WATCH AND READ AS JAMES WHITE AND PHIL NAESSENS DEFEND PAYING FALSE TEACHERS FOR THEIR SERVICES

As some of you already know apologist James White of Alpha and Omega attended Fuller Seminary long after just about anyone in any Evangelical church knew Fuller had begun teaching that the Bible can't be trusted. If you're like me, you may have wondered if White did so knowingly and if he has since repented of that sin. And one may ask, if he's unrepentant, does he openly teach that such sin is okay? Those two things make a lot of difference. On the one hand, he may be a totally innocent victim of dishonest people or he may have done so at a time when he wasn't yet saved or when he wasn't yet grounded in biblical doctrine. On the other hand, he may have knowingly helped pay the salary of false teachers, prayed with false teachers, had fellowship with false teachers, all very sinful acts.

For that reason, I've kept my mouth shut until now concerning my doubts about White. In the comment thread of the post I'm going to give you below, he gives no biblical defense. He refuses to admit such behavior is sinful and he excuses it with a touching story and an excuse about not wanting to attend a school out of town, like the rest of us had to do.

Phil Naessens defends White because, supposedly, no one has proven White did these things. Phil does so even though White's educational background is public knowledge and inspite of the fact White admits and defends it in the very comment thread in which Naessens makes his defense of White.

Is Phil Naessens lying or does he not comprehend things so simple as this?

Is James White honest, or is he defending sin?

See what you think by reading here:

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/why-hasnt-god-moved-in-the-dr-ergun-caner-situation/

and here:

http://phillyflash.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/new-comment-policy-at-theology-today/

TWO ANSWERS PHIL NAESSENS DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ--EVIDENTLY
Some of you have warned me about Phil Naessens. You were right. I was wrong. I counted Naessens as a friend and excused his nonsense as simply a result of a somewhat non-logical mind. He has stomped around the net verbally abusing folks who object to false teaching, pretty much as long as the false teachers weren't Word of Faith. He called folks defending the faith harsh, mean, hateful...you know the routine. Until now, whenever he did this and I knew about it, he seemed to take correction from me on the issue. That impressed me and I chalked it up to Phil not being a clear thinker and have defended him to some of you as such. Now, I'm not so sure. Either way, he needs to be called to account.

He actually started making accusations against me and just murdered Deuteronomy 13 in order to do so. Therefore, it seems certain that thought and purposeful intention is involved. And he doesn't want to publish my answers to  his accusations.

Here are two of my answers he has so far refused to publish:

1.
Phil N.,
You said this:
“… you failed to provide us with is any evidence to support your assertions, insinuations and opinions on this thread.”

You’re wrong for two reasons:

1. He (White) admitted attending Fuller with full knowledge. Is he lying? What do you think–does that satisfy Deut. 13 rules of evidence? He confessed it and defended it. Do we need it in writing? Well, he even did that for us.

When you mention the Old Covenant standard of evidence, read just four more chapters. Deuteronomy 17. The standard for proof in a capital case was two or three witnesses. Public knowledge meets that quite nicely. The public has at least two people, right? That’s the biblical standard for proof. But more on that next.

2. James’ education and cruises are public knowledge. All you have to do is check the public record. It’s not done in secret. His education is public knowledge. He publicly advertised the cruise, didn’t he? The idea of the probing in Deut. is to find the truth. If it’s public knowledge, we know it’s true. If you had a question, you could have asked or googled it yourself.

On the “insinuations”, what insinuations? I’ve not been sneaky. I said everything outright. That’s why I’m hated.

Why should White touch on the issue of the cruises? You know the answer to that, Phil, better than most people. He takes the role of a teacher and the attendant authority. As such, he’s accountable to the body of Christ. He’s answerable, just like the rest of us. Galations 1:3, again. (As well as about 40 other passages.) And if we’re to test every spirit, who is he to stonewall and stop us from doing what God has commanded? That alone is sinful.

Is the Scripture on this to be obeyed? Is White an exception?

And that actually wasn’t my point. My point is there’s no good defense of such stuff. As such, it makes sense to divert, instead of answer. It’s good debate strategy. It’s also not very honest. Challenge me on anything and you get an answer because I’m not sneaking.

I missed Katie’s apology about the hypocrisy. Sorry about that, but I’m still not clear on what she meant in that last comment. I was, however, one bringing up these things. It’s pretty natural to understand it as she said it. If these things are hypocrisy, I’m a hypocrite for the simple reason that I did them. She doesn’t need to name me personally. Your objection here seems contrived in order to make a point. Do you really think she didn’t mean me along with others who had some of the same questions?

Now how many times have I repeated that I had never heard White present the gospel, Phil? The first time I brought it up, I framed it that way. Accusing me of lying or stating as fact something I didn’t actually know is wrong. And he does not follow the NT example of either teacher or evangelist in form or character.

As to Paul, he obviously is a supporter, if not a personal friend. That’s what I meant. And the point still stands, whether or not Paul is on White’s side. White knowingly fellowshiped with and helped pay the salary of false teachers who deny God’s Word. He rushes to defend his own reputation, but it’s okay to pay those who spoil the reputation of God’s Word?

Phil N., I asked if he knew about the false teachers, didn’t I? And I defended him if he was innocently ignorant, didn’t I?

You’ve not dealt at all with any of the Scripture I’ve brought up. Is it okay for James, or Boyd, or you, or I to support false teachers? Is false teaching a sin? If so, is sin allowed to continue untouched in the body? If not, is false teaching a special sin that isn’t subject to excommunication like all others are?

