Red lights

by Dan Phillips

It occurred to me that many might be served if we offered warning-signs of (at worst) false or (at best) unreliable teachers. Here are a number of such indicators. Some are instantly obvious; others only over the passage of time (cf. 1 Tim. 5:24).

Any one of these should signal alarm. Found all together in the same person, trainwreck is assured.

1. He seems more energized about "gray areas" and supposed lacunae in the Bible than he is about the crystal-clear fundamentals (contrast 1 Cor. 15:1ff.).
2. He casts doubt on the existence of crystal-clear fundamentals, or makes much of their putatively subjective, varied nature (1 Tim. 6:3-5).
3. He seems to sow many seeds of doubt about Biblical teaching, while at the same time sowing no such seeds about his own (Col. 2:18; 1 Tim. 1:4).

4. He's always running after the Cool Kidz' position or concern of the day (Gal. 1:10).
5. The Gospel is, at best, an afterthought (contra 1 Cor. 1:17).
6. The designed effect of his presentations is that people come away thinking a lot about him, and little about the text and the God who is seen through the text (Gal. 4:17). Relatedly...
7. Any hopes that saints can know truth certainly for themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 15:1) are buried under assertions or implications that he knows truth for them.
8. He talks about things God says to him personally that He doesn't say to anyone else (Col. 2:18, Gk).
9. "What verse are we on?" is usually hard to answer (Isa. 8:20).
10. He's very excited about brand-new, bleeding-edge movements that anyone with a whiff of historical sense can see as failed diversions from the 1920s (cf. Jude 4, 17-19).
11. His chest-pounding rhetoric quickly collapses into squealing victimhood under the least solid criticism (1 Cor. 4:19).
12. He's always the hero of his personal stories (contra 2 Cor. 4:5).
13. He often hides behind paper-thin clichés (Col. 2:21-22).
14. His dependence on paper-thin clichés suggests that he keeps to a very small circle, one closely resembling an echo-chamber (2 Cor. 10:12b).
15. He is rightly best known for something other than his clear, forceful, passionate, focused declaration of the Gospel and Word of God (contra 2 Cor. 8:18).
16. He gives reason to suspect that it's more important to him to amaze, amuse and impress, to his own glory, than to reprove, rebuke and exhort by preaching God's word to God's glory (2 Tim. 4:1-5).
17. It would not affect much of his preaching if Christ had not been raised (contra 1 Cor. 2:2; 15:14).
18. Had a meteoric rise to prominence while still quite young, without much dues-paying and/or apprenticeship to a faithful man or men... and his name doesn't rhyme with "Marles Murgeon" (1 Tim. 3:6).
19. People who hate God and God's law really like him and his preaching (cf. Luke 6:26).
20. Doesn't have much time for nobodies who can't do anything for him (Mark 10:43).
21. The depth of his theological reading seems to go back about five years, if that (cf. Acts 17:21).
22. He's pretty much the issue. Not the Gospel, not the Word; not the uncomfortable edges that any faithful preacher of the Word would preach. Him (contra 2 Cor. 4:5).
23. He makes a big deal of how God is bigger than the Bible. Metaphysically, the point is so obvious as not to need saying; so usually when someone makes a big point of it, "bigger than the Bible" is code for "other than what the Bible says" (Deut. 4:12; Isa. 8:20). Similarly:...
24. He makes a big deal of how we don't worship a book. Again, the point is so obvious and undisputed as not to need saying. Also often code for "need not worship according to this book" (Leviticus 10:1ff.).

(This list may well grow, as Phillips' Axioms has.)

---

Piercing the fogbank with discerning questions

by Dan Phillips

Having introduced my dear ones to the work of God in Ephesus, last Sunday I took them into the letter itself.

I was very conscious of Kevin DeYoung's very funny anecdote about being fresh out of seminary, and giving (I think) 20 minutes on the question of authorship — when the good folks in his congregation were all just looking at the words "Paul, an apostle..." and kind of blinking.

So I faced the choice — what do I do about the debate over authorship? And the question of destination: is it really to the Ephesians, is it a circular letter, or what?

You can see for yourself how I handled it if you like. I did deal with the issue of authorship, and the history of controversy. I did it briefly and very forcefully, and then I explained why I was spending time on what seemed like an obvious issue: I am concerned that they may transfer jobs to a new city, or their kids in college may start attending International New Springs of Joyful Higher Plane Apostolic Barking Impact Abundance Worship Center. I am concerned that their pastor may have gone to Fuller, or Princeton, or somewhere. I'd like them to be able to get a fix on where he's coming from.

Why? Couldn't they just ask him if he believed the Bible was inspired? Ah, I see you're smiling. You know that lots of wolves would say "Yes" to that question. They'd say it was inspired, it was God's Word, it was authoritative for faith and practice... and they wouldn't mean anything like what you and I mean.

So I told the story of the kid I worked with in the 70s. He was a young man, Christian-raised, wanted to be a pastor one day. His Church of God had actually named him to the pastoral-search committee, and they were considering a candidate. This particular candidate was from Princeton.

Well, I'd been a Christian just a few years, but I'd already been studying and preparing with enthusiasm, and my ears pricked up. I said, "Ask him who wrote the Pastoral Epistles and when, who wrote the book of Daniel and when, and who wrote 2 Peter and when." (I don't think I included Ephesians.)

He looked at me like I'd sprouted a third eye. What stupid questions! Whyever would he ask those?

He didn't. They called the gent. I went to his welcoming party. After he'd told an off-color joke, I chatted with him. I asked him my questions.

His answers? No idea when Daniel was written, but it wasn't by Daniel or 6th-century; no idea who wrote the Pastorals, but it wasn't Paul; no idea who wrote 2 Peter, but it wasn't Peter.

He wasn't, as I recall, particularly evasive. I just had to ask the questions. (Of course, at this point the church gig was a done-deal, and I was not [and would not be] an attender.)

So: this committee had called a man to pastor their conservative, Bible-believing church, who did not believe in the inerrancy and full authority of the Bible. Because no one knew or cared to ask questions that would pin the gent down.

But he had great programs, the young man told me. The candidate really wowed them with his programs.

Surely the would-be pastor would have said he believed the Bible was inspired, though. Meaning, inspired by his definition.

This is what discernment involves. It's too bad; I wish we lived in a world where religious leaders could be relied on to say, "Well, I'd say I believed in the Bible, but I should tell you that I wouldn't mean anything like what you mean by it. And you won't hear too much of it from the pulpit."

But we don't live in that world. We live in the one where there are wolves and serpents and where we have to be constantly on guard.

And where, sadly, sometimes the sheep have to do their own guarding, since the shepherds are defaulting.

---

A word about J. I. Packer on Charismatics

by Dan Phillips

A brief aside from the series on the Strange Fire conference:

J. I. Packer provides a perfect example of exactly what John MacArthur, everyone else, and I have pointed out for years.

Packer is a man who earned a good name for himself by some excellent works such as his introduction to Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ, such as Knowing God, such as Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and such as Fundamentalism and the Word of God.

Then Packer took that good name and lent it to providing a lot of covering fire for the Charismatic movement in his book Keep in Step with the Spirit.

It is that book that is being triumphalistically quoted all over the blogosphere just now — by writers who, I would wager, to a man have no idea that they are perfectly illustrating the whole point of the Strange Fire conference.

