.

WHAT IF GOD SPEAKS TO ME?
Get over it.

What is often called a "word from God" isn't. Unfortunately, today's MEs believe that God's word comes to us in feelings we get at special times, like devotions or group worship. This idea isn't an ancient idea from the Bible, but a recent idea from men who failed to obey Scripture as final. The man who popularized this sin most recently was Henry Blackaby in his famous book, Experiencing God: How to Live the Full Adventure of Knowing and Doing the Will of God. This idea wasn't all new with Blackaby, but he did a lot to popularize it among MEs in the 1990s.

A BIT OF HISTORY CONCERNING SUBJECTIVISM.
I wrote earlier that the practice of claiming that a feeling contains a "word from God" is new and not biblical. That was only half the story. This sort of thing is dealt with severely in the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 18:20 says, "But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." Notice four things about this passage.

1. The first act is to presume. The Hebrew zud means to act presumptiously, rebelliously, or proudly. If one of us is to speak a word that God hasn't given we first must decide that it's okay to act in proud rebellion against God--take the authority of a prophet just because we want it. So, while you may think you're innocent reporting to the folks at your Bible study that God said something to you with a feeling you got last Wednesday at the park, perhpas you may wish to slow down a little and think.

2. The message is always verbal. Let's be precise. "Verbal" in the English doesn't mean spoken. It means having to do with words. Verbal communication is communication in language, spoken or written. "Oral" means having to do with the mouth. Hence, an "oral" exam is one taken face to face with an instructor who asks questions and expects spoken answers and "oral" surgery happens at the dentist's office. The false prophet presumes to speak a word he hasn't received. Both "speak" and "word" are from the same root. Dabar means a message or individual word and the verb form means to speak. God isn't in the business of communicating with feelings. Never in Hebrew Scripture, to my knowledge, do either of these have to do with anything other than communication in words. I read the Hebrew Bible in the Hebrew once a year. Dabar may mean a matter or thing. But when it means a message, that message is in words, not feelings.

So was Moses really taking on subjectivity here? Not entirely, but it's included. Let's look at some background. During the rebellion of Miriam and Aaron, this pair challenged Moses. The complaint was that Moses had married a Cushite, but God didn't address that. Instead, He addressed their desire to be as important as Moses. Moses was the law-giver. Evidently, they wanted to speak for God, too, with a law of their own about the Cushite lady, though God had said nothing about the situation. They presumed. In Numbers 12:6, God tells all three of them how to know if you're a prophet and speak for Yahweh. He said, "Hear now My words: If there is a prophet among you, I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream."

Visions and dreams are times when God is actually seen and/or heard. Notice, too, "Hear now My words..." WORDS. Not feelings. And notice "I speak to him in dreams." If God doesn't speak to you in actual words, you're not a prophet.

If you have a tingle down your spine, tell your chiropractor.

3. Those who spoke for Yahweh without specific, verbal communication from Yahweh, were to die just like other false prophets who spoke for completely different gods. Notice the two kinds of false prophets--the one who spoke presumptuously for God and the one who spoke for other gods. No difference. If you speak for God based on a feeling, you're no better than a Buddhist priest, a Scientologist, a JW, a shaman, or the oracle at Delphi. You're a false prophet.

Think THAT over. And while you're thinking about that, think about this: If we shunned all who did this sort of thing, how many ME books would be on the market? How many ME televangelfrauds would still be on the air? How many ME book stores would be in business? How many pastors would still have a job?

4. Notice the word "commanded". The prophet is to speak only the word Yahweh has commanded. A feeling isn't a command. A command is verbal. With a man's life on the line, one would think that man would be certain before he spoke. How can you be sure of a feeling? Wouldn't that man wait for a clear command? Today, one says God said this. Another that. Is God really contradicting Himself or is someone pretending to be sure of something no more solid than a feeling?

Despite the clear teaching of Scripture, seeking something that can be called a "word from God" has a recent history, too. Friederich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768-1834) was the grandson of two pastors and lived at a time when philosophical rationalism, resulting from the Enlightenment, was dominant. In reaction, he turned to a group who emphasized the mysterious, imaginary, and subjective. Schleiermacher attempted to find a middle path between the philosophical rationalists and the Reformers, who based their doctrine on Scripture alone. Naturalistic philosophers wanted to reach a knowledge of God by way of nature and human reason applied to nature. They called this natural theology. Schleiermacher's "positive theology" was an attempt to ride the fence. As in our time, critics of the gospel disliked the miraculous. So Schleiermacher decided that the Bible wasn't an account of actual acts by God in history complete with miracles and resurrections, but a record of internal religious experiences. The experiences were important. Facts about actual historical events were unimportant. Thus, Schleiermacher could keep the Bible, flawed as it was in his opinion, and avoid the harsh criticism of those who would call believers intellectual obscurantists. The essence of true religion was in the religious experience, not the facts of the Scripture. It was emotive, not cognitive. Subjective, not objective. (1)

Clever huh? Haver you ever heard someone say that Christianity is a matter of faith, not evidence and reason? Sound familiar? This is why in the 1800's and 1900's we see words like "inspirational" replace words like "true".


The next really big name among those who normalized the sin of subjectivity is Karl Barth (1886-1968). Barth was learned in the tradition of classical religious liberalism in which the Bible was regarded as a collection of religious writings to be criticized, not believed. Barth wasn't satisfied with liberalism. Liberals talked little of God and much of man. He had a breakthrough when reading Romans which dealt harshly with man as a sinner.

Yet, Barth couldn't make himself believe Scripture. Barth's god was a transcendent god who was "Wholly Other". The problem came, though, in Barth's rejection of the reliability of Scripture. His god was so high He could have nothing to do with anything on earth, not even the words of Scripture. Thus, the word of Barth's god came down to man as a revelation that this god gave as a personal experience a human had while reading the Bible under the influence of the "Holy Spirit". Sound familiar? (2) Barth's ideas initiated the school of thought called "dialectical theology" or "neo-orthodoxy". (3) Eventually, Barth fell into an actual apathy toward factual reality, whether physical reality in the present or historical reality. The mysterious revelation of his god was all that really mattered. Both his god and his experience were personal and untestable. (4)

Of almost no intellectual significance is Henry Blackaby and his book, Experiencing God: How to Live the Full Adventure of Knowing and Doing the Will of God. However, this book made the rounds of ME churches with the same sort of dependence on the subjective that Schleiermacher and Barth advocated, but in popular, not scholastic, form. So for that reason Blackaby is important. Churches, schools, and denominations who would never have been guilty of teaching the subjectivism of Barth or Schleiermacher embraced the Evangelical language and style of Blackaby. He was a Southern Baptist preacher, so most couldn't imagine that he was liberal. But he was heretical.
Most Southern Baptists are cessationists. In other words, they don't believe the "sign gifts" are for today. These "sign gifts" include tongues, healing, and prophecy. This is why it's so amazing that Blackaby's teaching was accepted. It was a true watershed moment when non-Pentecostal Evangelicals adopted the belief that God was still speaking today outside of the verbal revelation in the Scripture. Whether MEism had fallen so low that sola scriptura was passe and the teaching of a heretic like Blackaby was welcome, or whether the teaching of Blackaby provided the push to send MEism down the stairs isn't important. Just realize the idea that our feelings are a major source of revelation from God is recent, not biblical.