And you haven’t dealt at all with the historical position of the church. I’ve brought it up at least once on this thread alone. The Reformers wouldn’t allow White in their assembly unless repentance was demonstrated. Calvin didn’t allow it. Spurgeon didn’t allow it. Read about the Downgrade Controversy. Christians in Evangelical churches before the early 1900′s didn’t allow it. I can give you two histories on my shelves if you wish documentation about the early 1900′s. Jesus didn’t allow it in the churches. Rev. 2 and 3.

Were all these believers before us wrong? Did Carl Henry come up with a special doctrine all these people didn’t see in the Bible? Tell us from the Bible why our spiritual fathers going back to Moses and Joshua were wrong. Tell us why Matthew Henry was wrong on this. Tell us why J. Gresham Machen was wrong.

And don’t say these things are still unknown. James said he attended Fuller. And I googled this for you, though it has long been public knowledge: http://sovereigncruises.org/AO2007/

You DO have to take a side, Phil. In the past you’ve defended John Piper, Rick Warren, and Richard Abanes even though they’ve actively brought false teaching into the body. Everytime I have to defend the Scripture on this issue I lose confidence in you as a brother. How many times (do I have to do this)? On the other hand, you’re so quick to jump on anyone who defends the faith for their tone, their words, or whatever is the diversion of the day. ODM seems a dirty word to you, even though you do the same thing often.

When you told me you were teaching at a Greek Orthodox school, I was highly disappointed and I thought you probably hadn’t understood what they believe or that you hadn’t yet understood the biblical commandment to separate. I’d been so adamant for so long, I just didn’t do my duty, I guess. I didn’t remind you one more time. So, it’s not like I jump all over you at the drop of a hat.

Take this thread for example. You go from one side to another depending on what? For the life of me I don’t know what makes you go back and forth so. Here’s the sad fact: Not everyone will like you. You can’t please everyone.

And now, you’ve said that there is no evidence of the very things White confessed to, those things which were public knowledge long before he admitted them here. Are you kidding me? And now that we all know what he did, you’re still on my case.

Why?

In addition, you make up some sort of standard of knowledge about White I must achieve before I expose the sins he has done publicly. Where do you find that standard? In Scripture? No. It’s not there. If a prophet lies, I don’t have to know all he preaches, only that he lies. Deuteronomy 13 and 18.

Do you find that standard in any legal system? No. I don’t even have to know a man’s name to testify about what I know. I did that in the case of a killing. I didn’t know the name of the defendant or the victim and I still don’t. But I saw what I saw and I testified to what I saw.

Guess what? I saw White’s ad selling a cruise and pretending it was a ministry. And I saw his attendance at Fuller reported. And now we all saw White admit he did these things knowingly.

Did you see that, Phil. Do we need to send you a report in Braille?

And you don’t follow that standard yourself. You don’t know all I’ve preached, do you? Do you know my position on the days of Creation? And you didn’t seem to know a lot of things I brought up here. Did you know about Ockenga? Dan Fuller? Nancey Murphy? How about the first president of Fuller and his obsession with the approval of heretics? Did you know? You would call me ignorant for much the same.

In fact, you did.

You don’t have to answer that. Here’s my point: the “ignorant” excuse doesn’t change anything about the facts of what White stands for (your word, I’ve treated you with more respect than that). It’s just a way of smacking me, Phil. That’s obvious.

I’ll put it the same way August Toplady did long ago, in paraphrase. If I concede for sake of argument that I have ten heads and seven tales, what has that to do with the matter at hand?

I know the pull of what our culture, secular and religious, wants us to do is hard. Nevertheless, obey the Scripture. You aren’t grounded, Phil. You’re pulled by the Scripture and by the culture and by whatever was said last by whomever. That’s why you vascillate.

You will be more comfortable with yourself when you pick a side. For Christ or against Christ. You can’t keep doing what you’re doing. If you wish to follow Christ, it will take a daily conscious decision to ignore the culture and follow only the Scripture (dying daily), come what may. You’ll have a lot fewer readers and listeners. If you wish to follow the world, secular and religious, do what feels good at the time.

That’s my advice.

Finally, on your last post, I see you’ve said, “Opinions about issues are one thing. Opinions about people are another.” Do you know how unbiblical that is? Do you know why? Jesus commanded us to make opinions about people (teachers, to be specific) in Matthew 7 and Paul did the same in Galatians 1:3 and I Corinthians 5. John commanded it in his epistles. Moses did it. Paul warned us to avoid or endorse folks as teachers based on an evaluation of their character. II Timothy 2: 24-26. Proverbs 31 asks us to evaluate whom we marry. Psalm 1 tells us to form an opinion about our potential friends. It’s all over the Scripture, but banned in the world. Paul commanded Timothy to form opinions about teachers. II Timothy 2:2, I Timothy 3:1ff.

And have you stopped to think just how illogical this statement is? If it’s wrong to form and express opinions about folks, what have you just done? (For instance, I’m ignorant so I have to shut up, right?) You’ve just told us how you will form an opinion of folks and how you will decide if they’re allowed on your blog based on those criteria.

And I see we can’t say a lot of words anymore. That disqualifies much of Scripture. John the Baptist called out the Jews at the beginning of his ministry and offered absolutely no documentation other than public knowledge. Or is that okay now? Jesus did the same thing often. So did Paul. And, Phil, honestly I’m not sure you’re logical enough to evaluate that sort of thing. “Paul”, who defends all the false teachers at Fuller, accused me of writing things I didn’t and, when I called him on the deceit, you wanted me to apologize.

HUH?????

Sorry to be so harsh, but you need to pick–God or the religious world we swim in.
Phil Perkins.