I wonder how many of those quoting the book have read it, as I have. If they read it... do they really feel that this is a clear-minded, clear-eyed, rigorously Biblical treatment of the issues? I can't imagine how, unless their desire for a certain conclusion rules out their ability to discern — which, oops, was another major reason for the conference.

Let me just adduce one passage as an illustration of the sort of thinking one finds often in the book. It is one of many sallies Packer attempts at the issue of tongues. He does note (224) that

present-day tongues speaking, in which the mood is maintained but the mind is on vacation, cannot be confidently equated from any point of view with New Testament tongues.

Wow. That's quite a damning statement, is it not? Earlier (177), Packer had said:

The gift is regarded as mainly, though not entirely, for private devotional use. Subjectively, it is a matter of letting one's vocal chords run free as one lifts one's heart to God, and as with learning to swim, confidence in entrusting oneself to the medium (the water in the one case, babbling utterance in the other) has much to do with one's measure of success and enjoyment.

Now: Does that sound like a good thing to anyone whose thinking is formed by Biblical revelation? So isn't that a basis for sounding a sharp note of alarm, calling for Christians to disown the practice, and warning the faithful to keep far from it?

Not to Packer. Listen to this, again from page 224, and ask yourselves the ever-vital question: "What verse is he on?" —

...it does not seem inconceivable that the Spirit might prompt this relaxation of rational control at surface level in order to strengthen control at a deeper level. Wordless singing, loud perhaps, as we lie in the bath can help restore a sense of rational well-being to the frantic, and glossolalia might be the spiritual equivalent of that; it would be a Godsend if it were.

There y'go. Tongues: it's like loudly singing babble. In a bathtub. Ahhh, now there's a bumper-sticker for you.

In another place, Packer says "Even if (as I suspect, though cannot prove) today’s glossolalists do not speak such tongues as were spoken at Corinth, none should forbid them their practice..."

Now, roll that around in your mind for a bit. What is Packer saying, all told? It is this: What passes for speaking in tongues today is giving control of your mind over to a force you don't know or understand, and letting that force control your body. Now, mind: this isn't what the Bible describes. But hey — if it makes you feel good, you kids call it what you like, do what you feel like doing, and have a good time!

Could having written a hundred books like Knowing God make that a Biblically, pastorally responsible statement?

And this book is the big-name cover for Charismaticism?

There are many other problems with the Packer quotation that's being passed around. But just keep this post in mind every time you see the Packer quotation about how Charismaticism is surely of God brought out as heavy-duty big-name discussion-ending trump-card cover. It's not the conclusion of a very reassuringly-conducted study.

---

The peril of "We've got to do something!"

by Dan Phillips

Many really horrific ideas owe their genesis to really horrific needs.

This is obvious in the realm of politics. It goes like this:

1. Bob says, "Yikes! Has anyone even noticed {crying need}? Isn't anybody doing anything about it?
2. Bill says, "Holy smoke, yes! That's terrible! Quick: let's empower the State to confiscate more liberty and money from the productive, and create vast legislation and huge bureaucracies to solve that problem!"
3. Bob: "Oh, well, gee, I dunno; are you sure that's the best way to...?"
4. Bill: "This is an emergency! There's no time for discussion! We must act now! What — don't you care about The Children? Besides, this is only temporary."
5. Bob: "Oh, yeah, good point. Okay. Go ahead."

And another permanent blight is born. The problem not only is not addressed, but it is compounded and institutionalized.

Perhaps this same phenomenon is less obvious in the realm of theology, doctrine, church polity. The general course, however, is very similar:

1. PelArminKesWesHam says, "Oh dear Lord, the church is {something direly unspiritual}."
2. Simplicius replies, "Ooh, mercy, yes. I see that!"
3. PelArminKesWesHam: "The solution must be to {do some horrifically un-Biblical thing}!"
4. Simplicius: "Oh, gosh, I don't know. Are you sure that's really Scriptural?"
5. PelArminKesWesHam: "There's no time for debate! Doctrine divides! Souls are dying! Christ's name is dishonored! The hour is late! We must act now!"
6. Simplicius: "Oh, gee..."
7. PelArminKesWesHam: "What — don't you love God? Don't you care about people?"
8. Simplicius: "Well, sure."
9. PelArminKesWesHam: "Then we must act now!"
10. Simplicius: "Oh. Okay."

And another bad doctrine / harmful practice takes its permanent place to blight the landscape. The problem not only is not remedied, but it is compounded and institutionalized.

If later generations try to undo this dreadful "solution," it goes like this:

1. Biblicus: "You know, ________ism really isn't Biblical."
2. DriscTickLer: "You're a fear-driven unbelieving libertine Deist hater who drives people away from Jesus. You're ignorant of the book that came out last week proving that we're right. Plus, you're jealous of our superpowers."
3. Biblicus: "Oh. Right. I forgot. My bad. Um... sorry."

What to do?

The wrong way of responding is to ignore or minimize the problem that gave birth to the error.

For instance, how many false teachings have arisen as well-intended attempts to counter the lassitude, the lukewarmness, the worldliness, the timidity, the carnality, the cowardice, the ineffectiveness, the powerlessness, and the general pathetic anemic ill-health of the bulk of professed Christians? I daresay a majority of false teaching and bad philosophy was swaddled in that manger.

So we're told: The problem with these pathetic lumps is that their Calvinism has made them passive slugs, their Biblicism has made them isolated lab-technicians, their cessationism has made them functional materialists.

And we're told: What they really need is to realize that, if they don't work harder, they'll lose their salvation. They need to see that a deeper, more powerful Christian life is only one deeper, climactic work of grace away. They need the baptism with the Spirit. They need God to mutter holy nothings in their ears. They need to babble cathartically. They need their hunches validated and respected and canonized — though not in any accountable way! They need to modify their convictions to be friendlier to the world. Sand off the edges. Fit in.

There y'go. Problem solved.

But of course the problem isn't solved. In fact, it's compounded, and now it's institutionalized. Christians are still carnal, but now they're super-spiritually carnal and proud and immune to Biblical admonition. And so on.

So in responding, here's what we must do:

1. We must grant the seriousness of the problem when applicable — and it usually is applicable.
2. We must perform a rigorously Biblical analysis and diagnosis of the problem, calmly and deliberately.
3. We must execute a rigorously Biblical, clear-eyed, and unsparing examination of the un-Biblical "solutions" that have been proposed, expose them unambiguously, and issue a clarion call for their instant and decisive repudiation and rejection .
4. We must produce a rigorously robustly Biblical prescription to address the problem, showing insistently and repeatedly and in detail and from a dozen angles how it actually does address the causation and remedy the misery.

And there, in truth, you go. So do that. On "three."

I'll wait right here.

One... two...

---

Running Around without a Church

by Frank Turk

WAIT!

BEFORE you dive down to the comments, they are on moderation, and I'm not going to check them until about 7 AM Central Time.  You might as well read this post before you comment and are disappointed that your comment didn't magically and instantaneously appear ...

As of 2 PM on 14 July 2013, the comments are closed

Welcome back -- some of you are already diving for the comments as this will be the first day in 3 when they will be open -- but sadly for you, they are also set to moderation (as is our New Normal), so your comments won't crash onto the internet with the speed and ferocity of rabbit darting out onto the highway to avoid a fox, but sadly ignoring the oncoming 18-wheel truck full of machine parts.

