Unfortunately,  there’s scant evidence to suggest she will. So here we go again with “No More Sheets”.  And look who’s joining her to tell us all that all we  need is a good dose of celebrating ourselves.

Jonathan Nelson who recently appeared with inclusion heretic Carlton Pearson

Dorinda Clark Cole of the How Sweet the Sound controversy.

Darrell Hines. Cant help but be disappointed in this after the “holiness is right” speech on TBN. Et tu Bishop?

Is it the money? Do these people not care about what Juanita Bynum is doing and saying? Are they in agreement with her lunacy? Are they in such a deep vacuum of seclusion they have not seen and heard?

Do they just need to keep their faces out in the public with these appearances to help sell CDs and products? All of the featured faces except Woods has a new CD product on the market. Is this just one big CD sellfest disguised as a conference about dealing with sexual issues or whatever it is Miss Bynum is hawking now? Notice there’s no scripture references on the flyer. That’s so the tag is open to whatever interpretation you think it means. A scripture would add restrictions.

And the “preferred seating” thing still is just so very weird for a church gathering.

My brethren, you must not make distinctions between one man and another while you are striving to maintain faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who is our glory. James 2:1

This conference is aping the new american religion with its  ” its all about you” message.  Its a trending favorite of all the preachers turned life coach gurus. I was at a seminar last weekend and heard a term I’d never heard before describe the state of American Christianity. Its called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism and is defined by researchers thusly:

1. “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” 2. “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” 3. “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” 4. “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” 5. “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

Infused with a new world ethics of diversity and inclusion, people conclude that no one is in a position to judge anyone else. Thus, we are all left to determine what is morally right for ourselves. Add to that the idea that religion’s goal should be to make a person happy. Any talk of suffering, responsibility, self denial, sexual morality or sin is rejected because such things inhibit one’s “personal happiness”.  The new cosmopolitan belief that God can only become involved in our lives when we want him to seals this false construct becoming so prevalent in the church today.  God  becomes God only by default. He is viewed almost like Santa Claus, rewarding good people when they die with heaven. Hell (if it exists) is for those who don’t want others to be  good, loving and happy by telling them they cannot live in whatever way makes them happy.

Listen closely and you will hear these ideologies rehearsed over and over in popular Christian/gospel music, sermons by popular Christian speakers, in books by popular Christian writers and in conferences by popular conference conveners like Juanita Bynum.

Thats why blogs like GCM Watch is hated by the lovers of moralistic theraputic deism.

It also explains why people can call themselves Christians and at the same time promote concepts and ideologies contradictory to biblical orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxy (right conduct). And why so many of the conferences and “sermons” we hear today are me-centered. God wants you happy, God saw the best in you, live your best life now, be a better you, “love yourself”, “do you”, ad naseum.

Watch Jaunita Bynum talk more religious goobley-gock where she says Prince, DMX and Michael Jackson had a “prophetic anointing”.

Over and over the proof of his words are manifested by adherents of gay christian theology. At its root is an old heresy which perverts the nature of Christ.

Rev. Jim Mitulski, leader of a gay church in San Francisco says Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem is like a gay pride parade. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The story begins with Palm Sunday, Jesus’ jaunty entry into Jerusalem, where people placed their cloaks and tree branches on his path to welcome him. For Mitulski, it feels like a gay pride parade – a public and political celebration beyond government control.

Easter “evokes from us the experience of resurrection in our own bodies and in our own spirits,” said Mitulski, the pastor at New Spirit Community Church in Berkeley. “It’s not just a retelling. It’s an embodiment.”

Both religious and secular society have heaped messages upon gays and lesbians that their bodies are sinful or their sexuality a product of mental illness, said Rev. D. Mark Wilson, a pastor at Tapestry Ministries in Berkeley. AIDS is described by some Christians as punishment from God.

But Wilson and others believe the Bible repeatedly decouples the idea that sin is associated with the body or that illness is punishment.

A gay pride parade? In case you’ve never seen one, view a small sample of a gay pride parade here via the SF Chronicle (warning: some images may be offensive).

Bad theology on parade

Gay theology is threaded with heresy in order to make sense to them. In fact, the whole idea of disassociating sin with the body is a fundamental tenet to religious homosexuals. The idea goes like this: If what I do (sex with someone of the same gender) is not associated with sin, then what I do will always be right and good. Thus, any form of sexual activity is not viewed as sinful.  Hopefully, that helps you can understand why homosexuals in religion fight so hard against the word of God which condemns same gender sexual activity.