2.
Phil N.,
I over stated something. You have dealt with some of the Scripture I’ve mentioned. Sorry. You just quit to applying it to White because I’m ignorant and because I have no proof (other than public knowledge and his admissions right here on this thread). I don’t think those are the real reasons, because they don’t make any sense.
Phil Perkins.

I added three explanatory parentheses, corrected some spellings, and may not have broken the paragraphs at the points I did when I submitted these answers.

AN IMPORTANT CORRECTION
Finally, I need to take some responsibility for my own lack of diligence. I removed White from my blogroll about the time I saw he was promoting a "Christian" cruise. Naessens has been on my blogroll for a long time. I considered removing him for some time, too, because of some of the nutty things he's written. I didn't want to hurt a friend, and he has been a good friend. That is a wrong priority on my part. Friendship is no excuse.

After this episode, I can no longer recommend anyone read or listen to him. If he's innocent and simply not a very logical guy, it's like the old saw about the anvil. Drop on anvil on my toe on purpose, my toe is broken. Drop it by accident, and my toe is still broken.

Deuteronomy 13:6-9 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

This is a sad thing.

Be holy, because God told us to--no excuses for any of us,
Phil Perkins.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--July 28, 2010

In the prophetic and apostolic tradition of ridiculing the ridiculous and scorning the superficial, I present to you this week's example of the god of the refrigerator, the deity of the dashboard:

FLASHLIGHT GEEZUS NUMBER 2.

We here at Al Tosap love any geezus from the Flashlight Geezi category because nothing says biblical truth like pretending your god has a flashlight duct-taped to the back of his head.

Peace, Baby!

QUOTE OF THE WEEK--July 19, 2010.

Here's a great quote from a fellow named Boyd Miller. His little gem of wisdom is just about worth memorizing.

Here’s how this religious cruise stuff works. Sheeple A books a $1000 cruise with Mega-celebrity preacher. Sheeple A expenses the cruise as a donation to Mega-celebrity's ministry. Mega-celebrity bundles his attendees and gets a deal from cruise company for $500 per. Jesus has nothing to do with it.--Boyd Miller.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED READING (on Modern Evangelicalism)

Here's a really great article I ran across today that explains some of the history I related in this article.

The author, Dr John C Whitcomb, is much more generous to Charles Fuller than I have been and he was there. I wasn't so, perhaps, his word is better than mine. It's a great read and explains a lot.

Phil Perkins.

SOLVING A PUZZLE

Yesterday I posted an explanatory article. If you've ever wondered just why all our Evangleical institutions are so negligent in ridding themselves of false teaching, the answer is in the birth of Modern Evangelicalism. Unlike historical and biblical Christianity the vision of founders of the New Evangelical movement was to include false teachers in our midst and to go into their midst.

So, for that explanation please read yesterday's post.

A VERY IMPORTANT EXPLANATION

This article is a follow-up to two posts here and here about the classism that is rampant in Modern Evangelicalism. It isn't just a coincidence that there is a deep parochialism in MEism. Pride of class is actually the reason it came into being. The object was to draw a sharp line between the New Evangelicals (I call them Modern Evangelicals) and the original Fundamentalists. Here's the story in a nutshell:

A MATTER OF DISOBEDIENCE
It all started with a sin we don't even recognize today. It's an invisible sin. No one committed adultery or murder or theft. No one ran through town drunk screaming profanities.

It was all very civilized, very buttoned downed, even erudite. Upper crust, as it were. And that was the point.

In the early 1900's the Protestant church in America was splintering. Two warring parties formed, led by opposing cadres of preachers. They hated each other. One was biblically conservative, the other was the beginning of Liberal Protestantism. American seminaries looked up to European scholars and European scholars where following a German influence which sought to wed Christianity to secular science. They were embarrassed by the miracles of Scripture in a culture that was quickly becoming philosophically materialistic. Modern scientists believed that all things can be explained in terms of natural causes and processes.

Christians--real Christians--have always been hated and derided for what they believe. That much was normal. The new thing happened when other churchmen, with whom they had broken bread, worshiped, prayed, given, and toiled, began to hate them just like the rest of the world hated them.

The clergy most influenced by German scientism, of course, were the more highly educated ones. Princeton was a solid rock of biblical commitment. That changed as the influence of philosophical materialism came. Being the anchor Presbyterian school on the eastern seaboard, the Presbyterians were among the first to have an open split. The biblically faithful came to be known as Fundamentalists, because they sought to defend what they called fundamental doctrines of the Scripture.

Soon this war split all the major denominations and associations.

Fundamentalist clergy, as I mentioned above, were often the less educated for a number of demographic, as well as religious, reasons. The stereotype was lie, though, as many who weren't formally educated, were supremely self-educated in the Bible. And very educated men like A. W. Tozer and Cornelius Van Til were counted among the Fundamentalist hord. Van Til was likely the best mind in theology since Jonathan Edwards and perhaps earelier than that. Many can't even read Van Til. The Fundamentalists insisted that the Bible was the authority by which things were to be tested. That was the theological basis for the split. The ethical basis for the split was the biblical doctrine of holiness/separation. The Fundamentalists actively obeyed the Scripture on the issue.

The Liberals plastered the Fundamentalists with two stinging stereotypes. One was (see if this sounds familiar) meanness. Separation from false teachers and false teaching was not obedience to God, the Liberals said. It was just provincialism and anger. The second smear can be summed up in the word the Liberals often used, "obscurantist".