That said, over the last two days I have been, due to some odd interactions I have had over the last week or so, examining the organization which calls itself "Abolish Human Abortion," or "AHA."  We have covered their version of absolutism, and also their view of being "biblical" about their endeavor, and I find myself left with one other complaint that seems glaringly-obvious to me but maybe not so much to them.

However, before proceeding, and to make sure nobody missed it, I'm going to say this one last time.

Let me make sure I say this as clearly as possible:

All murder is wrong

That's the moral premise which under-girds any work to limit or abolish abortion.  Anyone commenting or responding after this series of posts goes live who ignores this essential fact of Christian ethics in my position is selling something unsavory.  And, since the comments are open today, let me be especially clear: anyone ignoring this statement when they comment will not make it out of moderation.  Those of you who are dying to say that I have already, or would, endorse abortions?  I am talking to you.

OK: so maybe they aren't actually as biblical as they claim to be, and maybe they aren't as absolutist as they claim to be -- but so what?  Shouldn't we just embrace them as an ally in a war against one aspect of our culture which, let's face it, needs to be abolished?  Should we just sort of class them as the Marines and the rest of us can be maybe the volunteer militia or the tax payers who fund the efforts of those who see themselves as called to the front line of the battle?

I have a lot of sympathy for that idea -- because I believe that there is one body but many members.  While there may be a priesthood of believers, some are called to be pastors, some teachers, some evangelists, some janitors, some bloggers, some just as members in good standing who are fathers and mothers and sons and daughters.  In short, God did not save us into a family of uniform Lego minifigs.  For some people, it is right to be more of one thing and less of another because this is what they are gifted for -- and to ignore this is to simply ignore the places where Scripture actually says this.

These are not the Saints you were looking for ...

And there are two ends of the spectrum in that error -- one being the obvious: demanding from everyone that they demonstrate your spiritual gift to the scope and extent that you are personally going to do it.  Demanding everyone be a blogger, for example, would be very bad.  But: demanding that everyone in every church dedicate all time and resources to one aspect of pleading the Gospel to the culture is equally bad. In fact, demanding that every church be a militant abolitionist church is also bad -- because let's face it: since 34% of women live in counties with no abortion provider, it's a likely statement that about a third of churches are in counties where there is no abortion provider.  In those counties, shouldn't those churches minister to the sinners they have rather than the sinners they don't have?

But the other end of the gifting spectrum, it seems to me, is less-obvious, but more important.  It's the view that I don't need the other gifts of the church.  This, it seems to me, is rampant in all manner of good-doing under the tablecloth tent with the letters "G O S P E L" plastered on it with a sloppy paint brush.  People get outside the church in order to do something that seems good -- for example, stopping babies from being killed -- and then they take the moral authority of obeying what is plain in God's created order as the authority to forget the rest of God's plan for the world.  Specifically: they forget that the church is the place where the authority of the Gospel is located.

Don't think so?  Review Mat 16:16-19.  Here's what Calvin says about this passage:

Here Christ begins now to speak of the public office, that is, of the Apostleship, which he dignifies with a twofold title. First, he says that the ministers of the Gospel are porters, so to speak, of the kingdom of heaven, because they carry its keys; and, secondly, he adds, that they are invested with a power of binding and loosing, which is ratified in heaven. ... We know that there is no other way in which the gate of life is opened to us than by the word of God; and hence it follows that the key is placed, as it were, in the hands of the ministers of the word. [Emph Added]

The Gospel is not running around without a church.  The rest of the New Testament testifies to this -- for example in Titus 1-2, 2 Tim 2, 2 Peter 3 and so on -- and demands that the Gospel come from the church under the good order of the body as protected by faithful men.  The fact is that all the people saved into Christ in the NT were saved into the church -- a local church, a physical body of people -- and worked together from the church into the world.

In that: so-called "Gospel" ministries in which the workers and especially the leaders are outside of the protection of the church, and are not accountable to the church for their actions, are problematic.  It's not enough to say that they are members in good standing at their local church: if they are doing the work which is prescribed for the local church but they are not under the authority of the local church, they are either robbing the local church or scoffing at it, or both.

The problem, at its heart, is a failure to see that there is a need for all the parts of the body for the right function of the body -- in this case, the function of leadership over the function of social action.  This problem is present in spades in the AHA organization.

First: there is no visible, accountable leadership structure.  After inquiring with someone who knows, I was able to get a short list of fellows who are sort of running AHA, but that list is not readily visible to the public.  In the best case, that's AHA simply asking for grace that they aren't willing to give anyone else.  They are hell-bent to make sure the names of the people they find lacking are well-known and well-dunked in the shortcomings they have charged them with.  Imagine what AHA would do with a church that wouldn't list its leadership, or an outfit which funded abortions but shielded its leaders behind an anonymous "inquiries@prochoicepayouts.com" e-mail address.  At best it puts them at risk of wandering around without any real purpose; at worst, it gives them a license, as they said in the '70's, to do until others, then split.

Second: they have removed themselves from Gospel accountability.  That is to say, it seems obvious that there is no one with a mature view of Scripture out in front.  Yesterday we saw at least two significant errors in theology and in the meaning of the Gospel; there are more to be found on their website.  Those errors are replicated as this organization goes about its business.  It stems from failing to have a local church accountable for and accounting for their actions, and overseeing their work to make sure both that it is wholesome and godly and also that it is not a scandal.

Think about this for a second: if they were a seminary that cropped up out of the wild blue yonder, or a publishing house, or a prison ministry with no means of maintaining confidence in the theology they were teaching and preaching, who would take them seriously?  But in this case, there is no visible means of doing that at all, and (not surprisingly) they have given themselves a free pass.

Third and finally: they have inverted God's economy of the church.  Yesterday I linked to the "Church Repent" site to show how they are shaming churches they say are not living up to the standards these unaccountable fellows have established.  In the best possible case where these fellows are 100% correct and the churches they are shaming are 100% wrong, this activity is simply never found in the NT -- it's not even implied.

The flimsy excuse they use is from Eph 5:11 (it's telling they don't use James 5, although in private conversations they will use Galatians 2), to "expose evil."  It's fair enough -- but that exhortation is actually regarding shameful personal acts which one is actually doing, not sins of omission.  Moreover, it's a call to personal accountability and not a call to form a non-church mob to heckle a functioning church.

Worst of all, because they have no church accountability themselves, there's no way to correct these fellows.  Talking to them about their opinions is about as productive as talking to the college kid who just discovered Schrodinger's Cat -- it seems to him that everything he knew before is now wrong, and there's no two ways about it.  I'll offer up the anticipated content of the comments section as supporting documents to this point.

Conclusion

Now: so what?  If I'm right, AHA has a significant list of issues to resolve before they can be seen as credible, let alone useful or (to be fair to their point of view and not reason only from pragmatism) faithful.  Should we simply toss them off as another ill-conceived parachurch ministry and consign them to the ash-heap of church history?