But the Apostle John clearly refuted that ideology.

This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:5-8 NIV

John was responding to an old heresy called docetism. Docetism is a heretical teaching with several variations which primarily denies the true nature of Christ.  According to CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry):

[Docetism] taught that Jesus only appeared to have a body, that he was not really incarnate, (Greek, “dokeo” = “to seem”).  This error developed out of the dualistic philosophy which viewed matter as inherently evil,  that God could not be associated with matter, and that God, being perfect and infinite, could not suffer.  Therefore, God as the word, could not have become flesh per John 1:1,14.

The variation promoted by gay christianity flips the disassociation to the benefit of the individual. Instead of the body (or matter) being evil, it is good.  If the body itself is inherently good, then the body’s action’s are likewise good.

That’s why another gay cleric interviewed in the story could see a bible passage as affirmation, rather than condemnation of his homosexuality.

In Second Corinthians, the apostle Paul says he prayed three times for a thorn to be removed from his flesh. God doesn’t remove “the thorn” but says his grace is sufficient, which some interpret as God telling Paul to accept his body for what it is.

“Being 19, in the closet and doing everything I could to pray away my gayness, that scripture spoke to me,” said Wilson, 49.

The “homosexuality is a thorn in the flesh” theory is one that many think is divine approval, if not justification for their sin. In its broadest general sense a “thorn in the flesh” has come to embody a euphemism which means something you don’t want, but are powerless to get rid of.

But such a contemporary application is not biblical.  Paul called his thorn “a messenger from satan” sent to fight against him. God allowed it but gave Paul grace to continue despite it. Whatever the thorn may be, it cannot be sin such as homosexuality. Paul’s problem wasnt sin, it was external and formidable enough to hinder his work for the kingdom of God. And its clear Paul never accepted his problem, he accepted God’s grace for his problem.

That’s a much different conclusion from Rev. Wilson’s conclusion. He interpreted it to mean God intended for him to be homosexual. He believe he should “accept his body for what it is”. Wilson’s conclusion is not based on the grace of God [read how grace produces holiness, not sin], but his own darkened interpretation that his body is good, therefore it can do nothing sinful.

Whether they are in the gay christian movement, prosperity hirelings, emergent church, or any other the other false Christian they are ravenous wolves seeking to steal your money and damage your soul.

One thing is for sure, you do not want to fall under the seductive control of a false teacher. If you dont, do your self a favor and become familiar with their tactics, motives, agenda and lifestyle through the bible’s expose of false teachers in the first century church. They battled with the same thing.

The questions come from a teaching by John MacArthur. At the link are answers to the questions, but make sure you look up the passages and read.

1. Who were the first false teachers eliminated from the church at Ephesus?

2. What was Timothy’s responsibility in Ephesus?

3. What is significant about the sentence structure of 1 Timothy 1:3-4?

4. What kind of authority did Paul grant Timothy in verses 3-4?

5. Why was Ephesus a key city in Asia Minor?

6. How many false teachers were exerting influence in the church at Ephesus? Why do they go unnamed?

7. Explain the meaning of the Greek verb translated “teach no other doctrine”.

8. What were the false teachers using as the basis of their teaching?

9. What was Timothy not to occupy his mind with (1 Tim. 1:4)?

10. How did Paul characterize the teaching of false teachers throughout his pastoral epistles?

11. What does Satan endeavor to do wherever God establishes truth?

12. What did the apostle Paul warn the Ephesian elders about (Acts 20:20- 32)?

13. How is false teaching subtle?

14. What is the effect of questions that false teachers stir up ?

15. What are essentially the two religions in the world? What do they teach?

16. What was Paul’s analysis of any teaching that is contrary to the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:8;)?

17. What does God desire to see in the church? Support your answer with Scripture.

18. What three things produces love? Explain each one.

19. What is the goal of a false teacher?

Specifically, the phrase in question is “without natural affections”. The Apostle Paul used it in his list of latter day transgressions mankind will exhibit.  Dr. Henry Morris, Ph.D. of the Institute for Creation Research explains why natural affection in this passage doesn’t apply to homosexuality:

This phrase “without natural affection” is the translation of one Greek word, astergeo. It was a characteristic of many pagans of the ancient world. Significantly, it is also prophesied to be a characteristic of the humanistic pagans of the end-times. “In the last days . . . men shall be . . . without natural affection” (II Timothy 3:1–3). These are the only two occurrences of this word in the New Testament.