Just as early Christians were killed, tortured, dispossessed of property, and reviled for being fools and worse, Christians in 20th century America were smeared as fools and bigots. As young people were born into Fundamentalist families, some wanted to remain Christian, maybe even Fundamental, but not be seen as stupid, small-minded, and of a lower class. Upperward mobility of some Fundamentalist families caused a bind, too. While gaining social status economically, all social gains were more than lost when neighbors and colleagues found out they were nutty Christians. Many bruised egos tempted many to semi-abandon their faith, to distance themselves from their families and churches. They wanted to feel welcome at church as well as at work or school.

They sought what was often called at the time, a "middle way".

PRIDE OF CLASS OR HUMILIATION WITH CHRIST
That was the choice back then. (Sound famailiar?) Being born in 1957, I personally remember a lot of this struggle and understand, by very personal experience, just how this all worked in families and in churches. I could be liked at school and at work or I could pray over my food and not laugh at bawdy jokes.

Liberal Protestants didn't have that problem.

I'm old enough to remember when we were actually taught that if we didn't take the hatred of the world we weren't worthy of Christ. It was a sign of an unsaved person. We were told we were supposed to be hated and shunned. We were told to expect to be considered lower class.

The New Evangelicals refused to take that lower seat. The sting of being seen as uneducated is intolerable to a man not yet dead to self. They refused to obey. They wanted to be Christians, but they simply wouldn't be associated with uneducated Fundamentalist obscurantists.

A UNIQUE NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT
In the minds of the MEists, it was good that they were both Fundamental in doctrine and liked by the world and  by Liberal Protestants. Separation became a sign of failure. Popularity showed God's blessing. It was a strategy. If folks liked us they would convert. Of course, that didn't happen, but they've only been trying for about seven decades.

This failed strategy has left us a legacy. Unlike the New Testament doctrine that we aren't to present the gospel in our own wisdom, ME's dress it up. Unlike the biblical idea that we aren't to pose as wise, but to bring the foolishness of God to men, in dependence on God for the fruit He ordains, ME's want to be regarded as successful and educated.

So, this sin isn't a simple misunderstanding. It was purposeful disobedience and it comes down to us today in three ways. First, we can't seem to imagine God working without huge, unbiblical institutions. Second, we measure spiritual stature and spiritual truth by numbers. And, third, the Modern Evangelical continues in a deep betrayal of Christ and His brethren.

It was preening, prideful, and dishonest. And that was the birth of Modern Evangelicalism.

Paul didn't start a seminary. He taught Timothy personally in the local church. Peter didn't shop for a publishing house. None of that. Just the Holy Spirit. Just the gospel. Just suffering with Christ. They were very unsuccessful measured by today's standard.

While we take pride in large institutes, Paul took pride in a body broken by the hatred of a violent world because it demonstrated his fellowship with Jesus. Philippians 3.

DOES THAT HELP?
I hope that helps some of you understand just why Modern Evangelicals are the way they are. The whole movement was born out of pride of class and disobedience to the sufferings of Christ.

So the next time you are perplexed by a "Christian" who just won't separate from a false teacher who happens to be very popular, you'll know exactly why. Don't be discouraged. They're different from you. You're a child of God. They're not.

It's a test.

...you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Deuteronomy 13:3.

Be holy because He is,
Phil Perkins.

DO YOU THINK LIKE A CHRISTIAN?

Watch this video:

Did you like that? If so, why? What was good or bad about it? Take a second right now and write your thoughts down. I know it's hokey to ask you to do that, but it'll be worth it. Write it down.

There. Thanks.

Now, think back to what the video actually did and answer these questions:

1. Did it include some Scripture?

2. Were the Scripture passages linked to points in the subject logically, emotionally, or artisticly?

3. Did it have scientists in it?

4. Did you enjoy the video? Why?

Write down your answers.

Now, let's take a look at the questions.

1. Did it include some Scripture?
Technically, yes, but until the very far in, the only Scripture was the snippet term "new earth". And even that was deceptive. But more about that after question 2.

2. Were the Scripture passages linked to points in the subject logically, emotionally, or artisticly?
Not logically. There was an intense emotional appeal, and the production value was pretty good for the internet. The art put the Scripture passages together with the images.

Starting with the term "new earth", I was immediately aware I was watching a very deceptive piece. The producer(s) of this video used the biblical term "new earth" in a way that illustrates a logical trick common in debate. I call it bait and switch definitions. It works like this: When in a debate, one can often turn the entire debate by redefining a key word or phrase in the middle of the debate if it's done so that one's opponent (and the audience) doesn't notice. It's very dishonest and very effective. The Bible teaches this earth and universe will be destroyed and substituted with one not infested with sin. "New earth" and "new heaven" denote the new. This video, however, speaks of a scifi scenario in which a large celestial body comes so close to the earth that the continents and poles are rearranged and that is the "new earth" in the video. The "new heaven" is how the sky will look if the earth ever has the poles moved drastically.

At the end, the art gets really thick. Dramatic music and pictures of lions with captions saying "Lion of Judah". Nice art. What does that have to do with the "new earth"? We've just watched a pack of lies, and now we're expected to stop all critical thinking because of the cheesy, overly-dramatic exhibition of religious cliche and symbol. Obviously these scriptural terms are used to pluck heart strings, and stop any thinking.

3. Did it have scientists in it?
There's no way to know from the video. While it starts with an older gentleman in what seems to be his personal library, we aren't told who he is. Whoever he is, he starts by telling an obvious lie, "Do you know where 98% of the population of the United States lives? Within 20 miles of a coast." Really? Chicago, OK City, DesMoines, Salt Lake City, Buffalo, Portland, Omaha, Dallas, Atlanta... Most of LA isn't within 20 miles of the coast, but never mind the facts, the music is quite dramatic and he looks like some sort of authority. And the same goes for the other interviewees. Some may have been scientists, but who's to say? And who's to say where all the stolen video came from and just how many times copyright law was violated? The important thing, it seems, is to project an air of factuality and expertise.