Let's go back to my original premise: all murder is wrong, and in this country, abortion is the most-common form of murder.  Whatever we think about AHA's methods and mode of operation, and whatever we think about their theology, abortion is still a vile crime.  To that end, I think it's wise to call these fellows not to fold up the tents and go find another hobby to spoil, but instead to repent of their obvious and critical errors in order to rightly approach the problem:

• They should repent of their absurdly-bad view and use for the local church.  They behave shamefully toward the local church because they are not accountable to a local church, and have an unbiblical view of discipleship and evangelism.  If they found themselves accountable to elders in a church for their actions, they would find most of their other problems would head toward correction.
• They should repent of their unwise, misguided use of the Bible.  What they do not need is to replace their random statements with someone else's systematic theology; what they do need to do is to read the Bible as it comes, as it was intended to be read, and ask themselves, for example, how did those people change their culture when they hand little or no political influence, and definitely no active theology of civil unrest?  What does the Bible teach us regarding the role of the local church in changing the culture?  And what is the Christian's role in society when the Christian faith is a minority view?
• They should repent of their own self-righteousness.  Disguising pride with phony expressions of camaraderie when what is being said is, effectually, "You are an idiot and probably a criminal, brother," is not impressive except as a hallmark of one's own assessment of one's worth.  Hiding behind God's sovereignty as an endorsement of your "ministry" when one's own method of reading God's word is, at best, idiosyncratic, is underwhelming.  Claiming to be the wounded party when one is falsely calling local churches aiders and abettors of murderers is ugly.  They should repent of the idea that they are the ones on the high moral ground.
• They should repent of their current methods and modes until they have adopted the fruit of repentance from the previous 3 items, and then re-assess their manner of establishing engagement in the communities they operate in -- both toward churches and toward abortion clinics.

JUST TO BE CLEAR BEFORE YOU START YOUR COMMENTS

What I did NOT say this week:

• I did NOT say abortion is morally justified
• I did NOT say Christians should do nothing about abortion
• I did NOT say that Churches should do nothing about abortion
• I did NOT say that protesting abortion clinics was wrong
• I did NOT say that Christians have no duties as citizens

What I DID say this week:

• the AHA version of absolutism on this issue is inconsistent at best, and morally and biblically untenable at worst
• AHA's condemnation of anyone who doesn't agree with their philosophy or methodology is not morally or biblically tenable
• There are biblical problems with all 5 of their major tenets for conducting operations as they are stated on the AHA web site
• The two most important problems are a lack of a clear approach to hermeneutics/interpreting the truth of God's word, and a complete lack of clarity regarding whether or not the methods/means of accomplishing their goals matter.
• AHA lacks a clear and workable theology of the church, and therefore they don't get right the responsibilities of the local church, and the responsibilities of believers, and the responsibilities of believers to the church and vice versa

If you disagree with what I actually DID say this week, I welcome your comments -- I welcome your critiques in detail.  If you simply cannot stand that I have criticized them, that's another matter.  Ranting about your disbelief that I would criticize these people doesn't interest me.  I don't have an obligation to give anyone who is angry because they are wrong a platform for their ravings, nor do I  have to answer such ravings.

The comments are open, and under moderation.  Mind the gap.

---

A Lot More Bible to Cover

by Frank Turk

Yesterday I posted part 1 of 3 regarding the organization "Abolish Human Abortion," a group of fellows who are very proud of what they have set out to do -- which is the right-minded objective of abolishing human abortion.  Yesterday I made one statement that ought not to be ignored, so I'll repeat it here.

Let me make sure I say this as clearly as possible:

All murder is wrong

That's the moral premise which under-girds any work to limit or abolish abortion.  Anyone commenting or responding after this series of posts goes live who ignores this essential fact of Christian ethics in my position is selling something unsavory.

Yesterday we covered the interesting idea that these fellows are the only ones doing anything not-evil in the fight against abortion.  Today we are going to cover some of their theological reasoning.

The five major tenets of this organization are as follows:

1. Biblical

Usually, when an organization says it is "Biblical," it means that it reasons biblically to its objectives and to its means.  The tenet of "biblicism" is therefore usually a foundational objective -- not a list of Bible verses.  It usually outlines the method or approach the group takes toward the Bible -- it establishes a hermeneutical standard, or a tradition in which it stands.  The list of Bible verses usually comes later.

In this case, they present the Bible verses right here, and the list is simple:

Micah 6:8
Isaiah 1:16-17
Eph 5:11
James 1:27
Luke 4:18-19

That is: the tenet here is not that they will use the Bible as a sufficient and infallible authority.  If they did, maybe they would have a local church which was overseeing them to make sure they weren't doing things they ought not to be doing, for example.  The tenet, rather, is a list of Bible truths which they demand to be taken at face value without further comment:

• do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God
• make the church holy, reprove the ruthless, and defend widows and orphans
• expose all evil
• be holy and "visit" widows and orphans in need
• Keep the two great commandments
• Human beings are in the image of God
• Jesus became a man to save men from "sin, self-destruction, death, and eternal separation from God."

This is interesting because at first glance, the list is actually a random list of true statements from Scripture.  All of the statements are true.  The question we have to ask is why these in particular have any priority over any other statements of truth -- for example, the commission of the church to make disciples of all men (Mat 28); the demand of Christ to love one another (John 13); requirement of Husbands to love their Wives (Eph 5); the demand that there be no divisions in the local church (1 Cor 1-3).  And just to keep things testimentally balanced, how about the idea that God hates divorce (Malachi 2); or that God hates all evildoers (Ps 5:5); or that God hates the double-minded and liars (Ps 119); or that God hates Robbery (Is 61)?

Superficially, there is no question: they have seven true statements from Scripture.  Whether these statements are necessarily the most important statements of Scripture regarding the existence of the church or the purpose of men (with or without faith) is simply undemonstrated.  What's the cause from the text or from good reasoning which causes these verses to be so true that they cause us to create a new #1 priority for the church?

In that: I think the idea that these fellows are "Biblical" remains to be seen.  They have Bibles; they can extract true statements from the Bible.  Whether they use the Bible for its necessary purpose, to say what it means to say, remains to be seen.

2. Providential

The next part is worth transcripting fully:

We rely on the Providence of God, not the pragmatism of man. Abolitionists do not trust in warhorses or chariots. We trust in the spiritual means and methods God has given to us in His Word. Abolitionists have always cried, “duty is ours, the results are God’s!” We look to the Spirit of God to lead us, believing He is our ever present guide and that He is not silent.

We depend upon the Providence and Sovereignty of God. “… He giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” (Acts 17:25) It is the power of God working through His Holy Spirit that changes hearts. Yet we acknowledge that God has deemed men active participants in this drama. He gives us choices, and these choices have consequences. (Matt. 9:38, Acts 27:22,31) We are called to be faithful – to walk in righteousness – to speak the truth in love. We leave the results in His hands.

These fellows escape being true hypercalvinists or fatalists by admitting they are, at least, called to do something -- and good on them for that.  They say they have a moral obligation to participate in the drama -- which is a fascinating turn of phrase.  But it's funny that they demand that they do not trust in chariots and warhorses -- because they do rely on graphic posters and sandwich boards. (see some examples here, but click at your own risk as they are explicit regarding the cost of abortion in human terms)  That is: they do rely on shock and awe to deliver a message.  And at the end of it, they do want the laws to change -- they want the horses and chariots of the Government to protect unborn lives, yes?

Moreover, they also are not merely content protesting abortion at local clinics: they have an explicit mission to "exhort" local churches (again:explicit warning) who do not meet AHA's definition of being sufficiently-militant towards abortion.  It seems, at least, odd that they are worried about relying on means when, frankly, they have such explicit means and militant means -- and demand the same from others.