The word stergeo (“natural affection”) is one of four Greek words for “love,” but it is never used at all in the New Testament. It refers to the natural love that members of the same family have for each other. It is such a common characteristic of all peoples that there was apparently no occasion to refer to it at all—except when it is not present, when people lose their instinctive love for their own parents and children, and thus are “without natural affection.” One thinks of the widespread abortionism of these last days, as well as the modern breakdown of the family in general.

Another Greek word for “love” is eros, referring to romantic love, or passion. Like stergeo, eros also is never used in the New Testament. The other two words, however, are used frequently. Phileo, referring to “brotherly love,” occurs over thirty times. It indicates fondness, based on a community of interest with the person or persons so “loved.”

Thus, the phrase “without natural affection” more accurately describes abortion and a host of familiar/relational sins, not homosexuality.
That being said, in Romans 1:31 , it does apply. Homosexuality is a result of unnatural affections, with the “nature” being understood as what the Creator’s intent is for each person’s sexual expression.

We’ve often been accused of double standards, cherry picking and proof texting in our opposition to homosexuality.  But is there an explanation as to why homosexuality is still sin although, the Old Testament death penalty by stoning is no longer applicable?

President and Founder of  Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM), Matt Slick attempts to explain it.

Critics of the Bible often cite Old Testament instances of slavery, violence against homosexuals, wiping out nations, etc., as evidence of a morally inadequate set of rules.  They will also often ask why present-day Christians don’t follow these “barbaric” teachings today.  They complain that Christians are inconsistent, and say that if we really follow the Bible then why don’t we advocate such things as killing both homosexuals (Lev. 20:13) and disobedient children (Deut. 21:18-21).

The reason we don’t is because the Old Covenantal system, that involved such harsh punishments, has been done away with.  We are under a new covenant.  Jesus said in Luke 22:20, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.”

And lest you think that “done away with” means allowable per cultural mutations, think again. Slick says prohibitions against moral perversions still stand:

However, this does not mean that we are to approve of such sins as homosexuality, adultery, lying, and stealing.  We are to not participate in the sins of the world.  Instead, we are to avoid them.  We are not to be violent to anyone since the old theonomic, covenantal system has been done away with (Heb. 8:13).  Instead, we are to be kind to them (2 Tim. 2:24-25) and show them love (1 Cor. 16:14; 2 Cor. 5:14).  But the moral condemnation of immorality still stands — as is clearly taught in 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Rom. 1:26-28.

So, the reason Christians are not obligated to stone homosexuals, disobedient children, and adulterers, is because we’re no longer underneath the Old Testament covenantal system. It has been fulfilled and done away with (Heb. 8:13).

Read Matt Slick’s entire commentary on why we no longer stone homosexuals.

The instructors provide excellent insight and indepth teaching on these various aspects of homosexuality from a biblical worldview.  The Master’s Seminary opened its doors in Fall 1986 under the leadership and vision of Dr. John MacArthur, known worldwide as a master Bible expositor, church leader, and author.

Keep in mind false prophets dont always dress weird and live in communes in the desert.

False prophets are all over the landscape today, and they are a sign of the times pointing to the soon return of Jesus. Jesus Himself warned of false prophets in the end times. His most detailed discourse on end time signs is recorded in Matthew 24. In that passage the very first sign He mentions is false prophets (Matthew 24:4-5), and it is the only sign He repeats (Matthew 24:11,24). His warning was blunt and plain spoken: “Many false prophets will arise, and will mislead many.”

The Old Testament test of a prophet is spelled out in Deuteronomy 18:22 — “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously…”
This, of course, is an obvious test. But what if the prophecy is fulfilled? Does that guarantee that the prophet is speaking for God? Not necessarily. The reason is that a prophetic utterance might be fulfilled by coincidence or because of supernatural insight given to the prophet by Satan. So there must be other tests.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 1 Jn 4:1

Additional questions for determining whether a person is speaking authentically for God.