My personal favorite is the fellow who starts at 5:15. He quotes Revelation 6:14 where we're told "every mountain and island were moved out of their places." He then takes a desktop globe and tilts it to illustrate what might happen if the poles were moved. He then says that tilting the earth like that the mountains and islands will be moved. No, the poles will be moved and there would likely be a lot of nasty stuff happening. He then tilts the little globe again, quotes Revelation 21:1 and says this is the "new earth" and since the stars would appear in different places in the sky, that is the "new heaven". Did he even read that verse? It says both will be destroyed, not rearranged and that there would no longer be a sea.

Believe me, I wish this sort of thing actually worked. I have an old Chevy truck. If I parked it on a slant and that made it new...WOW!! I'd go for that. I'd start a car lot, buy junkers and park them on ditch bank over night and SHAZAM! I'm rich!

4. Did you enjoy the video? Why?
If you think it's the content, go back and watch it without the sound. It's boring and it's really stupid. The things claimed are ridiculous. The art covers a plate of nonsense served with a big glass of ice cold pretention.

THE LESSON?
If you started by enjoying this video, being "blessed", don't feel too bad. There are a lot of folks taken in by this. Christians are to test every spirit, even if the spirit is very "spiritual" and has dramatic music.

Did you see the watermark? It said prophecyfilm.com. You can find that here. It's a website that belongs to a very far out, nutty group. Read the link to "spiritual information must know to be saved". Turns out you have to believe certain things about Tinkerbell and Disney to be saved. Yeah, gotta have that info. And they do things like claiming to have a video of a girl who dies and goes to hell on camera. When you watch, it's just Hollywood horror movies scenes stolen (regardless of copyright and without proper attribution), put together and set to cheesy music. Then look up the other group, Salt Ministries here. They believe in numerology and the "Numeric Greek New Testament" and the "Numeric English Bible". It's kabbalistic and mystical, a sort of numerology. The belief is that the correct text of the Greek NT can be found, not by good textual criticism, but by finding the correct combination of numbers.

Still like that video?

Come let us reason. If you want to emote, rent a real movie, not one patched together by stealing the work of other people without paying them.

Phil Perkins.

GEEZUS O' DA WEAK--July 8, 2010

In the prophetic and apostolic tradition of ridiculing the ridiculous and scorning the superficial, I present to you this week's example of the god of the refrigerator, the deity of the dashboard:

PRESTO CHANGO GEEZUS.

This is truly the most fascinating of all the categories of geezi. It's the only one that comes with before and after pictures. And it's really a creative sort of geezus. Instead of being stuck in all sorts of stuffy nonsense like eternality and immutability, this god changes and adapts! Several weeks ago he was struck by lightning. This geezus adapted.

He burned to the ground!

But the malleability of Presto Chango Geezus, like the rest of his attributes, isn't infinite. When Peta offered to pay to rebuild Presto Chango Geezus if he carried a vegan message and held a small animal in his arms, Rev. Darlene Bishop of Solid Rock Church of Monroe, Ohio declined the offer to again change the great fiberglass god.

Way to take a solid stand, Rev. Darlene!

SOCIAL CLASS, MINISTRY, AND EVANGELICAL BIGWIGS WITH NO CLASS

This is the article I promised on June 15 with this teaser. This means I'm two weeks late, but there was just a lot of mental gestation I had to do and the article simply wasn't ready. Sorry.

Finally, here it is:

ARE CHRISTIANS BIGOTS?
Imagine a fellow comes into your church this Sunday. He's visibly missing lots of teeth. His nose has been severely broken so many times it's flat and bent. He can't breathe through it. He has facial scars and a misshapen body that show he's been beaten severely and often. He's dressed in a way that indicates poverty and moves in a way that tells all onlookers of a broken body.

Would his presence make you uncomfortable?

Now imagine he's the preacher.

Paul was beaten repatedly. What we may consider embarrassing or indications of people of a lower station in life Paul saw as credentials, evidence of being owned by God, the proof of the priviledge to suffer just like our Brother. "I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus." He was left for dead. We was whipped. He was stoned and survived. In a day without modern dentistry, orthodontics, and orthopedics, it's hard to honestly imagine Paul and at least some early Christian apostles, evangelists, and pastors didn't look a lot like what I've described. Today, a guy like that wouldn't be asked to substitute teach Sunday school just because of his looks.

You know it and I know it.

There IS a strident class system in today's Modern Evangelicalism. It's silent, but it can be seen if one cares to look at what we all know is the ugly truth. You my wish to start looking in places like these: When was the last time you had a poor person elected to the board of your church? In your denomination, who goes to Bible school and seminary? What color are they? Of what social class are they?

Let me tell you three stories of Modern Evangelical bigotry.

STORY 1. A YOUNG SNOB I CALLED ME.
When I went to college to get my first degree, I was eighteen and sure I was a pretty good guy. During my second year I noticed that two fellows were hanging around in the same area that I often did. They were Native American and very much alone in a sea of pasty caucas-hood. It was a university of about 10,000 students, but in a dormitory all students eat at the same chow hall. It's easy to move with the herd and, as a result, you see all the same faces every day. You get to know each other at least by face.