Experiencing God sold 4 million copies and was translated into 45 languages. (5) And if you think only I and other Blackaby critics see Blackaby as a mystic, read this gushing article by a fan. The first paragraph calls him a mystic in disguise--an accurate assessment.

Blackaby's main influence was to convince many that God was revealing His will to folks right now in the same way He spoke to the Old Testament prophets. (6) However, what Blackaby taught as God's method of speaking wasn't what the Old Testament describes. It's mystical; it's internal; it's non-verbal. So, Blackaby's disciples don't have a clue about how God spoke to the prophets. Just why it's assumed that God spoke through the mystical isn't explained. It's just an assumption.

And a bad one.

Remember the passages we looked at? Well, here's the common pattern found in the books of Moses: "And God spoke to Moses, saying..." He spoke, saying. No mention of feelings. God didn't say, "And God gave Moses a back rub, making Moses feel this way or that..." or "God sent a warm, wet, goose-bumpy tingle up Moses' right arm and down his left..." Please check to make sure I'm not lying. Pick any page in Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, or Deuteronomy. That is always the pattern and it happens once or twice every chapter or two. "...spoke...saying..." What could be more clear?

How did we decide that a feeling was "speaking"? We didn't get that from the Bible. Do we ever speak like that when involved in any other subject? Do we feel the truth about history, biology, or math? NO! So why do we shelve our brains for knowing God? Is it any sillier to do that for chemistry than for studying God's revelation?

While many MEs see the feel-talking god as a spiritual enhancement, it's not. That idea and Blackaby's teaching made a frontal assault on Scripture. Read what he said in the first few paragraphs of his book:

...for a Hebrew person--like Jesus--knowing something entailed experiencing it. In fact, you could not truly say you knew something unless you personally experienced it...So it is significant that, when Jesus spoke about knowing God, He was speaking like a Hebrew. (7)

There is only one problem with this reasoning. It's a lie. Hebrews weren't genetically different. They were perfectly capable of knowing intellectually, just like you and I. They had scribes, didn't they? They communicated with words, didn't they? The ladies exchanged recipes, didn't they? Indeed, personal, intimate knowledge of God is the goal, but faith comes by hearing, according to Paul, not by feeling. Cognitive, academic knowledge precedes and is a necessary element for intimate knowledge. You can't intimately know a friend until you are first aware that he exists and is present to BE experienced. Even salvation depends on hearing words and understanding them with the mind. Then the Holy Spirit brings the intimate knowledge.

I'll end with a question. If I test my feelings to find out what's true in the spiritual realm or to find my future, how is that significantly different from a witchdoctor who throws chicken guts on the floor or reads tea leaves? Tell me the difference.

Think it through.

Be holy,
Phil Perkins.

(1) Brown, Colin; Philosophy and the Christian Faith; Intervarsity Press; Downers Grove, Illinois; 1968; ISBN0-87784-712-6; pp. 109-111.
(2( Van Til, Cornelius; Christian Apologetics; P&R Publishing Company; Phillipsburg, New Jersey; 2003; ISBN-10: 0-87552-511-3; pp. 170-172.
(3)ibid.; p. 32.
(4) Brown; pp. 250-260.
(5) http://www.churchcentral.com/article.php?id=2100
(6) http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/BookReviews/exp_god/blackaby.htm
(7) Blackaby, Henry, Blackaby, Richard, and King, Claude; Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God, Revised and Expanded; B&H Publishing Group; Nashville, Tennessee; 2008; ISBN-10: 0805447539; p. 10.

UPCOMING E-BATE--Frank Turk Defends Gender-Altered Bible Versions

And I'll present the biblical view, God-willing. Mr. Turk has defended the practice of lying about gender references in translations of the Bible as just another translation "philosophy". Look for further announcements as this debate will start in three to four weeks.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part VI Sliding Down the Lexicon Into the Gutter.

WHAT'S IN A NAME?
Meditate. What does that mean to you? If you've been in the American church for more than ten years it doesn't mean what it used to mean for most of us.

Butchering words...
It's said that a rose by any other name is a rose. The flower stays the same whatever you call it. But what if it wasn't the name that got changed? What if the name stayed the same, but the flower was changed? Then what? Is a meat cleaver dulled and softened if we called it a pillow?

When dealing with ancient literature like say...the Bible...one must be aware of a phenomenon I call lexical slide. When reading a word in an old text, one should be careful to remember it isn't what the modern speaker or reader means by that word, but what the author meant. For instance, if my great grandfather said he saw a line of cars go by, he was probably standing by a railroad. That's not what I mean when I say "car". "Ah, but we don't read the ancient texts. We read modern translations and the translators worry about that so we don't have to," someone might say.

Here's the problem: Modern English translations are stuck in a quickly changing religious culture and the religious language is changing rapidly. For instance, we used to talk about being "evangelistic". Now we want to be "missional". We used to want "sanctification". Now we want "spiritual formation". "Love" used to be fidelity to God and our brothers and sisters. Now it's not hurting anyone's feelings. So too, biblical meditation isn't the "meditation" currently taught in ME churches, seminaries, conferences, and books. All these changes are negative. Paul warned of wrangling about words. but my topic here is a deviation that has lead to a divergence in doctrine and practice.

Let's start with a lexical study. First, the Hebrew and Greek. The verb "meditate", in its various forms occurs much more often in the Hebrew Old Testament than in the Greek New Testament, and that's not just because the Old Testament is much bigger. The Old Testament comprises about 72-73% of Scripture, but contains all but a handful of references to meditating.