Let's be clear about the reasoning here: they can't accept an incremental change in the law of a local state or a nation because that's complicity with evil, but they can protest exhort one church at a time to change that church's ministry objectives (changing one church, not all churches) to suit the objectives of AHA.  And they don't trust in horses and chariots, but they do demand these churches change their behavior right now.

We'll have to wait for tomorrow for the comments to be open to see what sort of response AHA can muster toward the charge that while they are not politically incremental, they are unquestionably spiritually incremental -- even if it is because they have limited resources.

3. Gospel-Centered

You know: someplace in this neighborhood of the internet, the phrase was coined, "The Gospel is the Solution to Culture." I have made the T-Shirts.  It's my attempt to doff my hat the best-in-class in post-millennial theology to see the Gospel not as some weak tea which causes us to lose a lot of battles so that Christ can just win in the end, but rather as our vision of what's the right priority in this world.  It's the way Paul saw the world -- that all suffering is worth enduring if we can only tell people the truth about themselves and about God.  We would to God that all who hear us at any time might become such as we am—except for the chains, as the Apostle so blythely said. (Act 26)

And to their credit: the AHA team says this:

We are committed to an uncompromising adherence to the good news that God stepped down into human history as Jesus Christ.  He was conceived in the womb of a young unmarried woman who did not choose to be with child. He lived a sinless life, and by His death redeemed a lost, wandering and wicked people from sin, punishment and eternal separation from God.  

But then they spoil it by saying this:

The fullness of the Gospel of God is supreme above all philosophies and ideologies and without the Gospel there would be no call or means of Abolition.

Well, no.  First off, the Gospel is not an "ideology."  It's a declaration of fact.  It's not a system of political thought, or a religious scheme.  It's a declaration that God has done something which spares sinful man from judgment.  The Gospel is a message, a word of Good News.  You'd think biblical fellows would know this, but like all people overwhelmed by an agenda of social justice, they have simply forgotten it.

But second, the reason that we abhor murder is not that Christ was murdered: the reason we abhor murder is that the Law teaches us that Murder is wrong.  In fact, the idea that murder is wrong is so obvious, Paul tells the Romans that such a thing is written into the very fabric of the universe and the very conscience of man (purists: Rom 1-2).  The call to "abolition" comes from the fact that murder is wrong -- not from that fact that sovereign God has made a way to forgive men for sin.

And this, frankly, also goes back to whether or not these fellows are actually "Biblical."  They are unable to distinguish the Glory of God in Creation from the Glory of God in Christ -- they cannot, in fact, distinguish between revelation in creation and the special revelation in Scripture which Christ fulfills.

That's troubling.  And it's not the only place these guys could do with a second or third reading of the whole Bible for the sake of actually being a little more Biblical.

4. Body Driven

and 

5. Immediate and Uncompromising

We should let them, again, speak for themselves:

We believe that Abolition is an Obligation of the Church. We seek to awaken the Church to fulfill her ordained purpose to be salt and light in this sin spoiled and darkened world. The primary means God has ordained to display his manifold wisdom to the world is through his people, his body and bride. The church must take the gospel to the ends of the earth and bring it into conflict with every dark deed of man.

Read that again, especially the emphasized part (I added the emphasis).  Abolition is not the spread of the Gospel: Abolition, by their own definition, is the end of abortion first and with gusto.  While they say their primary means for this is the Gospel (to which they do injustice when they explain it), think about this: they have equated Gospel proclamation with the uncompromising end of one particular form of sinfulness.  In that, they have re-defined the mission of the church not to see to it that we are ambassadors of Christ, pleading from God a message of reconciliation: they have made the church's necessary obligation the improvement of society for one particular moral end.

Look: I have no problem saying that, because a church is located in a place where there are lost people, they SHOULD minister to those lost people and not to lost people in theory or in general.  A church next door to a strip club ought not to cut a deal with its neighbor that it will not preach the Gospel in front of their business because their business will be harmed.  A church next door to a casino shouldn't turn the other cheek when that parking lot has more people in it than the church lot does on a Sunday morning.  And to be as clear as possible, a church in a neighborhood with an abortion clinic ought to be involved in making sure that this place with those sinners receive the word of God so that they will repent.

But here these fellows have made a statement that places "abolition" on-par with Baptism.  They have put it on-par with the Lord's table.  They have put it on-par with weekly worship -- and they do it for all churches.  That's what Capital-"C" "Church" means there.  All Churches, right now, should drop what they are doing and Abolish Abortion.

For a group claiming to be, first and foremost, Biblical, I think they have a lot more Bible to cover before they do anything else.  And while that shortcoming is evident here, I think it is far more obvious in what we'll cover in the last installment, tomorrow.

Comments are closed until tomorrow.

---

A Mixed Bag

by Frank Turk

What I should be doing this week is publishing a "Best-Of" post so I can dedicate my time and energy to finalizing my talk for the Tulsa conference that is scheduled for next weekend (register here; donate for the support of that conference here).  I have about 120 minutes of "stuff" to say, but 55 minutes to fit it in, so pray about that for me.

What I am actually going to do today this week (thanks, DJP) is talk about a topic which, unfortunately, isn't going to go away any time soon.  The topic is Abortion.  Specifically, I want to talk about one approach to the problem of abortion which I have unfortunately been subjected to over the last 7 days.

About a year ago, at the self-same conference in Tulsa, I was introduced to the group Abolish Human Abortion.  At that time, as I understood them, they were a young and new-ish group, and they had the vim and vigor of young fellows excited about getting into full-time ministry.  For my part, I am in favor of the end of abortion.  I am in favor of saving every human life from murder whenever possible, and this most certainly falls under that conviction.  All murder is wrong.

Let me make sure I say this as clearly as possible:

All murder is wrong

That's the moral premise which under-girds any work to limit or abolish abortion.  Anyone commenting or responding after this series of posts goes live who ignores this essential fact of Christian ethics in my position is selling something unsavory.

Insofar as murder is wrong, the epidemic of murder in our nation is not from firearm use: it's from abortion.  Only one bullet in a million ever kills a human being in the United States -- but one baby in 4 is aborted every year in the United States.  Comparatively speaking, there are 130 abortions for every murder committed by firearm in the United States.  For every one child murdered outside the womb by all others means, there are 1,000 children murdered in the womb via abortion.  As a percentage of all murders, abortion outstrips every other mode of murder in the world, and in our nation.

All murder is wrong; abortion is the most-prevalent type of murder in our nation; it is wrong.  However, the unfortunate fact of abortion is that, unlike shooting someone in the face or strangling them, it is not illegal.  And therein, as they say, lies the rub.

Here's the first bit of information from the AHA website which, I think, we need to consider:

Pro-life is the expression of a moral opinion. Abolition is the expression of a moral action. When you call yourself “pro-life” you are letting people know what you think about abortion. When you call yourself an abolitionist, you are telling them what you aim to do about it.

It's sounds very rational, right?  Everything, on first blush from these guys, sounds rational.  The problem, of course, is that this statement is a story they are telling themselves to justify something else they want to say or do.