So, I found that I constantly saw these two fellows. Being from two different cultures, we didn't speak. They could be in a crowd of a dozen or two dozen other men on the way to lunch, but nothing was said between the Native American men and the white students. Nothing at all. And I don't blame this on the white students anymore than on the two Native men. Either could have spoken. We didn't speak to them because we assumed, I suppose, that they didn't like to speak with us and they were likely in the same boat.

After a few weeks of watching this, I just couldn't take it. It was uncomfortable and it seemed to be wrong. So I just decided to stop following the unspoken rule. I made it my business to speak the next time I was in their proximity and in a situation that meant I would speak to a white student. No special effort. No different treatment, just speak if I'd speak to anyone else in the same conditions.

They seemed as uncomfortable as I now realize I certainly seemed to them. And they didn't speak to me like a white student would. They spoke like they spoke in their culture. One was named Jay and the other I can't remember after all these years.

Evidently, all three of us got used to each other and our culturally-determined quirks because they would soon come eat with me at the cafeteria. I took that as quite a compliment. I did the same to them. I came to enjoy their company.

Welllll...until one evening in the TV room.

Everyone who didn't bring a TV to school with them had to go to a cigarette-smoke-filled room in the basement of the dorm and sit in the dark as if in a movie theater. Back then the westerns were what we called cowboy-and-Indian shows. The plot went like this: The Indians are awful and evil and so they do something awfully evil, like capturing and torturing some white person or attacking innocent white folks trying to settle in "their" land.

Guess which genre of movie was showing the evening I was in the TV room when Jay and his friend came and sat with me?

Yepppp...that's right.

They sat next to their friend. Immediately they started quietly mocking the movie. When an Indian character spoke in broken English, they would laugh a sneering laugh and say something on the order of "All Indians talk like that, huh?" And when some of the Native characters were depicted singing some melody of only three notes, they'd moan along and say, "And all Indians sing like that, don't they?" And they chuckled when they asked, "Hey, where are all the Indians? All I see is white men with bad make-up." They particularly liked that one. It IS funny.

Before they even spoke a word, my own default-setting racism plunged in upon my consciousness like an ugly epiphany. How could I be so stupid? So blind? Such a jerk? Well, I was and suddenly I knew it. All this occurred to me the instant they sat next to me. When they started making their comments it only made it even more obvious.

I didn't apologize. It would sound all too empty. All I could do was agree with them and pray this stupid show would end. They were right. That was the last time I ever watched a cowboys-and-Indians show. Everrrrr.

STORY 2. WORSHIPPING WITH "THOSE PEOPLE".
Sometime ago, a good friend of mine told me of a popular Evangelical and Reformed leader and his bigotry. This trusted, intelligent leader blogs, lectures, writes, and is on youtube. Many "Christian" blogs have links to his site. I won't mention his name because, while I know it's a true story on the basis of the integrity of the man who reported it to me, I can't document it. His behavior was witnessed only by one person. Biblically, I have to leave it there.

Here's what happened: The popular leader--I'll call him "Bob"--showed up at a black church to meet a certain black Christian man--I'll call him "Stan". Stan has given up a lot for integrity and for Christ. He was well paid while employed in a large, popular ministry. When he discovered it was a dishonest ministry, Stan left it and moved to a much smaller ministry run in a godly way. When Bob showed up, he met Stan's wife. She is white and when Bob realized she was Stan's wife, he asked if she actually worshipped with "those people".

That's right--"THOSE PEOPLE".

Bob showed up at a black church pretending to meet a brother in Christ, all the while harboring thoughts of superiority, looking down his nose in his heart. Nice, Bob.

Now, why would a Christian wife not worship with her husband? In Bob's mind because her husband is black and worships with other black believers!!!!!

Are you kidding me?

STORY 3. PHIL JOHNSON, JOHN MACARTHUR, AND THE LITTLE PEOPLE.
Imagine a man who uses as an argument the fact that another man is from the inner city. That's right. Someone made a claim. Phil Johnson didn't like the claim and started his argument the way he often does, by belittling his opponent. All he had to do (in his mind) was mention that the one who made the claim is just an "inner city pastor" in that dismissive way we learned on the playground at grade school. "Don't listen to him. He's a boy." "Ignore her. She's not on the cheerleader squad." "Have you seen what he drives?" "He went to that other school." "Their family is from the other side of town." "He's from the ghetto."

I'd not think too much of this expression "inner city pastor", but for two things. It's part of an article that is heavy in insult and dishonesty and, with Phil Johnson, there's a pattern of using lots of subtle personal insults based on stereotypes and innuendo and even lying outright when dealing with someone he doesn't like. Check out the insults he issued in this post.

For instance, read here. Then read the Facebook thread and see Phil Johnson lie about folks who objected to Rick Warrren being invited to speak at a conference sponsored by John Piper. While many of us were upset that a heretic with post-modern leanings was invited, he implied that we were simply bigots. He claimed we disrespected Piper just because we "dislike" Warren. There is simply no other word. Lied. And if you read his appeal it's all based on the fact that we are the little people and Piper is of a higher rank. More on that particular bigotry thread later.

I would remind Johnson that, even if Piper was a prophet or apostle, he would be subject to the judgment of the congregation and it would be the obligation of the assembly to make that judgment. Deuteronomy 18:15-20 and Galatians 1:8-9.

