Archive | Post-Evangelicalism

RSS feed for this section

Thoughts on the Dr. Drew Show, ESPN’s Shame, and Continuing with Anjem Choudary

Discussed my experience daring to commit heresy in the courtyard of the High Temple of Secularism (aka, on national media) by even mentioning the lordship of Jesus, briefly commented on the disgusting, reprehensible, immoral act of ESPN in giving Bruce Jenner an award for bravery and courage.  Then made a few comments about David Barron’s “misrepresentation” complaint, and got back to Anjem Choudary’s debate with Sam Shamoun.

Here is the YouTube link:

The Soft, Kind, Loving Face of Hate

Once the moral and ethical infrastructure of a meaningful worldview based upon our status as creatures of God is removed from the thinking of the human being, a vacuum develops. That vacuum, in today’s radically secularized world, is being filled with mind-numbing mantras uttered in complete disregard for their consistency or truthfulness. A population robbed of its creational foundation is easily led by those who can manipulate emotions, as history has proven many times. When we see language being emptied of its meaning and hatred being promoted through the use of deception and untruth, then we know we are dealing with the death-throes of a culture, one that will, of necessity, give way to another. Today we are forced to endure torrents of “politically correct” speech, filled with such terms as “inclusive” and “tolerant.” We see the ancient moral landmarks of the culture identified as “hateful” and “exclusivistic” and “discriminatory.” Yet it is a given that the most intolerant purveyors of hatred in our culture just happen to be the very ones screaming the loudest for tolerance and against hatred. The hypocrisy is so regular it is hardly even noticed, especially by the younger generation who, as faithful wards of the State, have been taught not how to think, but what to think. The result is frightening for those of us closer to the ends of our lives than the beginnings, and for our children and grandchildren, the result will be catastrophic.


I truly hesitate to promote this video, for at the time of this writing, it has hardly been noticed, with only 1,650 views. It was sent to me via Twitter, and the one who sent it to me said it was a promoted video. Those who think logically and rationally cannot find the video compelling. It is a rather blatant attempt to promote a viewpoint based upon an appeal to emotions without the provision of necessary factual and rational basis. It cannot be taken as a serious argument, but that’s the point: serious arguments have little weight any longer in our society.  If it moves your emotions it accomplishes its purposes, even if that purpose is evil.  In this case, the argument is so simplistic that, if you remove it from its emotional shell, it collapses on its own:  “You can’t call homosexuality wrong because that might offend homosexuals!  And some of them might be so offended they will harm themselves!” Once the argument is out in the open its true nature is easily seen. “Don’t have moral and ethical standards, because those who violate those standards might be offended!” We should all be offended at the very offering of such an argument, but there it is.

Any time someone does harm to themselves it is a tragedy, but shouldn’t the first question we ask be, “Might there be something intrinsically unnatural about homosexual orientation that may well lead those who suffer from such desires to be more likely to harm themselves?”  Evidently, that is a question we are no longer allowed to even ask. Instead we are faced with the amazing claim that if you identify a behavior as destructive and opposed to human flourishing (and clearly, homosexuality falls headlong into this category) you are filled with hate and should be silenced by that great amorphous arbiter of all things moral and true: “the society.” All one need do is remove the LGBT label and insert something else in its place, say, inter-generational sexual activity (plenty of folks saying that is a natural “orientation” now as well), or inter-species “love” (ditto), and the nature of this kind of non-argumentation becomes clear. It spells the onslaught of moral anarchy, the corpse of rational ethics and thought lying squarely on the altar of the greatest commandment of the Secular Society, “Thou shalt not offend…the protected groups that the elites say thou shalt not offend.” Offense of majority groups, of religious groups, of those groups outside the current sphere of approval from the Elites, is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged. Tolerance is a one-way street in the secular utopia. It is only relevant to the favored ones—whose favored status can be rescinded very, very quickly, depending on the whims of the Elites.

This video is designed to engender hatred toward anyone who will not bow the knee in abject obeisance to the great Secular Society, toward anyone who would dare to hold to objective morality and think with their minds rather than their adrenal glands. In a thoughtful society with a foundation for ethical reflection, this kind of presentation would be rejected out-of-hand and its creators excoriated for their foolishness. But in today’s world, this kind of velvet-gloved hate-mongering is wildly popular, and wildly successful.

The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God’s Honor and Glory

I need to be brief, as I have many pressing duties.

Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2 events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself, primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly God’s self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord. The true source of a passion for sound doctrine comes first and foremost from a heart that has singular attention to the glory and honor of the object of its passion. Those who “argue doctrine” simply for the sake of ego or self-gratification do so to their own destruction. Sound doctrine isn’t about personalities or men, it is about truth that transcends our brief time on earth.

Let’s remember some of Jakes’ words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of “manifestations,” and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only—something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let’s consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that “neither one of them totally get it for me.” Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn’t quite “totally get it” for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims?

Ah, but Jakes went on to say, “I’m not crazy about the word ‘person.'” Yes, another ringing word of repentance form his former modalism and a sound profession of his new Trinitarian faith, is it not? Is that why he has not changed his statement of faith for his church, because this new found Trinitarianism is not something he is really all that “crazy about”? Can you imagine talking to someone who had been a Mormon, and professed belief in many gods, and now he is seeking fellowship with you, and when you inquire as to his beliefs, he says, “Oh, I believe mainly like you, but, Trinitarianism just doesn’t fully do it for me, and I’m not really crazy about the term ‘monotheism.'” Will you be inviting that person to fill your pulpit to teach on the nature of God next Sunday, I wonder?

But the most amazing statement that has somehow failed to make it into the pages of Christianity Today and all the blogs celebrating Jakes’ newfound Trinitarianism came right at the heart of the conversation. Driscoll asked him about the use of the term “manifestations” in his church’s statement of faith. And he replied:

My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word” [Driscoll interrupts saying, “manifestations”] “Manifest instead of persons, which you describe as modalist and I describe as Pauline. When I read…let me show you what I’m talking about…when I read I Timothy 3:16 – I didn’t create this, Paul did: “And without controversy” which I think we have…we have been bickering about something which Paul describes as a mystery, and I don’t think we should do that. “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. For God was manifest in the flesh.” Now Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it is robbery to the divinity of God to think God was manifest in the flesh. And I think maybe it’s semantics, because [garbled], but Paul says this before this fight was started.”

Did you catch that? Can someone explain this to me? A prosperity preacher of a mega church has a statement of faith for years on end that is clearly modalistic in nature that says God eternally exists in “three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” He continues to defend that language in these words. When the key issue is brought forward, the use of manifestations instead of persons, his response is to dispute the identification of “manifestations” as modalistic, but instead say it is “Pauline,” i.e., it is in accordance with Biblical revelation. He then misuses 1 Timothy 3:16, as all modalists do, and as is prevalent in Oneness writings. And yet, despite these words, we are all somehow supposed to applaud Jakes’ new position as a sound, orthodox Trinitarian?

Sadly, there was no follow up. Driscoll and the rest heard what they wanted to hear, fist-bumped and applauded, and all was well. It would have been so painfully simple to bring this entire question to a complete conclusion. I could have done so by pressing a single question until a clear answer was given. But that is why I was not invited to ER2 (and won’t be invited to ER3, or 4, or…Lord help us!).
Continue Reading →