Two Hebrew verbs are commonly translated "meditate". First, is hagah. It is a word that attempts to sound like the activity or thing it denotes, like "yip" is used to denote the bark of a puppy. It's supposed to sound like the growl of an animal or the sound made by a man under his breath as he mutters or groans while considering something vexing, deep, or difficult. Holladay defines it as to growl, to moan, to read in an undertone, to ponder, to plan, or to speak. The noun forms are haguth, which means the act or process of thinking or planning and higgayon, which means talk or mockery or the act or process of thinking or planning or the act of playing an instrument. The second word is siach and it means to become concerned with or to give one's attention to. It's noun form is sichah. It means the occupation or concern of one's thoughts or mind.(1)

Brown, Driver, and Briggs says essentially the same thing, but adds to muse (to think reflectively) and to spell a word to the lexical range of the two verbs. (2) But even more important than what the dictionaries say is what the Bible says the word means. The Bible does define it for us, but I want to get into the current misunderstanding of what "meditation" is.

...in order to slaughter the innocent.
The BIG NAME in bringing the new "meditation" into MEism is Richard Foster. His book Celebration of Discipline, the Path to Spiritual Growth is the classic textbook used in seminaries and Bible colleges across the nation to inseminate young preachers and missionaries with practices such as unbiblical meditation. Foster doesn't stop there, though. He also instructs young heads full of tapioca in the fine arts of using the palms of one's hands to achieve certain inner spiritual states,(3) the use of the imagination to "experience God",(4) and studying the writings of heretics like Thomas a Kempis and Brother Lawrence, equating their writings with Calvin's Institutes.(5) First copyrighted in 1978, it hit with such a jolt a new category of seminary and Bible college courses was invented to make room for it. These are usually called "spiritual disciplines" classes. Don't send your son or daughter to a college that has one. The more conservative among us disliked the book and later editions were pruned back to appear less unorthodox. Still, the 1998 edition is heretical. While I was still teaching in a Southern Baptist college, it was being used to my great dismay.

Foster has two defintions for "meditation". They are contradictory. The first definition is almost biblical but leaves two loopholes he'll later use. The second one, just two pages later, is heretical outright. But if someone's going to lie to you, he'll start by getting your trust first, right? That's why they're called con(fidence) men. Imagine a man ready to cut your throat in order to rob you. "I've got a good sharp knife here. Could you lean your head back and loosen your tie a bit so I can get to your neck?" "Sure! How's this?" It doesn't happen like that.

The first definition is on page fifteen. He even starts with the two Hebrew verbs I listed for you. He wrote, "These two words have various meanings: listening to God's word, reflecting on God's works, ruminating on God's law, and more."(6) Reading this innocently and not discerningly, it seems great. It's not. Meditation isn't listening. That's significant as we will see. It's in there for a devilish reason. And the "and more" opens all sorts of possibilities. Foster has more, for sure, but not for better.

His second defintion says, "Christian meditation, very simply, is the ability to hear God's voice and obey His word."(7) Take a look at this definition. Nothing Foster does seems accidental. Notice "God's voice" is different than "His word". I don't believe this is redundance with different terms for color or clarity. It's a difference he'll use like a prybar.

Contrast biblical meditation against Foster's meditation in these ways: 1. Biblical meditation is an activity. Foster's "meditation" can be a state of being--an "ability". 2. Biblical meditation has as it's object only God, His Word, and His works and these are seen as objective things--real things, not imaginary. Foster's "meditation" can be imaginary, ideally seeking "God's voice" by means of the imagination without any objective input through the senses. He even calls finding God through one's imagination "more humble" than studying the objective revelation God has given us in Scripture.(8) So not only is Foster writing to stop us from thinking, but he counts on us not thinking much in the first place. He actually expects us to believe depending on God's Word isn't humble, but exalting our imaginations to the office of prophet and oracle IS humble. Can someone explain this to me?

I will cover, God willing, the problem of objective vs. subjective perceptions of God in the next installment. Look for the Pastor's Prayer.

BIBLICAL MEDITATION DEFINED BY THE BIBLE.
If we're going to argue about what a term in the Bible means, shouldn't we listen if the Bible is actually nice enough to tell us what it means? The following are some passages in which the Hebrew uses the words hagah and siach: Gen. 24:63, Josh. 1:8, Ps. 1:2,4:5,27:4,63:6,77:6,77:12,104:34,119:15,119:23,119:27,119:48,119:78,119:148,143:5,145:5, Is. 33:18.

The following are some verses in which the Hebrew uses the noun derivatives of the two verbs listed above: Job15:4, Ps. 19:14,49:4,104:34,119:97,119:99.

In none of these passages, is there any hint of dreaming or imagining. All these passages have a real, tangible object of the meditation--God, His laws, precepts, judgments, and Word in general, or His works ranging from nature to His miraculous judgments and deliverances.

Furthermore, due to the nature of Hebrew poetry, there are passages in which the terms are listed as synonyms with the following:

1. Fear of God in Job 15:4.
2. Looking at in Psalm 119:15.
3. To delight in in Psalm 1;2.
4. To behold the beauty of in Psalm 27:4. Additionally, the word translated "meditate" in this verse is baqar. It means to search, seek, or inquire.
5. The fountain of godly speech in Psalm49:3.
6. To remember in Psalm 63:6 and 77:6.
7. To ponder in Psalm 77:12.
8. To regard in Psalm 119:15.
9. The result of godly understanding in Psalm 119:27.
10. To love something in Psalm 119:97.
11. The source of great knowledge in Psalm 119:99.
12. Something to look forward to with great anticipation in Psalm 119:148.
13. To ponder in Psalm 143:5.
14. A source of evangelistic fervor in Psalm 145:1-6.

So where's the imagination in that? There isn't any at all. In addition the meditation of David's heart was a concern for him. He was worried that it should be acceptable to God in Psalm 19:14. If meditation is about imaginary things how can it be deemed acceptable or unacceptable. There is no objective standard in imagination.

THE BIG LESSON.
The big lesson is this: Today's love of spirituality without content leads away from thought. It leads to the ghetto. Biblical meditation leads to a solid knowledge of God through cognitive activity in and around His Bible, His Person, and His Works. It is objective and cognitive. Today's meditation is imaginative and subjective.

Today's meditation isn't Christian.

THE BIGGER LESSON.
Foster isn't the main story here. He's just an example. MANY are subverting the faith by introducing new, unbiblical language or changing the old definitions of biblical language to introduce unbiblical concepts. Beware. The words may be right, but the concepts can be very, very wrong.

Stay holy,
Phil Perkins.