Read Phil Johnson's "rant" (Johnsonesque, don't you think?) against John Coleman. I'm not going to defend either side here. There are problems on both sides and it's really off topic. If one assumes or concedes that both John Coleman and Bob Johnson are totally wrong, Phil lied about Coleman more than once. There isn't an exception to the ninth commandment if the subject is a jerk, a liar, or simply wrong. Don't lie. Everything said about John was aimed at belittling him, regardless of the facts. Phil called him "worthless" and a "gadfly". Here's a list of Phil's lies (only partial for brevity):

1. Claim: John E. Coleman is an inner city pastor.
Fact: John also teaches at a local college teaching philosophy classes, including logic, and has a higher education than Phil Johnson. This information is on Coleman's website, so Johnson knew better.
Conclusion: Johnson wanted us to think of Coleman as an uneducated, poor fellow that is likely not nearly as smart as he and he was willing to at least shade the truth to make the point.

2. Claim: John E. Coleman is "obsessed" with MacArthur.
Fact: While this dust up is ongoing, both Phil and John have devoted time and space to it. Look here to see John's site. Very little of it is devoted to MacArthur.
Conclusion: Johnson was demeaning a brother to gain points in an argument, which is odd, since Johnson is the first to scream "Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Ad hominem!" if there is a wiff of someone arguing on the basis of prejudice against him. When Johnson makes his case, it's fine. When Coleman makes his, it's "obsessed", just like "harsh". Phil makes his case and that's fine. Make your case and you're "harsh" and your case isn't a case. It's a "rant" or a "screed". No matter what he says or how "harsh" he or anyone on his side may be, the made-to-order rules only apply to you. They don't apply to him.

Cuz Johnson sez so, you know.

Which reminds me of the sort of rules others used to make up. Jesus mentioned it. "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers."

3. Claim: MacArthur never falls into pragmatism, the practice of shaping ministry activities or teachings based on likely numerical success.
Fact: MacArthur is known to use powerful "Christian" publishers, television networks, and radio stations who also push Word of Faith and Emergent heresies and Phil Johnson often cites numerical success or failure to prove who is right and wrong, criticizing folks he doesn't like as those who "stand alone", working the same logic of pragmatism backwards.
Conclusion: Johnson is dishonest.

Perhaps all this is a matter of the culture in John MacArthur's organization. The Scripture says the student will become like his teacher. John Macarthur claims to be a Christian from an early age, yet he attended a "Christian" school with overtly racist policies. He attended Bob Jones University for two years as a young Christian man. It's a school that forbade interracial dating, whatever that is. Recently MacArthur let something slip. Check out this video clip. If you start listening at 4 minutes, you'll hear John MacArthur say, "Now there are some problems with The Shack that are obvious. God is not an obese African-American woman. (Waits for the crowd to laugh, but doesn't get it) That would be one problem to consider in the book." Then he waits for the second time for the crowd to laugh and...

...the crowd laughs.

I was flabbergasted. It was a laugh line and he delivered it like a laugh line, complete with a pause for laughter and a prodder line to cue the audience that it was time to laugh. It wasn't off-the-cuff and silly. MacArthur thought it through, planned it in advance, knew EXACTLY what he was saying, and said it anyway. Obviously, there are some folks who don't matter. I don't have to explain why this was considered "funny". He was mocking a whole class of people for their appearance because he doesn't care about them. They have little place in his world. If they get upset, their opinion doesn't affect his bottom line. This brings up one very cogent question:

Hey, John, which is funniest, the "African American" part, the "obese" part, or the "woman" part?

I think MacArthur should have to answer that question in front of a congregation of African American believers with their wives, sisters, aunts, mothers, and grandmothers present, the slender ones and the ones to whom MacArthur turns up his very-nicely-powdered-for-the-cameras nose.

Then he should have to stand at the exit, shaking their hands, asking their opinion of aging white fellows with receding hairlines and a train load full of conceit.

And here's another question: How do you expect any non-white person to feel welcome at any institution where the head makes this sort of crack? Does MacArthur care? Does he care enough to pretend he cares? His school, like most, is financially inaccessable to many folks who aren't surburban. But that seems to be okay. Why? * John's god, it seems, calls primarily men of a certain class.

If you think, I'm wrong about MacArthur harboring bigotry, consider this contrast. In the case of The Shack it's laughable, in his mind, to compare God to a black woman who's overweight, but he has nothing to say about Phil Johnson's identical sin. Johnson has used DaVinci's Creation of Adam on the web, in which God is depicted as an old man reaching out to touch the finger of a naked Adam. Both are equally idolatrous, but God as a black woman is funny, while God as an elderly, strangely muscular, white man with a beard isn't.

Why?

Prejudice so thick its owner can't see through it comes to mind. And then, there's the partiality theory. One idolater is mocked and another's hired to be a right hand man. Is it okay for God to be depicted as a bearded white male, but not as a black woman who may not be up to MacArthur's standard for sex appeal?

It doesn't really matter. If MacArthur gives Johnson a pass because of overt classism or because his buddies get to sin sins the rest of us don't, it's still bigotry, it's still hypocrisy, and it's still sin. And it seems so natural for them both. They don't seem ashamed. It doesn't even occur to them. Perhaps they need a moment like I had when Jay sat next to me in the TV room. On the other hand, Johnson has been confronted about the way he treats people many times. Willing to lie at the drop of a hat, especially if it deflects an effective argument, he obfuscates, shades, and prevaricates about it.

Getting back to the Facebook episode referenced above, he was confronted here. If you read the article and the Facebook thread, you'll catch Johnson making fun of a man for his appearance, the thin-skinned bully making fun of the weakest kid on the playground. (Like teacher, like student?) When confronted with his sin, he lied, saying he did it to show the physical effects of leading a life of "dissipation". And he's sure to include that the man was a criminal. So it's okay because he's mocking a sinner? Who does he think he is in God's eyes?--Oh, yeah, he's Phil Johnson. Stupid me, I forgot.