(1) Does the prophet speak in the name of a god other than the true God revealed in Scripture?
If a prophet speaks in the name of Allah or Baal or Vishnu [or any human], you can be assured that he is a false prophet. “If a prophet… rises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known), and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of the prophet…for the Lord your God is testing you.” (Deuteronomy 13:1-3)

(2) Does the prophet’s message pass the test of Scripture?
If a prophet tells you that you can be saved by putting your faith in Mary, the mother of Jesus, you can be certain he is not a spokesman for God. [be careful to note also now many are using science as a god of authority against the word particularly on issues of sexuality. If science conflicts with the truth of scripture, it is to be rejected.] “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:8)

(3) Does the prophet’s life manifest or demonstrate a commitment to holiness?
If a prophet lives a sinful life, his prophecies are to be doubted. “Among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing; the committing of adultery and walking in falsehood… Therefore, thus says the Lord of hosts concerning the prophets, ‘Behold, I am going to feed them wormwood and make them drink poisonous water.’” (Jeremiah 23:14-15)

(4) Does the prophet’s teaching produce the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23)?
If the prophet’s followers are motivated to worldly living, the prophet does not speak for God.“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits… a good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.” (Matthew 7:15-16,18)

(5) Does the prophet emphasize vain visions?
If the prophet focuses on personal visions with sensational insights (visits to Heaven or Hell, for example), his words are to be distrusted. “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by… taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind.” (Colossians 2:18)

6) Does the prophet deliver only “positive” messages?
If the prophet never issues a call for repentance, he is to be suspect. “Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are prophesying to you. They are leading you into futility; they speak a vision of their own imagination, not from the mouth of the Lord. They keep saying to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, ‘You will have peace…” They say, ‘Calamity will not come upon you.’”(Jeremiah 23:16-17)

(7) Does the prophet appear to be greedy for monetary gain?
If the prophet operates in a manner that makes it appear that his greatest interest is money, he is to be avoided. “From the least even to the greatest, everyone is greedy for gain; from the prophet even to the priest, everyone practices deceit. And they heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, saying, “Peace, peace.” But there is no peace.” (Jeremiah 8:10-11)

(8) Does the prophet focus on the exaltation of Jesus?
If a prophet tries to bring attention to himself or focuses on the Antichrist or the sensational, he is to be questioned.“The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”(Revelation 19:10) Over and over, the Word of God commands us to test all messages lest we be deceived and led astray. Paul urged the people of Berea to test everything he taught them, and they did so by “examining the Scriptures daily” to see whether what he was teaching was scriptural (Acts 17:10-11). Paul was an apostle! How much more so should we test everything we hear taught by the standard of the Word of God. The tragedy is that most professing Christians today are incapable of testing anything because they are biblically ignorant. There is a famine of the Word in most churches today (Amos 8:11) as people are fed a diet of pop psychology and positive thinking. What about you? Are you in the Word on a daily basis? Are you capable of testing doctrine by Scripture? If not, then you are a sitting duck for deception. “Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

In my opinion, Proverbs 23:7 is almost always taken out of context to serve our own self interests or perhaps to explain something about someone else that may or may not necessarily be true. If the statement is to be contextually understood, the latter portion of it must be included as there is no period after “he” but a colon. This simply means what follows the first part proves and explains it. In this case, the point is more about hypocrisy than destiny or character. Taken out of context, the meaning can travel to Jupiter and back.

My point? Getting an understanding of things is very important if we are to rightly divide the word of truth not only for the edification of each other but to an unbelieving world we are called to witness to. Notwithstanding the Spirit of God giving what to say “on the spot”, we should avail ourselves to further study. The false prophets of our day are smart and glib of tongue. That’s a potent factor in deception.

The power of words, the meaning of words

There’s a growing lexicon of terms related to understanding or explaining religious concepts out there. This can be attributed to in part to the conflict over truth. Some terms describe false concepts which are popping up in churches everywhere. Others describe biblical perspectives which are embedded essentials of our faith. Then too, some may help to explain some of the perspectives that are espoused on this blog from time to time by non-believers who object to our biblical conclusions about homosexual conduct.