(1) Holloday, William L.; A Concise Hebrew and Aramic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Based on the First, Second, and Third Editions of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros; E. J. Brill and Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Grand Rapids, Michigan; 1988; ISBN 0-8028-3413-2; pp. 76 & 551.
(2) Brown, Francis, Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C.; The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon; Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, Massachusetts; 1996; pp. 211 & 967.
(3)Foster, Richard J.; Celebration of Discipline, the Path to Spiritual Growth; HargerCollins Publishers: New York, New York; 1998; ISBN 0-06-062893-1; p. 31.
(4) ibid. p. 25.
(5) ibid. p. 72.
(6) ibid. p. 15.
(7) ibid. p. 17.
(8) ibid. p. 25.

AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO--Part V Size and Scope of the Problem in Four Categories

CATCHIN' UP.


Today's post is part of the series, AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO. Find the first installments here. I describe the ME (Modern Evangelical) "church" in America as a Mental Ghetto because, like most American ghettos, the folks who stay there are able to get out, but staying is easier than getting out. Watching TV and getting high is more fun than taking a shower and doing job interviews. Going to the soccer game with the kids is easier than studying for an hour and sitting the kids down to tell them a Bible story. And many clergy actually like it that way because they get something out of it, too. I call them the Mental Ghetto Pimps. And I am going to use the example of a Pastor Dan Jarrell and the crew at Family Life Today as the Mental Ghetto Pimps.

MORNING SICKNESS.
This morning I had some around-town chores to do. So I did something I should probably do more often just for general information, but it's painful. I tuned to the local religious radio station and my ears began to bleed. I hate that such stuff is called "Christian". The first thing that turned my stomach was an ad for "Our Daily Bread", the monthly devotional booklet whose purpose seems to be to sooth our guilt for not reading our Bibles by means of little, three-paragraph essays with a Bible verse for a pretext and a witty quote at the end--all of which takes 45 seconds to read top-to-bottom. And that's if you go REALLY SLOOOOOW. But what the heck? You've had your "devotions", right? No muss, no fuss.

And no God.

The ad ended with the invitation to come along with them and "explore the world of spiritual meditation". That's right--spiritual meditation. I suppose the folks selling it think it'll raise fewer eyebrows than selling Ouija Boards or prayer labyrinths.

Radio Bible Class gives us this little gem. Once orthodox, RBC is now pushing mystics. (1)

Keep in mind, here, that I only listened to the station a total of probably less than five minutes total, intermittently between stops. It was certainly less than ten. Yet there was another incident during that time. The second was hearing a "Pastor Dan Jarrell" bludgeon the parable of the talents from Matthew 25. From the snippet of the conversation I heard, it seemed that Pastor Dan applied this somehow to marriage. That parable has nothing to do with marriage. It's about obedience to do God's work with the time and resources God has given each of us.

But that's just the start.

Here's the really ridiculous part: In verses 26-30 the fate of the servant who did nothing with what was given him was assigned to torment. It reads, "...and cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Pastor Dan told us that the place where there is "weeping" is where you "feel sorry for yourself", and the place where there is "gnashing of teeth" is where you "blame everybody else".

Here's the question we MUST answer:

WHY DOES ANYONE CONSIDER THIS SORT OF THING EVEN REMOTELY CHRISTIAN?
The depth of the problem makes this possible. It is in each of us individually, with a few exceptions, and it is in our institutions. I believe the depth of the problem comes to flower in four categories of collective sin.

CATEGORY ONE: BIBLICAL IGNORANCE.
How can Dan Jarrell say such things and still be taken seriously by anyone who calls themselves "Christian"? The short answer is the folks who take him seriously probably aren't Christians themselves or they'd know better because they'd have spent lots of time pursuing God through the Scripture. But that discussion is too big to get into here.

In order for Dan Jarrell to say such a thing, he has to have practiced, not just innocent ignorance, but the sin of outright aphronism. Being a "pastor", he's had time in the study to read the book of Matthew and if we give the benefit of the doubt (I wouldn't and if someone wants to know why, ask in the comment thread, please.) and say that he didn't actually lie purposely, then one can only imagine just what mental tricks this man has done to come to the interpretation of Matthew 25:30 he presented. It had to be purposeful ignorance, not innocent ignorance--lying to himself. I call it "aphronism".

In addition to Dan Jarrell's efforts to make the fantastic sound reasonable, he has to have accomplices. The people running the host program, Family Life Today, have to turn their heads to the lie. The folks at the local radio station, KURL, in Billings, MT have to turn their heads, too. I've contacted both Family Life Today and KURL in the past about such things and both have responded with anger.

So, there are Dan, FLT, and KURL, but there's someone else that has to remain in biblical ignorance for all this to work. THE AUDIENCE. There have to be enough MEs (Modern Evangelicals) out there who don't know their Bibles for this to be sold. It's a Mental Ghetto, where everyone is happy to remain ignorant. And they all get something for their ignorance. The audience gets to feel religious without actually dealing with God, studying His Word, or dealing with their own sin in light of His commandments and the threat of hell. As long as the audience stays stupid, KURL has an audience and can sell air time, FLT gets to "give the gift of hope" at $200 a couple (2), and Pastor Ignorant gets paid to spread his heresy.

Recently, forty-five students of Wheaton in their SENIOR YEAR were asked to list the ten commandments in their words (NO EXACT RECITATION). Only one could do it. (3)

This is raw sin.

CATEGORY TWO: IGNORANCE IN GENERAL KNOWLEDGE.
What does general knowledge have to do with biblical knowledge and what place does it have in the church? Aren't we supposed to be guided by faith?

No, we aren't to be guided by faith. At least not the kind of faith of MEism. I'm not writing about the content of faith, but the kind of faith. The content of a faith is what is actually believed. The kind of faith is how and why one believes. Christianity is a faith, but not ignorant faith. Obscurantism isn't biblical faith, but that is a discussion for CATEGORY FOUR.

Apply all the knowledge you have to your faith. Taking the example of Mental Ghetto Pimp Dan Jarrell, he counts on the fact that no one in his audience would apply even a tiny bit of literary interpretation or common horse sense to what he was saying. He counted on the fact that most of his audience wouldn't ask the simplest of questions concerning his claim about Matthew 25:30. How is "weeping" interpreted specifically as feeling sorry for oneself? How is "gnashing of teeth" analogized into blaming other people? What are the clues in the text or the context? How does this fit with anything I know about biblical doctrine? Was Jesus really thinking about self-pity and antagonizing others? Where are those subjects first taken up in the text so that we can reasonably read them in here?