Paula Coyle (for whom I owe a lot of source material for this article) made plain Johnson's hypocrisy. She said this:

Phil rebuked me and Ingrid and Gayle here,
but everyone who is laughing at this man's appearance
... well nope, nothing to be said to them. Sure I have a
chip on my shoulder, I have a problem with ministers of
God acting like teenage boys. (Actually, Paula, most teenage boys I know have more class than this and who's to say Johnson, in light of the fruit of his life, belongs to God at all?)

And Phil's lies are evident in the reaction of the Johnsonettes and his reaction to them. While he was lying on the fly, creating a contorted mess of illogic that this whole thing somehow wasn't juvenile meanness, his fans continued making "funny" cracks about the victim. And Johnson said nothing to stop the mocking. So, it WAS fine with him to mock the same sort of people real Christians go into prisons to evangelize. The folks for whom the God Johnson claims to serve died.

Phil, it seems, is MUCH too good for that sort of folk and, if he brushed up against one......wellll, they may soil the floral print on his Hawaiian shirt.

Jesus, not being as enlighteded as Johnson, related to criminals differently. First of all, He was more at peace in their company than in the company of upper-crust religionists. As a result, He was hated by the Phil-Johnson types because He loved them, He taught them, and He forgave them. He didn't sneer at them. He didn't make fun of their appearance like He was eight. He didn't hate them, trying to appear bigger and better Himself by making them seem small. Liars, robbers, whores, swindlers, thieves on crosses, and even overly pompous, self-important religionists like....

Johnson condemns himself when he tries to straighten Paula out. Read this arrogant "rant" (Giving a quack a dose of his own prescription is FUN!!! or maybe I should have said "screed".) from the thread:

Scripture commands us to show
"respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor
is owed" (Romans 13:7). If you can be overtly
disrespectful to someone of John Piper's stature because
you dislike his choice of conference speakers, but then
protest that it's inappropriate and cruel to post the
mug-shot of a would-be murderer who has devoted his
entire life to dissipation, I'd say your values are a little
bit skewed.

So Paula, since she's one of the little people and not a person of "stature", is wrong for loving a criminal and disrespecting a lying religious leader?

Sounds rather Christ-like to me. Hummm.....Jesus' values are "skewed", but Phil the Bigot is just fine? Is Johnson this stupid, this blinded by prejudice, or simply lying again?

I may not be able to sleep tonight wondering.....

Scripturally, Johnson and Piper aren't due any more respect than Jesus gave such folks.

This sort of bigotry seems natural to these fellows, especially Johnson. For instance, where have we read insults like "figntin' fundie" or "plowboy"? Of course, in Phil's suburban California world, other folks don't quite measure up, no matter their beliefs or their standing in Christ. Plowboys are rural (and, therefore, much less intelligent, sophisticated, and righteous than Johnson, cuz he sez so) and fightin fundies aren't hip. The prophets were almost all rural. The father of our faith was rural. And A. W. Tozer called himself a Fundamentalist as do many Reformed believers in Ireland and Scotland today. The first Fundamentalists were Presbyterians who stood up against the theological liberalism coming into American churches and schools in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Originally, they were fine people who upheld the "fundamental" doctrines of Scripture, like the resurrection and the virgin birth. They came to be hated. The "New Evangelism" movement was folks, like Carl Henry (Christianity Today), Charles Fuller (Fuller Theological Seminary), and Harold Ockenga who wanted to get rid of the stigma of "narrow-mindedness". They didn't want to be hated for Christ's sake. They didn't want scars like the Christ they pretended to love and obey. Their tack was to pretend to fundamentalist doctrine, but fellowship with liberals, attend their schools, and establish similar schools. Soon, they, like Johnson, actually joined in the chorus of hate, calling anyone of an odd religious bent (such as King James Only folks) "Fundamentalists", smearing that sort of thing on the original faithful saints fighting for the faith. (See footnote.)**

Why is it okay to disparage these people? Is Johnson wiser and better than Tozer?

I don't think so.

I've watched for some time now as more and more people are catching on to exactly what sort of fellow Johnson is. Some are non-plused by the juxtaposition of MacArthur's reputation and Johnson's unbecoming behavior.

It's easy to answer this puzzle for yourself by crystalizing it into two questions: 1. Having had Johnson at his side since 1981, if a wise spiritual leader can't get a line on his disciple in almost thirty years, how long will it take? 2. In the words of Paul, what partnership has righteousness and lawlessness? Two can't walk together if they don't agree. So....what is it these two have in common?

Lastly, while much (actually most) of what was said by Bob Johnson is a series of logical stretches to make a predetermined point, there is room to criticize MacArthur's organization and the personell in it and Phil Johnson lied about John Coleman and he did his best to discredit him based upon pure prejudice. Christians are NEVER to do such things.

Is no one in MacArthur's organization aware? Do they care?

Let me end up by reminding Phil Johnson and all other religious leaders claiming lofty stature for themselves and their buddies of something a Man said a long time ago.

The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things, and do not do them. And they tie up heavy loads, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries, and lengthen the tassels of their garments. And they love the place of honor at banquets, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called by men, Rabbi. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

--Jesus Christ, shortly before He was murdered by men of great stature.

Phil Perkins.

*There is an answer to this problem. Look for it in my upcoming series Burn the Seminary, Save the Church. It's simply a return to training within the local church and that's why I teach the biblical languages over the internet.

**This is highly over-simplified, but more of this history will be explained in the last installments of the series on The Lost Doctrine of Holiness or you may wish to read Roland McCune's Promise Unfulfilled, The Failed Strategy of Modern Evangelicalism.