I decided to make a post highlighting the most prominent of them. Most  have the “ism” and “ology” subtext. Hopefully, as you hear these terms being dropped here and there in your studies you will have a working man’s knowledge of what they mean and its applicability. While I believe etymology is important in most cases, we have to be careful that etymology doesn’t eclipse other factors associated with a particular word because there are many. Primarily, their placement in scripture (or their inference in scripture) along with the Holy Spirit’s “illumination” is important. But even that has a check and balance. No meaning claimed to be derived from the Holy Spirit’s leading can conflict with other scripture particularly when the meaning is clear. The Word of God is one complete and harmonious system of doctrine. Thus, etymology is not an end all, but rather an appropriate starting point.

I’ve also linked scripture references for your consideration. If you know of any additional ones, please drop it in the comment section (with a working man’s definition) and I’ll add it.

antinominanism – taken from Greek: anti nomos “against the law”. In this case it is against God’s laws regarding sexual conduct, the promotion of lawlessness in the church. A belief which manifests in several different forms but mainly exalts one’s personal experience or ” the spirit” over scripture. Psalms 19:7-9
Determinism – a philosophical doctrine which holds that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of a previous event or series of events. Philippians 2:13
heterodoxy – any doctrine at variance with an official or orthodox position. Not to be used as a weapon against credible revelation, but as a deterrent against false teachings which have no root in established biblical doctrines.
perfectionism – the idea that once one has been saved, it is impossible or inadmissable to commit sin or sins. 1 John 1:6-10
existentialism – A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness of individual human experience in hostile or indifferent environments. It regards human existence as unexplainable and thus allows for one to claim human sovreignty; the “little god” teaching.  Eccl 12:12-14
epistemology – the study of how we know what we know
justification – the legal act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his or her sins. Its not that the sinner is actually sinless, but that he is “declared” sinless. Justification is granted by God alone and only by faith. Romans 5:1
fallibilism – a philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Colossians 2:2-3
fatalism - a philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them 2 Kings 20:1-6
Nihilism – a radical doctrine that advocates destruction of the social system for its own good; annihilate Psalms 24:1
probability – part philosophical, part theoretical teaching that a random sampling process will result in all outcomes equally likely to happen solely based on chance. Romans 8:28-30
solipsism- a philosophical teaching that the self is all that you know to exist  Jeremiah 17:7-9;  Colossians 2:8
apologetics – defense of the Christian faith or its biblical doctrines from external enemies 1 Peter 3:15
polemics – defense of the Christian faith or its biblical doctrines from internal enemies. 2 Cor 11:13-15; Jude 3
theology – the study of the nature of God
christology – the study of and proper understanding of Jesus Christ as revealed in scripture 2 Pet 3:18
monergism – the doctrine that the Holy Spirit is the only efficient agent in an individual’s “new birth”. Monergism (Gkmono ergon “the work of one”) holds that the human will possesses no desire to holiness until it is born again, thus there is no pre-existing cooperation in regeneration.”
fundamentalism – a belief that every word in the Bible should be interpreted as literal truth. 2 Timothy 3:16-17
monogenes – a belief which suggests derivation, creation, origination of Christ. Rev 1:8
diaprax – the belief that Christian unity should and can be achieved without doctrinal consensus. Amos 3:3-7; 1 John 5:7-8
orthodoxy – can be applied across the spectrum of beliefs. In terms of Christian faith, it is adherence to a right set of beliefs as outlined in scripture.
orthopraxy – places emphasis on right conduct, both ethical and spiritual but not necessarily in opposition to faith and grace.
eschatology – The study of end times. A doctrine concerning the ultimate or final destiny of humanity and the earth including Christ’s second advent and God’s final judgment. 2 Peter 3:7-10

It has been my observation over the past several years that a growing phenomenon has surfaced with respect to the church and its relationship to the world. It occurs to me that there has been a driving force from within the ranks of church leaders to manufacture a facade and foster a general disposition of the church attitudinally, that in my estimation is becoming more volatile and destructive. I do not speak of the necessary contextualization for the purposes of reaching and impacting the larger society with the gospel. Nor am I referring to some manifestation of the in-breaking of the Kingdom of God in some radical or “cutting-edge” ways. What I am directly addressing is the secularization of the values of the church beginning with the expressed value systems of some of the leaders of the church, many of whom having positions of great media notoriety and influence over the constituent Christian community.