Pimp Jarrell has to assume that his audience is of a mindset of switching off all their general knowledge about anything at all when engaged in things of the "faith". This is both moronic and unbiblical. It's moronic. In what area of human endeavor is progress made toward truth by means of purposely being mindless? It's unbiblical. What happened to all the reasoned arguments of the epistles and Jesus' request for Thomas to examine the evidence? Or Paul's commendation of the Bereans for examining all they heard by the Hebrew Bible or its translation, the Septuagint?

Not only should Christians strive to be logical and apply their knowledge, it's a part of Christian tradition to achieve intellectual excellence. Yet, we actually hear preachers say things like, "I'm just a simple preacher."

Then resign from the pulpit. You aren't qualified. You're in sin. And your sinful attitude has infected the entire church. Shame on you. May God deal with you for what you are.

For an example of how ignorance of general knowledge often leads to direct sins of other sorts as well, consider the following bumper sticker I got off of a "Christian" web site (4) this morning:

Puritanism: the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy.

And what is the sin? NO. What are the SINS here? Gossip, cowardice, and bearing false witness. The Puritans, by way of the strong connection between "Puritanism" and "Puritans" are falsely said to be unhappy about others being happy. Curmudgeons. Since the Puritians are dead and gone, they can't defend themselves. Hence the dual sins of cowardice and gossip. And actual history tells us the Puritans weren't anything like that. If the author of these words knew better he was lying about the Puritans. If he didn't know any better, then he lied by pretending to a knowledge he had not.

And if confronted with this, I'll bet dollars-to-doughnuts, the reprover will be accused of being picky. But how would the author like it if he was so slandered?

CATEGORY THREE: IGNORANCE OF HOW TO THINK.
Jesus disciples were tax-collectors, carpenters, and fishermen, with a doctor thrown in. I wonder if they were even literate when they met Jesus. Nevertheless, they became men of oratory and letters. Remember Peter? A blustery fisherman became the author of biblical books, capable of recognizing that Paul's writings were divinely inspired Scripture.

Why?

Why did blue-collar men become educated in ancient literature? Because that's how God communicates. The gospel is spoken and written, not felt and grunted. Nor is it communicated by a stirring chorus repeated ad nauseum. Most MEs believe that truth can be measured by how one feels. And my generation is the one who perpetrated this lie. If you think me wrong, simply go to some of the ODM sites. Find a comment thread and read. A heretic named in the post will be defended by a commenter on the basis that the commenter "knew" the figure named. No facts will be brought to bare by the commenter except one. He "knew" him. In other words, they had a simpatico. Feelings.

In the seventies CCM (Contemporary Christian Music) came into being. The emphasis seemed to be on the music, not the lyrical content. Some exceptions are worth noting, such as Keith Green. But the same generation who started CCM is the generation who said doctrine isn't important. And the distinguishing characteristics of CCM were the new style of music and the fact that it was mostly content free.

In fact, some songs actually advocated the sin of aphronism. Not only was this a doctinal position--can't we all just get along?--but it was good marketing. For Corporate Christianity to work, sales can't be limited to just the Reformeds or the Charismatics. We need the whole enchilada to make a prophet.

Chuck Girard is a prime example of pimping for a prophet for himself and the record companies. Read the opening lyrics from his 1974 song, "Think about What Jesus Said":

Think about what Jesus said
Before you let your mind reject Him
Listen to your heart instead
And you will accept Him (5)

Get that? Thought bad. Feelings good. In fact, it's worse than that. Thinking will damn you. Feeling your way along like a slug on the sidewalk of "faith" will save your soul. Is that a biblical view of man? Is that a biblical view of epistemology? How is it that Chuck was considered a Christian? He disobeyed Christ's words severely. Chuck hates knowledge. Jesus said He came to bring light to the world. Don't these two oppose? Yes, they do.

Which brings me to the fourth category.

CATEGORY FOUR: IGNORANCE ABOUT THE BIBLICAL COMMAND TO PRACTICE PRECISE THOUGHT.

Stop having devotions and don't meditate anymore. Replace devotions with serious study, not a quick time of going through religious activity, hoping you can "feel the spirit". And stop having moments of silence. Instead, take what you learn in your study and think those things over and over during your work, during your evenings, at night, in the morning.

Current private practices aren't biblical. The ME "church" is returning to mysticism, contrary to biblical injunction. While my generation passed the mystical baton, previous generations were running hard, too. For instance, the word "inspirational" has been used for decades to stand in for the word "religious". Inspiration can be anything that engenders positive religious feelings. A devout Mormon can feel inspired. It has to do only with the feelings and nothing to do with the content that was used to achieve those feelings.

My generation used to argue with itself about being too feelings-oriented in worship. Biblical content lost the argument.

And this generation is paying the price.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1)http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=924&more=1&c=1
(2)http://www.familylife.com/site/c.dnJHKLNnFoG/b.3204559/k.F5BB/Attend_a_conference.htm
(3)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1817838/posts
(4)http://www.chuck.org/jokes%20bumper%20stickers.htm

(5)http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/chuckgirard/1974%20finaltouch/ft04.html

COMING IN PART VI OF THE MENTAL GHETTO. What is biblical meditation? And the biblical commands about our minds and our thoughts.

FRIDAY IS CORRECTIONS DAY

A lot has been said, done, and controverted on this blog this week and four corrections have to be made.

1. Solameanie, aka Joel Griffith, over at Seventh Sola, brought something to my attention. In Part III of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs and Part IV of AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM IS A MENTAL GHETTO, I mentioned Moody Bible Institute in a very negative light. Moody Church isn't connected to Moody Bible Institute either through funding or governance. So, whatever is done or not done at MBI, it shouldn't reflect at all on Moody Church. (Lessinacorse sumbuddy knows sumpin I don't. Majun that.)

2. I mentioned Paul Washer without saying two things that need to be said. He's great. And you can hear his sermons at sermonaudio.com. Washer is definitely worth a listen--okay, lots of listens. Enjoy.

3. Unfortunately, due to my failure to correct an ongoing accusation, some have asked if I believe that anything but a word-for-word translation is a sin or incorrect. No, I don't. In fact, some of my readers are multi-lingual, so I know that they know there is no such thing as a word-for-word translation unless the document is very short. No two languages have vocabulary with a one-to-one correlation and no two languages have identical grammar and syntax. Literal, word-for-word translation is preferred, but never possible in all situations.

