Thus says the LORD:”Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ I set watchmen over you, saying, ’Pay attention to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not pay attention.’”

There’s No Such Thing As Being Just A Little Bit Pregnant

Apprising Ministries has been maintaining that Mainstream Evangelicalism Is Now On The Rapid Slide To Apostasy because of its ongoing embrace of the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church with its postmodern Progressive Christian theology, which these rebels against the final authority of the Word of God will often refer to under their silly circus “big tent” as Emergence Christianity.

I’ve told you before that this EC was actually a Trojan Horse containing a full-on semi-pelagian (at best) rebellion against sola Scriptura designed to unload its highly subjective Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) ala Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard. You can follow some of the corrupting results of this spurious CSM in Contemplative Spirituality Growing Within Mainstream Evangelicalism.

One sad effect is EC heroes e.g. Rob Bell opening the door to the mainstream of the visible church for unbelievers like Living Spiritual Teacher and Progessive Christian scholar Marcus Borg. What’s important to note here is that this so-called “Progressive Christianity” Is Neither Progressive Or Christian. No, it’s really just old liberal aka modern theology in some hipper clothes; and this EC cult is itself simply a re-interpreted version of liberal theology, a postmodern theology as an upgraded Liberalism 2.0.

This is critical to understand as we approach the subject of a pet EC issue, affirming that a lifestyle of having sexual relations with another of the same sex, i.e homosexuality, is also a viable one for the Christian. In other words, they’re saying that those in so-called monagamous, and supposedly life-long, relationships with their same-sex partner are not in sin. Now you understand their almost maniacal push for same-sex marriage.

And no doubt these wolves in sheep’s clothing will surely try and get you to focus upon how nice and thick their wool coats appear; but if you can’t recognize the difference between fleece and fur, then you’re in grave danger of losing your spiritual life to these fools. Snakes who are arrogant enough with their Humpty Dumpty language to defy the Word of God by emptying it of it’s actual meaning and then replacing it with their ear-tickling mythology (cf. 2 Timothy 4:3-4).

Being an SBC pastor, for now, I remember the battles fought in the convention to oust what the late cult-expert Dr. Walter Martin, an SBC minister himself, called the Cult of Liberal Theology. Have we so quickly forgotten that this modern theology sought to make the Christian faith relevant to its own culture? Here’s your wake-up call: The postmodern EC is attempting to do the exact same thing right now and homosexuality is one of its tentacles.

Now maybe you’ll have a better perspective upon vipers like “queer inclusive” ELCA pastrix Nadia Bolz-Weber and the ELCA And Homosexuality. Simply put, the point is this: The mainline denominations sold out to liberalism; they embraced ecumenicism, CSM, bowed to the feminist movement ordaining women—and out went the doctrine of Hell (Rob Bell) because, “I’d never send one of my children to a place like that.” Then all that was left was the ordination of homosexual clergy, which is even now viciously ripping them apart.

If you possibly think that above progression was truly a move of God, then you seriously need to have your spiritual head examined. This brings us to these self-appointed Outlaw Preachers currently Turning God’s Grace Into An Idol. This growing, largely Biblically illiterate, group of “preachers” has now sprouted up around head Outlaw, gay affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker. Interestingly enough, Bakker’s partner in spiritual crime is Khad Young.

In an earlier post Outlaw Preachers, Beer, And The Bible there’s a link to an Ann Arbor.com report where we’re told:

Khad (pronounced Chad) Young, founder of the church of sorts, calls himself an outlaw preacher. Young is the son of a Lutheran pastor, and he attended Lutheran schools his entire life. When he started college at Concordia University, he didn’t find himself “plugged in” to the activities on campus.

Inspired by Jay Bakker, son of televangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, Young set out to start a church he and his friends felt comfortable in… (Online source)

Well, here’s another example concerning how blurred doctrinal lines are becoming; Andrew Marin is the President and Founder of The Marin Foundation, author of the book Love Is An Orientation, and even through mixed signals like having both Living Spiritual Teacher and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren—along with his good friend progressive/liberal theologian Tony Jones—listed among blogs he actually reads, Marin still has the reputation of taking a conservative evangelical view concerning homosexuality.

Yet the other day the apostate Jay Bakker would tweet:

(Online source)

Before one is tempted to play the guilt-by-association card consider the following from Marin’s blog Living in the Tension with Jay Bakker:

Our next Living in the Tension gathering…will feature Jay Bakker…[who] will be sharing about his personal journey with his parents and faith and about his recent book Fall to Grace: A Revolution of God, Self, & Society… Jay came to an understanding of grace that revolutionized the way he saw God and others and proceeded to become an outspoken advocate for the LGBT community… We’re excited to have Jay visit… (Online source)

Jay Bakker is tip of the spear for the Emerging Church advance of the evil pro-gay agenda within mainstream evangelicalism; and yet, the ostensibly conservative Andrew Marin is “excited” to lend his credibility to Bakker and thereby promote his horribly misguided teaching about homosexuality and grace? Al Mohler discussed Bakker’s mythology the other day in The Church and the ‘Clobber Scriptures’ — The Bible on Homosexuality.