Alvarado’s paper attempts to address what I believe is  more of a  reccurrent phenomenon rather than a “growing phenomemon”. Nevertheless, its another welcome look at what we are currently experiencing with such inbred doctrines like the prosperity gospel, the emergent church and the  gay christian movement.  Such errant beliefs aren’t new, just reconfigured as they all spring from various heresies [see antinominianism for example] assaulting the church since its formation.  Much of it is a mixture of contemporary culture, religious ideology and a sprinkling of scripture. Alvarado  is a self described “intellectual pentecostal and sophisticated theologian” among other things, so I’ll leave it to you to determine whether or not his paper hits the mark.  I do think the questions posed at the conclusion of the paper are excellent and should be answered.  That’s where I want to jump in. His questions are bolded.

1. What are some of the implications for a church whose faith is not being defined biblically or theologically?

The implications have actually progressed to realities. The church has already begun its slide into apostasy by leaving its biblical moorings and as a consequence is being redefined as a place where comfort is more desirable than commitment. The church has been redefined as a place of broad inclusion without the call to exclusive discipleship. I could go on. As Paul wrote in 1 Cor 10:11 These things happened to them [Isreal] to serve as an example[to us], and they were written down as a warning for us in whom the culmination of the ages has been attained. But we have ignored the warnings and ignored God’s voice speaking through his prophets. Instead, the church has gone whoring after the very things that precipitated the judgment of God upon Isreal.  We are well beyond the implied stage.

2. How does postmodern thinking affect our theological constructs today?

Postmodern thinking has reduced our once high Christology (referring to the preeminence of Christ) to a believe-as-you-want philosophy. When Christ and the Word are not extolled as the alpha answer to all of life’s complexities, contemporary theological constructs become meaningless exercises in religious pandering.  The impact is most seen in the high numbers of moral failures, criminal activity and sexual waywardness  in church leadership which is then excused and tolerated as simple mistakes.  Those expositing the Word do so not from a place of divine unction, but from their own compass of failures and struggles.  We see through a glass darkly, but postmodernism completely darkens our somewhat dim view. More succinctly, it  creates  an atmosphere where comfort is demanded and conviction is eschewed.

3. Does the changing face of the contemporary church pose a threat to classical Christianity?

Neither ethnicity, gender, nationality, age or any other immutable human characteristic pose any threat to “classical” Christianity. The threat emanates from our own failure to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered unto the saints. There shouldnt be regionalized versions of our faith, but one faith, one Lord and one baptism.

4. How do we as church leaders handle the modern blending of ideologies and what implications does this have for orthodoxy in this postmodern era?

First, let’s make sure we understand orthodoxy as right belief, not traditionalism. We already have a fairly intact blueprint presented to us in the scriptures. Contemporary ideologies will always need to be examined in light of biblical truth/standards without variance. There should be a quality assurance approach to dealing with any ideology, no matter what its origin may be. Paul wrote to the Galatians 1:8, But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (NASB)  Its no secret that there are many open heresies and heretics operating in the church, yet we are largely silent and passive because we fear offending people.  The apostles all dealt with such challenges and held fast to what was true as a way of rejecting foreign matter introduced to the body. They all used strong language and strong remedies (Jude comes to mind) to unite believers in a common orthodoxy. Today, we must follow their example if we expect to achieve the same results.

5. Does looking through an untrained or contemporary lens positively or negatively affect the church’s hermeneutic?

It depends of the extent of one’s “untraining”. That would be the greater concern, not whether the lens is contemporary. Relevance does matter, but not to the degree that we abandon the standards of our faith to appease or attract people into the Kingdom.

6. How do we as postmodern believers negotiate between contemporary thought and methodology and “the faith once delivered”?

The first hurdle is understanding and embracing a perspective greater than our own. A kingdom perspective which transcends our “visions” no matter how lofty they may seem to be. God’s goal is always greater than mine and when conflict arises, I should always defer to God’s will.  Im not sure I would apply the adjective term postmodern to believers as per the textbook definition. It would immediately restrict us to a way of thinking  certain to conflict with biblical directives. Contemporary thought shouldn’t arbitrarily be assigned a negative connotation unless it has indeed been determined to be a negative. Our filtering as believers in a contemporary environment needs to be one wary of subtle influences which incrementally could affect our vision and interpretation of what we see on a daily basis. A healthy suspicion of anything (berean principle?) is advisable until it can be indentified as friendly or hostile to our faith.