4. Frank Turk said he doesn't google himself. I said he did. I'll let you decide. Here's my evidence: a. He showed up here within hours of his name being mentioned. b. This is a pattern among some bloggers, using search engines or friends to monitor the net to keep tabs of all us and what we say about them. c. Frank is a very dishonest fellow. In fact, I had to cut him off after he repeatedly pretended to be able to judge translations, but refused to say whether or not he even knew the languages. d. He is soooo obsessed that he actually sent FOUR COMMENTS in LESS THAN 30 MINUTES------AFTER HE WAS CUT OFF. e. Even before I cut him off, he answered every comment I posted within very few minutes, so he does monitor things pretty closely, at least after he knows where to look.

On the other hand, he has evidence, too: He SAYS he doesn't.

See you all next week,
Phil Perkins.

THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs--Part III

Writing this post (Part III of the series) has been very hard. When I started I thought this would be the easiest of the three parts. It's the hardest. There is SO much to say. And it's so important. Here is my attempt:


THE PROBLEMS.
Parts I and II of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs revealed four areas of sin that are altogether too common in online discernment ministries. They were being generally unethical, refusing to separate from other ODMS and ODMers in unrepentant sin, breaking the second commandment, attempting to associate themselves with Reformers and famous preachers of the past with whom they have little in common--a pretentiousness.

All of these sins cut to the heart of what discernment is about. Discernment is all about honoring Jesus Christ by staying pure. Pretention makes me a liar. Fellowshiping with "believers" in open sin makes me impure. Deciding to make up the sort of god I want makes me the same as all the false teachers whom I say I'm exposing. Lax ethics make me just plain sinful.

THE CHALLENGE AHEAD OF US.
The road ahead if we are to get to a reformation will require three things.

1. STOP COMPETING.
In Numbers twelve we read the story of Aaron and Miriam and their complaint. They accused Moses of being in sin, when he was innocent. It was an interpersonal sort of sin. The sort of sin that occurs when folks are competing for notoriety. When jealousy comes. When competition is rampant. When pride is king. Miriam said Moses had done wrong when he married a Cushite lady. The sons of Israel were still in the wilderness. In chapter sixteen, we read of the rebellion of Korah. Both were rebellions and both complaints had at their root, not the specific charges brought by the complainers, but jealousy.

In fact, I fear that some have become ODMers because they simply don't like those who lead Modern Evangelicalism. Many of us are little folks given little roles by God and we don't like that. Get over ourselves. That isn't to say that MEism isn't apostate. It is. But ask yourself just why you're here in the ODM movement. Are you here because you're torqued at certain folks or because you're burning with a fire for God's Name and its glorification among the nations?

If you're here because of the first reason, don't leave just yet. Instead, get in line with God's word. Then go back to doing God's work for God's reasons whether in the ODM arena or elsewhere.

Competitiveness is also within the ODMs. That's why you see so much of the sins I mentioned. Supposedly godly men keep tabs on what everyone on the net is saying about them. Why? You KNOW why. There seems to be a competition to say things in the most profound way possible. Find a cool quote. Why? Snarky criticism of others is the currency. Why?

Stop it.

Going back to the stories in Numbers, when Miriam was sick and white, she had to go through ritual purification. The sons of Israel had to stay in camp and wait for her until she and the priests dealt with her sin.

Don't think for one moment that sin in our camp won't cause God to take His hand off our work and stop our progress. It will. God doesn't change. Not even for us "good guys".

2. GET OVER "BIG".
Of HUGE CONCERN to most ODMers is the loss of formerly "Christian" institutions, like denominations, colleges, and seminaries. Did you know that God isn't concerned about it?

No, He isn't.

In previous articles, I mentioned that schools like Wheaton and Moody are gone. Go to Lighthouse Trails on my blogroll. You can look up folks like Wheaton. While you're there look up Regents and Cedarville, too. Go to Al Mohler's blog to an article of a week or two ago. He's on my blogroll and I'll leave him there for you to look at for a couple weeks. He proudly announced that his school, Southern Baptist Seminary, is now offering a doctorate in spiritual formation. Yes--Al Mohler's gone. Remember Billy Graham? He now denies the faith. I could go on for pages and pages. A book that catalogued all the fallen bigwigs and institutions of just the last five years would be very thick indeed.

Could it be that God is stripping His remnant in America of the props that have corrupted us in the past? (I'm not a prophet or the son of a prophet. I'm just asking.)

Even our country, the US, is falling. But the Americanization of the gospel in MEism is another topic for another time. I'll just say this--If you have an American flag in your church, shame on you. You're supposed to pledging your allegiance to Jesus Christ, the God of Israel. Remember, "Christian" churches in Germany once flew the swastika.

GOD DOESN'T NEED OUR INSTITUTIONS AND HE DOESN'T NEED US. Here are all the passages in Scripture that require Christians to build seminaries (write them down, please):




Get all of those?

And here are all the passages in Scripture that require Christians to build church buildings:





Get all of those? There'll be a quiz on Friday.

Jesus worked for the furtherance of one earthly institution and one only: His assembly. That actually takes a lot of pressure off of ODMers and our ilk. (It also explains why so many ME pastors preach the tithe.) I used to sweat the demise of the Southern Baptists. I don't anymore. God never has worked like that. Did your denomination save you? Did a fancy building on the corner of Self and Smug save you? Did a seminary save you?

No. In fact, the most heinous heresies have come in the name of "BIG". The early theological liberals came out of Germany and they wanted to broaden the appeal of the gospel by getting rid of the miraculous. Only a few Europeans were Christians and if we could persuade scientific minds that the Bible wasn't all that full of miracles, we could reclaim much of the culture. (Sound familiar?) They wanted "BIG". The Emergents want to take the moral certainty out of the gospel to get "BIG". MEs want to make the gospel "relevant" so we can get more folks and get "BIG".

Want to be like Christ? Then, get over "BIG". He gave a sermon on sovereignty in John 6 and lost almost all His followers. "TRUTH" trumped "BIG". If you value "BIG", you're not following Chirst. "BIG" or Jesus. Take your pick.

Think back, if you're a regular reader, to the last several posts. I called several ODMers and bloggers into account. One showed up here as soon as his name was mentioned. Did you notice the first sentence in his first comment? It was derision for not being "BIG". And he pretended to have expertise in the languages, but refused to offer his credentials. Where are you today? Are you "BIG"? If not, here's something you ought consider: Many of the "BIG" boys think you're second class. Why do you want to be like them? Don't. Men like Frank Turk are liars. They hate God. Jesus' ministry was miniscule compared to the Frank Turks of his day--the religious leaders. Frank would look down his nose on Jesus, too. If your website isn't like Frank's, you're not up to snuff. Frank said so, remember that?

