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.

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.