7. How do we as a church move from being followers of cultural change to becoming change agents in the earth?

On one level that is contingent upon leadership. Followers are taught to follow leadership. That’s the current prevailing paradigm of the church. But if leaders want to foster a “salt of the earth” mentality in followers, they have to drastically reduce sole dependence on leadership to live their lives for them. The unhealthy co-dependency fostered by many leaders only serves to cripple followers and render them incapable of independent ministry. Each believer should be taught from day one that they are called to ministry as we are all priests unto God. That’s one of our foundational concepts rarely emphasized in churches. We need to deactivate all language and concepts (particularly the church member[ship] concept)which facilitates this mentality and then actively require people to serve the kingdom as a collective individuals.

8. In light of question seven, can this be accomplished without becoming tainted with the filth of the systems of society, which are corrupt and self-serving?

Yes. It may be more a matter of personal character, fidelity and focus than the tainted systems of the world. Those systems are in place to tempt us and most likely will remain, thus our response to the seduction of the filth, should change. That ensures our purity in the midst of an impure world.

9. With the advent of high-speed everything, how should the church filter the information that its members are receiving? Is there a viable option for information discrimination?

The problem is not the information venue, but the intent of those presenting the information. When for instance a blog is portrayed as a purveyor of gossip without an individual looking at its content critically, people squander an opportunity to be empowered. All technological portals are to be employed in the promulgation of the gospel and not one of them should be ceded to the enemy.  The broader issue seems to be a fear that exists in leadership. The fear is that the “pew member” may learn something which conflicts with what the leader is attempting to instill. That has its pros and cons, but primarily the fault lies with leadership not encouraging honest berean research. 2 Tim 2:15 applies to every believer, not just those who elect to attend seminary with the intent to enter organized ministry. We cannot escape that we live in an information age, which was actually prophesied in Daniel (12, vs 4). Rather than looking for alternatives, we should ensure our character has integrity and then maximize use of the information to our advantage.

Let me be clear, there is no ultimate defeat in store for the church.  That’s an impossibility, not to mention an oxymoron. Yes, we’ll lose some battles and we will experience seasons of oppression. There is persecution, judgment and discipline in store for the church, yet we are more than conquerors. The church is built on and housed in  an indestructible force, the Lord Jesus Christ himself  (Matt 16:18). As it is personally with the believer, so it is corporately with the church. Greater is he in us than he that is in the world.

To be honest, this is not new. As King Solomon bluntly stated there’s nothing new under the sun. The cycles of change are indigenous to the church; the seasons of growing, pruning and harvesting are embedded within our very fabric. Yet, within the context of what is and what surely is to come, there exists also a counter-intuitive resistance among us. It comes from satan, but but is allowed by God. I think that I understand it and then simultaneously it baffles even the most spiritually astute among us.  Why does God allow satan to sow tares (or false converts) among true believers? Its like allowing a convicted rapist into a girls school. I do acknowledge the wisdom of God is far above the finite knowledge of man. I know (perhaps intellectually) why God intentionally hardened Pharoah’s heart, but then again why? Would it not have been easier and less confrontational to just soften Pharoah’s heart and cause him to release the Jews with goodwill?

The will to fight

It should be no surprise to us that our God is confrontational and so was Christ. And so should we be. Our mission as sojourns on this earth is to confront the wicked, God-hating systems and declare the sovereign will of our King. Of course, that will bring us into certain conflict with the emissaries of satan who have falsely positioned themselves as loving, benevolent, peaceful and justice-oriented.  We shouldn’t be surprised to know that these individuals are not just in “the world” but they occupy positions of authority in the church. In fact, this is a desired place for them, because greater damage can be done from within than without. They despise the rule of God and are actively working to destroy anything that is created in his image and truly represents his holy nature. Remember the mythological tale of the fall of Troy? The city was impenetrable until the Greeks got inside through deceit.  A disease isn’t particularly deadly until it gets inside your body.

Some do not grasp the entirety of Ephesians 6. Ours is a life of wrestling, struggling and fighting. It is not one of peace and unity. Those are goals, but they cannot be achieved on our own and without the headship of Christ. What’s more, there will be no true peace until every one of Christ’s enemies have been eternally vanquished. All other “peace” is the peace of the world which is at its root is God-less because they seek to achieve human unity without God as head. The UN is the perfect example of this.