3. CONCENTRATE ON BEING LIKE CHRIST.
NOT like some Christian celebrity.

Get to the basics. (Notice I didn't say "back".) Read the Scripture like you've never read it before. Spend hours a day buried in it. If your job is too much for that, then take all day Saturday. Do it. Yes, it costs, and even your wife may need to be informed that she, too, will have to carry some of that cost. Seek purity before you ask others to. Logs and specks.

Get your information from good ODMs and go back to your churches and put it to work protecting the flock. Many of us ought to concentrate, not on ODMing, but on spreading the gospel. Look at Paul, for instance. He did offline ODMing, naming liars and warning of false teachings in every letter. (Yes, if you're an ODMer you have quite a brotherhood.) Many are ODMers for the pure motive that few even look for false teachers, including most ME pastors. (And that biblically disqualifies a man from the pastorate, too, by the way. A pastor is a shepherd and shepherd who doesn't even care to look for wolves should be fired.)


This is a pure motive. This is good, but remember that Jesus spent most of His time with folks who knew they were sinners, not the religious. In fact, if Jesus walked around your town, would He even be recognized as a pastor? He was. But your church probably wouldn't recognize Him as such.

Which brings me to something I've decided this week. I'm changing Al Tosap. There'll be a new emphasis on teaching Scripture, God willing.

CONCLUSION:
Do your thing in the way God has equipped you and we'll see you soon enough at the feet of God. Stay holy.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--pray for me and my wife. We're witnessing on the streets and starting a home church. Pray for our holiness.

THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs--Part II

CATCHIN' UP.
ODMs (online discernment ministries) are an important tool today. False teaching is flowering like dandelions in the lawn. Only the lawn is gone. There are clumps of grass among the weeds.

The fault lies with folks like myself who, in our younger years, decided that doctrine wasn't important. I tell young folks they must reject almost all my generation gave them. Stick to your Bibles and be suspiscious.

Nevertheless, there are some in the ODM world who aren't even saved. The proof is in their lives. Part I dealt with two sins currently rampant. One is a general looseness in ethics. Plagiarism is common and shoddy workmanship biblically and logically go unchallenged. As long as there is an argument against the heretics, it doesn't seem to matter if the argument is right or wrong. It may be pure insults meant to hurt or it may illogical. That seems okay. Just blab it out there.


The second sin is rooted in team spirit of a sorts. I was recently told by a fellow ODMer not to expose Ravi Zacharias because he was "on the same team". I couldn't disagree more. There is a difference between orthodoxy and regeneration. But that's a long discussion. Additionally, there seems to be an implicit admission on the part of many in the ODM movement that we can't count on God. We need big organizations. We need to stick together and support each other. We can't break from someone just because they're in sin. We need them. Or perhaps, we don't want to believe a friend is on the wrong side. That will cost too much.

STARTING WITH THE HOUSE OF GOD.
What exactly do all false teachers have in common? What is it they do that is repugnant to God? Think particularly of the Emergent, because they come right out and say they're doing it. Rob Bell said he and his honey were "rediscovering Christianity" as an Eastern religion. (1) Remember that? Many go even further. The word is "reimagining". Reimagining the Christian faith is currently in style. We ODMers just can't abide that, because the Scripture is abundantly clear. The faith is the same as was first delivered to the saints. Truth has no room for imagining anything. Whether or not they would use that same language, all false teachers commit the sin of abandoning Scripture, either in part or in whole, to pursue doctrines and opinions not secured in Scripture.


How is it then that so many of us feel so free to break the second commandment? Paul Washer has become quite popular among young folks and many ODMers. He has railed against many of the sins in the Evangelical church, including the breaking of the second commandment and I think we need to heed his warnings. He's right.

I've made the mistake of gently and softly trying to tell a number of ODMers that this commandment is real and serious. And that I, like them, once kept pictures of fellows who posed for paintings which were then hung and presented as if the fellow was Jesus.

Here is the second commandment in the NASB:

Exodus 20:4-6 You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

I, like a lot of my generation of Evangelicals, was raised to ignore this commandment in regard to pictures of different men who were painted up to represent Jesus. So I want to be gentle here, knowing that some who read this aren't going to take it well. Just read and see for yourself. I was where you are.

"But we aren't worshipping the picture, it only represents Jesus," you might say. Do you remember the story of the golden calf? Go back to Exodus and read it again. The bull was to represent Yahweh. Read what Aaron said in Exodus 32:

Exodus 32:2-4 And Aaron said to them, "Tear off the gold rings which are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me." 3 Then all the people tore off the gold rings which were in their ears, and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he took this from their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made it into a molten calf; and they said, "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt."

The calf didn't exist before that day. Yet, Aaron said it represented Yahweh, Who brought them out of Mitsraim. Just like the pictures "represent Jesus".

"But we are innocent, because it's just how we conceptualize Jesus." I hear that all the time. In fact, I've heard it from the folks who run the blogs here and here. But isn't that what the Emergent is doing? Reimagining God? And we have God's permission to do that, but the Emergents don't? And isn't that just what the second commandment forbids? Fantasizing about what God is like?

Lest you think me wierd, I would like to remind you that most of the ODMers are calling right now for a reformation or a return to the reformation. The Reformers wouldn't have anything to do with many of us. They'd call us "idolaters" and shun us.

Which leads me to the next section.

DROPPING NAMES AND CLAIMING A BROTHERHOOD THAT ISN'T THERE.-- Shooting some Quayle.
An otherwise good man got caught in a childish lie on October 5, 1988. His name is Dan Quayle. He didn't speak the lie. He implied it. He was running for vice president of the US and he'd been accused of being short on experience for the job of president if the president should die and he became president through succession. In a debate with Lloyd Bentsen, his rival, Quayle compared his experience with that of Jack Kennedy.

The dynamic here may be lost on some of you younger readers and some of you who aren't American. Kennedy was a Democrat and Quayle was a Republican, so the two would have been adversaries if Kennedy was alive, but at the time, Kennedy was revered as a heroic figure. So Quayle was happy to compare himself to Kennedy, instead of a Republican of similar background. I remember the time and it felt uncomfortable when he said it because everyone knew that Quayle was pulling a fast one. He wasn't like Kennedy at all and everyone knew it. Bentsen was simply the first to call Quayle on his charade. Read how Bentsen taught Quayle a lesson in honesty:

Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy: I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. (2)

The place roared and it was the most embarrassing moment that I can remember in American politics. HE WAS CAUGHT.

Similarly, most of us realize that few in the ODM movement measure up to our fathers. And we need to stop faking it. I've read Charles Spurgeon, and many ODMers are no Charles Spurgeon. NOT EVEN close.