Historically, since 1973, the Pro-Life movement has been the singularly most-vocal and most-active anti-abortion lobby and on-the-ground activist movement in this cultural debate in the US, and frankly it has been strongly populated by Catholics motivated by the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae.  To say it has done nothing in the last 40 years would be fudging at best.  (for a great commentary of what they have, in fact, failed to do, listen to this episode of the Mortification of Spin) For example, since 1982, the number of abortion providers has fallen by 37%.  That didn't happen because the pro-life movement is merely a statement of opinion -- and for anyone to say otherwise is, frankly, sly at best.  The advance of partial-birth abortion laws in this country is a function of pro-life activism; the advance of limiting abortion to prior to the 20th week is a function of pro-life activism.

The problem, of course, is that none of these actions are seen by the folks at AHA as advances: they are seen as some kind of ethical syncretism is which some losses are acceptable for minor gains.  Let's see how they would say it, just to make sure:

The history of the pro-life movement has been one of gradualistic means and measures, incremental legislation, ameliorative programs, and the inclusion of exceptions to abortion along the way to its eventual total abolition. Abolitionists reject the idea that you can effectively fight evil by allowing it in some cases or doing away with it by planned incremental steps. Abolitionists reject the notion that you can ever commit a little evil in order that good may come. 

Closing 37% of all abortion clinics is not an improvement in this view: it's evil.  It's evil because it doesn't save everyone.  I have covered this reasoning elsewhere, and it hasn't improved through fermentation over time or through this current revised statement.  The idea that if all cannot be saved then saving any is cooperation with evil is illogical at best, and unbiblical at worst.

"Unbiblical?" comes a voice from the moderated peanut galley. "By Jove, man - you may have a lot of flack for AHA on other grounds, but there is no way it can be unbiblical!  They quote quite a bit of the Bible on their websites!"

Well, they should read the Bible more closely.  The problem that the Bible tosses on this question is the problem of who God saves.  See: in a world where everyone is justly condemned for their sins -- where EVERYONE is going to hell -- God does not save every person nor does God intend to save every person, in the final account.  God saves some and allows some to be damned by their own sin -- and God is not therefore unjust.  God is rather therefore Holy and Merciful in spite of allowing some to be damned.  So in the worst case, there is perhaps one example of divine holiness which does not adhere to the legalistic absolutism of the AHA website.

But I think there is a more-human, more-analogous example in the Bible which the AHA statements overlook: the body of the church.  The church is a holy thing for God (for the sake of the purists, see Eph 5:27), but it is also a mixture of wheats and weeds until the end of the final judgment (purists: Mat 13).  In God's view of it, something salvifically-necessary can be, from a human perspective, a mixed bag and still achieve what it is meant to do in this world.

Because this is true, we should be able to see that we are not bound to absolutism every time we set out to accomplish a good and useful moral end. For example, it's not wrong to invent a medicine which cures some of the victims of a disease.  More to the point, it's not wrong to pass a law to stop immoral acts even though it cannot be enforced 100% and some will still be victims of crime.  Murder is already illegal in our nation - yet people are murdered every day. That doesn't make us immoral people for supporting the laws we already have.

So my first complaint against AHA is this: it is utterly unfair toward those who, frankly, share their ultimate goals but see the social  and political methods to achieving the goals as a longer process which takes back the law in steps.  It is unfair to their past accomplishments, and unwise in assessing the moral victories of the pro-life movement.

More tomorrow.  Comments will be closed until Thursday's post, at which time you are welcome to do as you will.

UPDATED:  Oh brother.

So the objection from concerned citizens in and around AHA is this: The parable in Mat 13 is not about the church, but about the world -- so I am off the reservation.  My objection is nullified.  "WORLD!"

OK - first of all, the standard reading of that passage is that Jesus is talking about the church in the world.  If my reading is flawed, so is the reading of a boat-load of reliable and faithful men from almost every age in church history.

"But," comes the rejoinder, "Jesus says, 'world'! You wouldn't deny Jesus for the ideas of men, would you?"

Well, if that's how we're reasoning, I'm not going to listen to your "ideas of men"  because I have already heard from Jesus, and you don't sound anything like him.  How far is this discussion going to go then?  Prolly no place you will enjoy or benefit from -- so unclench from the worry over the doctrines of men.

But: I'll go you one better -- maybe 2 better: I'll utterly concede that the parable of the wheats and tares is a parable about the whole WORLD!  If the whole WORLD is a mixed bag of wheats and tares until the end of the world, and the point of the parable is that God is doing what he's doing and allows there to be a mixed bag, how can God be doing what he means to do in this WORLD! except by some kind of incremental change?

The point is that God is not afraid of the mixed bag.  In fact, the mixed bag is in some way instrumental to the plan.  There are many examples of this in Scripture: Abraham bargaining with God for Sodom; Joseph in the household of Potiphar, and then as the servant of Pharaoh; Esther marrying the pagan King; Paul's explanation of the use of the Law in Rom 7; Rahab the Harlot as an example of true faith.  Failing to see this, and to demand only absolutism as the standard of engagement, is utter nonsense.

Next.

---

Full-Contact Rugby

by Frank Turk

Last week, I made a point to say that nobody wants to be, by analogy, this little fellow:



That is, nobody wants to always be the one with the voice that can peel paint off the walls when it comes to being the bringer of bad news.  And in some sense, that's what Keller and Powlison were on about 5 years ago when they published their paper to the internet about how to respond to bad reports.  It seems to me that yes, indeed, we should season our words with love and compassion and good will in that we do not want to be people who, frankly, thrive on gossip and slander.

But:

Of course to say that there's never a time or place to publicly discuss such things seems, at least, a little bit priggish or weak.  For example, as we considered last week (thanks to the anonymous internet reader's objections), Tim Challies has been on quite a tear into the use of pornography.  For him to do that, at the very least, requires the assumption that there's a bad report out there about someone's use of the internet -- someone on the internet, apparently, is wrong.  All the posts thereafter finally don't follow any of the advice of Keller and Powlison.  Tim does not suspend judgment.  Tim does not bother to think about whether he knows the heart of the people he's on about.  He certainly didn't speak to anybody personally.  Yet as even marginally-objective readers, Tim did the right thing by making every effort to recriminate the use of porn.

I think it turns out that we can be serious, sober, and kind -- and not have to face the world with a blank expression and a sphinx-like silence -- when we are faced with a bad report.  But if we find this to be true -- and I can list examples for you if you're interested -- then what do we do with the original essay which I said I agreed with?  What about the idea that we need to approach bad reports in such a way that we do not become the equivalent of the Hound of the Baskervilles trapped in the body of a fluffy lap dog?

Well, I think the first word missing from the Keller/Powlison essay is "pastoral."  You know: last year I spoke at two conferences and a church anniversary, and the greatest compliment I received from those events came from a single person who came to me and said, "you come across much more pastoral in person than you do at the blog."  Whether that's true or not, I think, is utterly subjective because I didn't write anything for those talks I hadn't written previously at one of the menagerie of blogs I keep from getting deleted by blogger.  But that point simply cannot be made too keenly: there is something pastoral necessary in dealing with bad reports.