Paul writes in Ephesians that saints “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”. Its important to understand the interlocking revelations of this verse. Some pull out the obvious: that we cannot achieve the goals of the Kingdom fighting people. But even that is to be understood in its context. First, satan (and his hierarchy of demonic subordinates) are not disembodied spirits. They can only work through people. Thus, while in the broader context people are not the problem, we must not be naive to think that people are not a major element of the problem.  This isn’t  jihad or a crusade against infidels. Those are and were tools of satan against mankind. Our struggle is one of living, proclaiming and upholding the righteous rule of our God.

Secondly, we miss this salient truth in Ephesians 6. That is that we do wrestle. It does not say we won’t or shouldn’t wrestle but that wrestling is embedded in our mission. It is unavoidable and critical to the success of the Kingdom of God on the earth. Here is where postmodernist subterfuge inflicts its deadliest harm on the church. Postmodernism eschews the fight; throwing it in favor of faux unity. The trickle down effect of this imposition on God’s intent is why we see so many people unwilling to be hot or cold; right or wrong; holy or unholy. The middle is cast as a comfortable and safe place, free from conflict. And this is where the great majority of people in the church reside.

Moving towards so-called “non-judgmentalism” is actually moving away from the heart of Ephesians 6. Satan is tempting us to not fight. The prize is favor with the middle majority. While church leaders pander to this group using self-centered prosperity messages, social justice issues and feel-good church programs, satan unleashes hordes of false doctrines into the life of the church which result in an inner weakening of our walls. A weak church is a powerless church and a powerless church is ripe for redefinition.

Although former gospel industry worker, Tonex (Anthony Williams) is talented, his own unfortunate misappropriation of God’s will is an example of what happens when postmodernism overtakes one’s thought processes. When asked who listened to his music, Williams told the Daily News Tribune, “I have a strong gay and lesbian following, and I think this is because, there’s no judgment here. Usually gospel is gay bashed. With me it’s just, “God loves everybody.”

What Williams means is that not having a purely biblical worldview facilitates the least path of resistance if you want to influence crowds of people. Its particularly effective with others who see the absolutes of scriptures as “oppressive”, “intolerant” and “judgmental”.

United against false unity

The so-called “emergent church”, the prosperity gospel folks, the gay christian movement and other religious anomalies are byproducts of postmodernism. At some point, they will merge or become allies because they all are formed from the same ideology. Biblical unity doesnt just happen, nor is by man’s devices.  Its defined not by physical inclusivity, but its unique spiritual exclusivity. Due to the obvious presence of double agents in the church, biblical writers needed to further define such unity (Amos 3:3, 1 John 4:1, 2 Peter 2:1).  It goes without saying there can be no unity with the world because it will always be hostile to the will of God. Compromising biblical unity for expediency works against God’s plan. We are now fighting another infectious disease called diaprax, which espouses expediency above truth.

As God works both in and outside the eschatological clock,  we are contending with the several streams of false teaching in the church.  Our tepid, excuse-laden responses (if any) to divorce, homosexuality, greed, idolatry, adultery, sexual abuse and powermongering is telling.   Do you think any rational person would prop up a dead, rotting corpse in their home and celebrate it?  They would if they were convinced doing so is good. Thus what is evil is now called good and what is good is now called evil.  Under divine inspiration, Paul showed us homosexual conduct represents the lowest digression of idolatry and rebellion against God. Yet people in the church celebrate and indulge this rotting corpse theology as if it were Genesis 1:1.

The cure to the curse of postmodernism is a strong return to the fundamental truths of God’s word. We’ve been inundated with all sorts of “revelation” from false teachers in the Body. But we need to return to basic principles and then hold fast. We should test everything and continue being vigilant against false teaching. We should not wait for a fight, but cause one. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against our offense, but false teachers have turned the meaning into a defensive one. The postmodernist spins it into a defensive meaning forcing the church into a passive wait and see approach. It allows satan to advance his agenda while we stand still and “hold ground”. Militarily, that’s disastrous. Spiritually, its equally disastrous.

In my next post, I will attempt to answer some questions about postmodernism and the church posed by Bishop Jonathan Alavardo.

Graphic courtesy of Pyromaniacs