But this is more than a mistake or a simple thing explained by zeal if one really understands just what these men believed. I've already written in Part I of the issue of biblical separation and how some ODMs don't obey what we want others to do. The fathers would have very bad things to say to us about that, but I'm not even going to get into that today.

Let's just look at what the Reformers and some of the fathers taught about the second commandment. They thought those who had images weren't their brothers at all. They would call many of us idolators, just like we call the Emergents false teachers. There is no difference in the mind of men like Spurgeon. Want proof? Spurgeon heartily endorsed Matthew Henry. Read what Spurgeon said about Henry:

First among the mighty (commentaries) for general usefulness we are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word, Matthew Henry. He is the most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy . . . he is deeply spiritual, heavenly, profitable; finding good matter in every text, and from all deducting the most practical and judicious lessons . . . It is the Christian's companion, suitable to everybody, instructive to all. (3)

And see what Henry had to say about the second commandment in Matthew Henry's Commentary of Exodus 20:4-6:

The prohibition: we are here forbidden to worship even the true God by images, v. 4, 5. [1.] The Jews (at least after the captivity) thought themselves forbidden by this commandment to make any image or picture whatsoever. Hence the very images which the Roman armies had in their ensigns are called an abomination to them (Mt. 24:15), especially when they were set up in the holy place. It is certain that it forbids making any image of God (for to whom can we liken him? Isa. 40:18, 15), or the image of any creature for a religious use.

And what about other historical Baptists and others leading to Spurgeon's era? The Baptist Confession of 1689 relied heavily on the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Westminster Larger Catechism says this about the second commandment:

The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and anywise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever; all worshipping of it, or God in it or by it; the making of any representation of feigned deities, and all worship of them, or service belonging to them, all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretence whatsoever; simony; sacrilege; all neglect, contempt, hindering, and opposing the worship and ordinances which God hath appointed.--Answer to question 109.

The same is said in fewer words about the second commandment in the Heidelberg Catechism, question 96. And the reason the Protestants were so big on this is in the language of the second commandment. See what is said about "any image of anything". It's clear.

The conclusion is inescapable. Our fathers in the faith and the Reformers would have nothing to do with those among us who break the second commandment. Is it not hypocritical, then to identify with men who would put us out of their churches and use their words as if we were brothers with them?

Earlier I gave two links to websites that are accepted by other ODMs or call themselves ODM. They are Faces Like Flint and Thinker Up. I contacted both. Faces was some time ago. Perhaps two years. All I got from "Sirrod" was anger. I recently found out that Thinker Up was breaking the second commandment on their front page. Reason didn't help. And Kenny Oliver over there was once a close friend, but he has added a picture of a jesus and that's that.

Faces is actually promoted at Christian Research Network. I haven't contacted anyone there except one and I'm pretty sure not all realize what's going on. So, I don't want to cast a bad light on all of them, but the one I did contact responded only with anger. No argument was given, only anger. Read and understand this:

If you're an ODMer, and fellowship with folks in unrepentant sin or break the second commandment, don't quote Paul Washer or Charles Spurgeon, or Calvin. Don't be a Quayle.

Please remember, most folks in the ODMs are great people, doing just exactly what needs to be done. They are under appreciated, scorned, and hated. But not by God. These sins are the sins only of some. Pray for purity.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1)http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/november/12.36.html
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you_are_no_Jack_Kennedy
(3)http://www.monergismbooks.com/Matthew-Henrys-Commentary-on-the-Whole-Bible-p-16504.html

COMING TOMORROW IN THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs--The Challenge Ahead of Us.

O-D-M-s and E-G-O-s--Frank Turk Googles Himself.

Something happened today that actually made me start a new blog post category. For a long time I've had STUPID THINGS EVANGELICALS SAY. Today I offer you, my three readers, the first post in the new category, STUPID THINGS EVANGELICALS DO.

Most of us can remember someone, usually a girl, from our childhood who was constantly showing off her shoes or new outfit or bicycle. Or she actually ASKED if you thought she was pretty. Remember her?

I know you don't want to, but try.

Even at a very young age, most thought such behavior was childish and narcissistic. Of course, few of us could pronounce "narcissistic", let alone know what it means, so we just said she was "conceited" or some such thing as that.

So it's natural to expect that, in the humble and godly world of Evangelical bloggers and church leaders, no one (and I mean NO ONE) would ever, ever do such a thing. So, here's my question:

WHY DO SO MANY OF THEM GOOGLE THEMSELVES TO SEE WHAT THE REST OF US ARE THINKING ABOUT THEM?


Grown men, who expect you to think they're godly, pretending to be godly, often using pretend names like kids playing fort, pretending to do all they do for the glory of God, actually look the internet over to find what folks are saying about them. Not looking out for God's reputation, but looking out for THEIR reputation.

This is how I know they're doing this: If a name is mentioned in a post or in a comment thread, the person named will often just show up at a blog they don't ever follow. Or, at times, a representative for them or for their organization does so. They're either monitoring or they are paying someone on staff to monitor what you say to see if you like them. Yes, some of the big guys actually take money from honest Christians who give it for the glory of God and use it for their glory.

Here are some recent examples I've come across in the last few weeks: Tim Challies showed up at Surphside here to once again assure everyone that he didn't say what he said. Yes, all our screens were lying. (Perhaps it's a virus.) Rick Warren apologist, Richard Abanes, showed up here to defend RW and so did Ken Silva to add what he had to say. And then there was another who had a shill show up at another site, but I'll refrain from naming him. Finally, Frank Turk turned up on the comment thread of yesterday's post here at Al Tosap.

I was wondering if Challies would show, but I'm not surprised that he didn't because when he showed up at Surphside, I asked if he googled himself. He didn't answer.

I don't blame him.

When one is writing, it's really like self-employment. One has to consider just how to spend the hours. And if one is blogging a Christian blog, one would think most hours would go into writing articles that help others to better understand Scripture and live a godly life.

So this demands an answer: FRANK TURK, WHY ARE YOU SPENDING TIME GOOGLING YOURSELF?

And do you still call yourself "Centurion"? What about your keyboard? Do you call your key board "Stallion" or "Charger" or "Silver" or "Steed"? Is your router "Lassie" or "Rin Tin Tin"?

Just asking,
Phil Perkins. PS--I know this isn't the post I promised. A pregnancy in the family took most of my day, twice to the clinic, three trips for prescriptions. So Part II of THE SECRET SINS OF THE ODMs will come tomorrow, God willing.