The thing we should observe about being pastoral is that not everyone is called to be a pastor, but every Christian is called to somehow demonstrate the truth in love.  Every other internet christian cogitator thinks he is a Berean or follows the Berean methodology, but what's the sense of being a Berean rather than a Thessalonian?  Luke says that the Bereans were "more noble" than the Thessalonians.  Everyone gets very exercised about being as "biblical" as the Bereans, but the word which distinguishes them from those who attacked Paul in the previous city is that they were "εὐγενέστεροι."  What if we expressed our "εὐγενής" in Christ when we encountered a bad report as the first step -- because that's a pastoral thing to do.  It expresses the real care for the souls of those watching and care for the souls doing the things being reported as bad because it has the highest regard for truth, and that's the heart of pastoral virtue.

There also ought to be something brotherly or fraternal in our response to bad reports.  The problem with saying it that way, of course, is that it offends the egalitarians.  However, anyone with a brother knows for a fact that getting correction from him rather than from Mom or Dad or a Sister is not the same as from another source.  It's a combination of full-hearted love and full-contact rugby.  And because it is both loving and rough, it is unmistakable as meant for permanent change.  While it's nice that Keller and Powlison mentioned all the loving parts of responding to bad reports, somehow they omitted stuff like Prov 27:6, or Prov 27:5, or Prov 27:17.

Our reaction to a bad report also ought to be holy.  This is the one all of us fumble from time to time because for something to be "holy," it has to be, by definition, exactly what God would do -- not merely what we imagine God would do.  The quest for our reaction to be "holy" creates both permissiveness and legalistic condemnation, but we have to strive against that so that our reaction is both inside the Law and outpouring the Gospel.  It should not just name what it wrong, but also plead for what's right through the means of Jesus Christ.

And that brings us to the final point: our reaction has to be redemptive.  It has to show the other person that there is a path home in Christ for them.  The ultimate purpose in the Christian life is not to show others how poor, wretched and stupid they are: it is to show them that their poor, wretched, stupid problems are resolved by Christ, and that they can repent and be reconciled to God and to other people.

If you are doing that, you can be Tim Challies without any blushing.  You can be PyroManiacs without wincing.  You can receive and consider bad reports without disgracing yourself.

---

A Pint of Baby Orphan Tears

by Frank Turk

Before we get too far here, two things.

Number One: Thanks for asking - my vacation was great.

Number 2 (HT: Fred Butler and DJP):



A truly-inspired video, and a truly-irreplaceable pet.  If my Big Dog screamed like that, I'd have him in movies, but only because it would be impossible to have him in a middle-class neighborhood around anything which would cause him to make that noise -- a noise which makes the shriek of a witch-king pierced by an unexpected woman on a battlefield sound rather cheery.

Now: why post that soul-jarring scream on a moderately-serious blog like this one?  Well, it came to my attention a couple of weeks ago that there is a 5-year-old white paper out there by Tim Keller and David Powlison (men I respect and have defended in the past, and would still do so) entitled Should You Pass on Bad Reports?

Unremarkably, their verdict is, "no."  I know it's unsurprising, but as they summarize the matter, it goes like this:

• The first thing to do is to simply suspend judgment. Don’t pass on bad reports.
• The second thing to do is “cover” it in love, reminding yourself that you don’t know all about the heart of the person who may have done evil—and you know your own frailty. Don’t allow bad reports to pass into your own heart.
• The final thing to do is go and speak to them personally.

And they reach this conclusion through a significant exercise of walking through relevant Scriptural admonitions in order to reach a conclusion which, it seems, nobody can argue with.  It's offered, btw, from the blogger who posted it as something he hopes will resonate with all bloggers, to be posted far and wide on other blogs, to spiritually season Christian conversations on the internet.

Because: nobody wants to be the little white fluffy dog whom others perceive as howling like a cannibal's wedding feast.  Nobody wants to be the one whom others look at the way we all look at the little video above and be the object of dismay, scorn, and derision.  We don't want to be laughed out of the conversation, and moreover: we don't want to be dismissed because we are just a yowling mess.

In that respect: this is good advice.  Nobody should be a perpetual fault-finder -- if for no other reason than it actually makes less of you.  Someone who can find nothing good in other people is someone who is feeding himself only emotional poison.  Being constantly disappointed in other people -- or worse, always being outraged at them -- simply causes you to fail to see the image of God in those people.  Scripturally, you must do better -- and Powlison and Keller spell out why.

What?  Why are you looking at me like that?

I can't agree with good advice?

Oh, I see: you expect me to find fault with this particular consideration of bad reports of other people for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is because it is in some very specific and obvious ways responding to bad reports without, it seems, taking its own advice.  "Like Ministry" and all that.  Well, you seem to have worked that one out on your own.  Why do you need me to work it out for you?

What? You were actually hoping that I'd see if this advice actually works in realy life somehow -- like comment on Challies' on-going crusade against pornography as it relates to this good advice from pastoral minds?  Now: why should I do that?  Is there anyone reading this blog who is not actually aware that pornography is sinful and causes us to sin?  In fact, are there any readers of Tim's blog who are not readers of this blog (there are many of these people) who are not morally opposed to pornography?  We are on the same side of this issue -- why should I try to apply this advice to those posts?

What do you mean, "in what way is it in compliance with this advice to rail on against a particular sin abstracted from particular people? Doesn't that approach violate all of this advice -- first, by believing the worst of essentially all Christians; second, by judging the hearts of others; and third, by utterly neglecting to take the matter to them personally?"  Why would you say such a thing about a fellow everyone agrees is both discerning and utterly nice?  Do you think there's something wrong with general good advice?

Oh:  I see what you're driving at.  You're actually saying that the advice itself it a little bit too facile, too superficial -- that if somehow when it gets applied to the nicest fellow on the internet and somehow makes him out to be a watchblogger, it must somehow be faulty.  And by "Faulty," you mean the way a small dog that bays with the wails of demons demanding a pint of baby orphan tears is faulty -- it is neither useful, nor practical, nor as domesticated and harmless as it looked before it opened its mouth.

That's a pretty serious thing to say about useful fellows like Keller (who has sold a bajillion books, and gets to appear on Morning Joe) and Powlison (who has his own place in the pantheon of useful, center-bound Gospelistas in spite of his lesser status as a published author).

I'll consider your opinion and get back to it next week.

---

Phillips' axioms

by Dan Phillips

When you get old, experienced and opinionated, you build up a stock of axioms. Here are some of mine, for whatever use, ponderance, reflection, passing whimsy, and/or outright theft, you might make of them. They range from the theological to the practical to the political. What use will you make of them? None, maybe. But I've used various of them variously in sermons, conversation, evangelism, counseling, teaching, and writing.

Unlike Biblical Proverbs, they're uninspired. Like Biblical proverbs, the aim is memorable, thought-provoking, stick-in-your-mind brevity.

Strictly, some of these are proverbs or apothegms... but that would make too long a title!

If this list has no interest to you, I'd just ask you graciously to remember what you paid for it.

1. If you ever weren't God, you never will be.
2. When you sin, or say or do something really foolish, you have two choices: repent, forsake, and rectify; or start an endless cycle of doubling-down degradation. Most people do the latter.
3. Don't be the last to know you're wrong.
4. Trolls are thoughtful people. Nail them for what they are, and they immediately prove you right.
5. Pastors who don't pastor aren't pastors, they're lecturers.
6. Anyone who claims to be an apostle today is 'way, 'way too young.
7. Any woman who seeks to lead men in church is eo ipso disqualified—if open rebellion against the Lordship of Christ is still a disqualifier.
8. Folks who are full of themselves don't leave much room for anyone else.
9. Every vote is a vote for the lesser of two evils.
10. Men shouldn't let our eyes rest anywhere our hands shouldn't.
11. Looking may just be looking, but doing starts with a look.
12. Only way to be certain not to forget something is to do it now.
13. Preach like God's watching, like you'll never get another chance, and like every second of your hearers' time is precious.
14. Don't let truth lose by default through your laziness, indifference, cowardice or ignorance.
15. If nobody else has ever seen what you're seeing in the Bible, that's probably because it isn't there.
16. The world is far better at being the world than the church ever could be, so don't even try.
17. Don't be shocked when unbelievers act like unbelievers.
18. Do be shocked when believers act like unbelievers. Especially when it's you.
19. Counsel the person who's there. 
20. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
21. Excelling at anything is a matter of wisely investing odd moments.
22. Better to know a little truth, and believe it deeply, Than to know a lot, and not.
23. Anyone can be taught — except the dead and the proud.
24. Everyone does what he does because he thinks it will make him happy. (Added 12/5/12)
25. Unhappy complainers are always louder and more insistent than happy people with praises. This works both horizontally and vertically, and is equally a reproach to both categories of people. (Added 1/3/2013)
26. When a man opposing God's truth is destroying his own argument with every word, sometimes it's best to stay out of the way and let him get on with it. (Added 1/18/2013)
27. Kid, life's not a game. Hasty decisions cast long shadows. (Added 4/8/2013)
28. When someone wants to misunderstand, no power on Earth and no amount of explanation can make him understand. (Added 9/26/2013)
29. Everyone in the embrace of a sin dismisses Biblical rebuke by claiming to be misunderstood. (Added 9/27/2013)
30. The problem with the person who thinks he's too strong to be able to join himself in fellowship with imperfect Christians in a local church is that he is actually too weak to sustain it. (Added 9/27/2013)
31. Being married is like being a Christian, only more so. (Added 9/27/2013)
32. Sin is always the problem, never the solution. (Added 9/27/2013)
33. Every time someone tries to be a "'progressive' Christian," (s)he ends up being a whole lot of the one, and not much of the other. (Added 2/24/2014)
34. With stubborn, unrepentant sin, lack of information is rarely the real problem; so pouring in information is rarely the solution. (Added 2/24/2014)
35. God didn't give kids sense. Instead, He gave them parents, told the parents to teach the kids His Word, and told the kids to honor their parents. (Added 4/26/14)
36. If anyone makes you feel better about thumbing your nose at God, that person does not love you. (Added 5/6/14)
37. Arguing X does not necessarily mean that there is a real argument worth making for X. (Added 7/8/14)
38. The hands do what the hands do because the heart is what the heart is. (Added 8/22/14)
39. "Love" should not be defined as the compulsion to force others to subsidize the idle, the immoral, and the illegal. (Added 2/20/15)
40. When one loves God, no reason is a large enough obstacle to prevent us from serving Him. When one does not love God, no excuse is too puny, paltry, or pathetic to keep us from serving Him. (Added 5/11/15)
41. The moral obligation of leading by example is absolute; its efficacy, however, is often grossly, grossly overstated (2 Chron. 27:2). (Added 8/26/15)
42. Racism is not the cure for racism. Only the Cross of Christ is. (Added 2/12/16)
43. Atheists tend to blurt bombastic clichés rather than read, reflect, and respond. (Added 11-7-2017)
44. Big names are often small people. (Added 1-9-2018)
45. Youth, dirt-ignorance and hubris are a deadly combination. (Added 1-9-2018)
46. The mark of a truly big person is how he treats "little people." (Added 1-9-2018)
47. No human authority has the right to command what God forbids, or forbid what God commands. (Added 4-11-18)
48. Obedience isn't a technique. You don't "try" it, to see if it "works." (Added 5-14-2018)
49. {Instant acclaim + massive soapbox} minus {coherent, thought-out, well-grounded, long-demonstrated convictional, Biblical worldview} = disaster. Generally not a matter of if, but when, and how bad. (Cf. 1 Timothy 5:22). (Added 5-14-2018)
50. Sin snowballs. That's its propensity. No sin likes to remain alone. (Added 7-23-2018)
51. You can't make someone see what he doesn't want to see. (Added 5-12-2020)
52. The existential distance between "humiliated" and "humbled" is so much vaster than the lexical distance. Many who are the former, are not the latter — to their destruction. (Added 4-5-2021)
53. Once Pride makes an investment, it will defend it to the death...of everything. (Added 8-2-2021)
54. You can lead a "continuationist" to Scripture, but you can't make him think. (Added 12-15-2022)
55. God is good, but He plays the long game. (Added 2-22-2024)

There y'go.

---

Boundaries

by Phil Johnson



e're often told by gurus of church-growth and guardians of postmodern values in the evangelical community that we mustn't erect "boundaries."

I gather from the way such comments are often bandied about that the word boundaries is supposed to have totally negative connotations. Honestly: I don't see why. I can understand how worldly people whose minds are enslaved to earthbound, man-centered, self-indulgent thoughts might wish for a world without any lines or borders. But candidly, it's an attitude that's hard to reconcile with the whole tenor of the New Testament.

Contemporary evangelicals' resistance to boundaries is especially hard to reconcile with the fact that pastors (the word means shepherds) are expressly charged with guarding the flock and keeping predators out of the fold. And there simply is no realistic way to keep sheep in the sheepfold and wolves out if you refuse to observe any boundaries. In John 10:7, Jesus famously said: "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep." I cannot envision any useful purpose for having a "door [for] the sheep" if there is no sheep-pen or enclosure of some kind with well-defined, secure barricades, sturdy fences, or a protected perimeter of some kind.

But mainstream evangelicals have been indoctrinated along with the rest of postmodern society to think walls and borders are inherently sinister. We're conditioned to favor a whole different set of more stylish and more politically-correct values: tolerance, openness, diversity, mystery, indecision, broad-mindedness, and liberality. It's considered humble and generous to entertain perpetual qualms about what we believe. We're not supposed to think any single perspective can righteously claim to be true to the exclusion of all others.

So today's evangelicals bend over backward not to sound the least bit dogmatic. Because certainty is perceived throughout our culture as a kind of cruel arrogance. Clarity, authority, careful definitions, and firmness are likewise looked upon with deep suspicion. Stating your beliefs with settled conviction is a sure way to start trouble these days.



Want proof? Just page through our blog and read any random comment thread where 30 or more people have replied. You'll see, I think, that the most common complaint we get from angry commenters is that we sound too sure of our position—or some variation on that theme. (We're too rigid; too reluctant to change our minds; too emphatic in the way we make our case; or whatever.) We're expected to qualify and over-qualify everything we say in a way that practically nullifies every critique and ultimately countermands every concern. We are told we always ought to look for things to commend if ever it is absolutely necessary to criticize something, and above all, we must be brotherly to everyone who comes in Jesus' name.

See: the concept of "unity" commonly touted today has nothing whatsoever to do with "being in full accord and of one mind" (Philippians 2:2). Instead, it is a broad, visible, ecumenical homogeneity without boundaries.

And that is nothing like the biblical concept of unity.

For an audio recording of the complete message from which those thoughts were excerpted, click here.

---