The Same Wrong Methods Will Only Produce The Same Wrong Results

Here’s Bakker’s take:

(Online source)

Obviously, this is not at all a repentant attitude; so I wonder, why would Andrew Marin wish to advance Bakker’s fractured fairy tales and outright mockery of God’s Word? Mohler is absolutely right when he says:

In Fall to Grace, Bakker sets out his vision of Christianity…[and] what he offers is a revisionist reworking of Christianity and the Gospel that is actually just a rehash of Protestant Liberalism in the early twentieth century… In a lengthy and insightful profile of Jay Bakker, Alex Morris of New York magazine argues that Bakker has reduced Christianity to a message of forgiveness and little else. “The rest of Protestant Christianity, however, he’s basically prepared to ditch — a stance that pushes him beyond the far liberal wing of the Evangelical Christian community and into what is known as the ‘Emergent’ ministry,” Morris notes. (Online source)

Frankly, the same should also be said of the Emerging Church rock star pastor Rob Bell with his own Love Wins Mythology; Mohler then continues:

Jay Bakker holds to an evolutionary theology. In Fall to Grace, he argues that there is an evolutionary theology within the Bible and that the character of God changes from the Old Testament to the New… In the book, Bakker explains how he came to affirm homosexuality and even to perform at least one same-sex marriage. (Online source)

Bakker’s also told us that, apparently via a liver shiver of some sort, God supposedly told him personally that same sex sexual relations are not sinful, which I previously showed you in Jay Bakker Critiques Ken Silva At Religion Dispatches:

“The more I follow grace, the more I’m drawn to him [God], the more I’m willing to stand up for people being persecuted,” said Bakker. “It sounds so churchy, but I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’ ” (Online source, emphasis mine)

And finally Al Mohler brings out the heart of the matter as it concerns these emerging rebel wild goosers like Jay Bakker and Rob Bell:

Without a knowledge of our sinfulness, we do not know of our need for a Savior. In this sense, we all need to be “clobbered” by the Bible so that we will know of our need for Christ… The Bible’s condemnation of same-sex behaviors is comprehensive and clear.

It is interwoven with the Bible’s message concerning God’s plan for humanity, marriage, and society — and the Gospel. Human flourishing is found only by living in obedience to God’s revealed plan. Our rebellion against the Creator is never so insidious as when we declare that our own plan is superior to his.

When the Bible, in part or in whole, is dismissed as “clobber Scriptures,” it is not only the Bible that is subverted, but also the Gospel. The Church must recognize that fact clearly — and fast. (Online source)

In wrapping this up, for now, there’s good reason why you’ll see not a few of these outlaw posers hanging around the apostate ELCA. Although what follows from Rev. John A. Frahm III in his piece Gospel Reductionism Redux is from the Lutheran perspective it also speaks to all those who edit the Gospel to turn God’s grace into an idol. And we see they’re gaining ground e.g. in Heartland Clergy Adopt Pro-Gay Position and Affirming Christian Network, Philip Yancey, And Gay Christian Network.

The point being, all over again we’re now seeing what Frahm writes about below; only this time it’s slithering around within mainstream evangelicalism itself:

The confessional/conservative element of the Missouri Synod won the battle against liberalism, right?   Sort of.  Perhaps the proponents of the historical-critical (or higher critical) method of biblical interpretation (or criticism) are largely gone (at least from our seminaries). But some of the harmful theological currents from the 1960s and 1970s remain…

One of the most injurious theologies to arise in the LCMS during that chaotic era was called “Law-Gospel reductionism,” as named by Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, and was later shortened to “Gospel reductionism.”   Gospel reductionists declared that the Gospel rather than Scripture was the standard for doctrine and practice in the Church.   Scott R. Murray comments:

In the 1960s some theologians began to invoke Law-Gospel as the ruling or the only hermeneutical presupposition in Lutheran theology.  They adopted this hermeneutic as a replacement for the old inspiration [of Scripture] doctrine, which they had decisively abandoned in this period  [Scott R. Murray. Law, Life, and the Living God: The Third Use of the Law in Modern American Lutheranism. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002; p.103].

Part of the slippery nature of this controversy was that on the surface it sounded Lutheran — “Law and Gospel.” It also seemed to have a strong mission emphasis.  That’s good Lutheran terminology.   But that’s how it often happens when an error comes into the Church – use the standard terminology in a twisted sense [like Rome and the LWF did in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification].   This is called equivocation… (Online source, bold his)

What would happen is those disgruntled with the Missouri Synod would end up being absorbed by the ELCA and these spiritually poisonous snakes have now injected their venom into that dying body. Don’t think I’m not sympathetic; for EC vipers are right now killing the spiritually obtuse within the SBC, despite all their bluster to the contrary, and it’s only a matter of time before they’ll be coming for your local church.

Because Frahm is dead-on-target when he says:

Concern for sound doctrine is not merely a matter of being “conservative” or “liberal” (as if doctrine is on a sliding scale) or about the purity of a political ideology.  It is about truth versus falsehood, orthodoxy vs. heterodoxy, what creates and nurtures faith versus what destroys false and grounds it in a false object.

It is about nutritional food for the soul vs. no nutrition or even poison.  Jesus warned about the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisees?  How little leaven (yeast) can radically change a lump of dough?  A rifle fired a small degree off target over a long distance can dramatically miss the target with enough time and distance.  Even the Great Commission instructs us to teach “all things” Jesus has commanded – no quickie catechesis. (Online source)

I certainly encourage you to read John Frahm’s article; but please understand, this is not merely a Lutheran issue. Once again I exhort you to carefully note below as circa 1985 the aforementioned Walter Martin laid out liberalism’s progression; because this is precisely the methodology used by this Emergent neo-liberal cult. They learned well from the deceitful spirits among their evil forebears and are right now busy spreading the same teachings of demons:

It begins with a corrupt bibliology, a corrupt view of the nature and the inspiration of Scripture. They have a corrupt theology because once you are picking and choosing from the Bible what you want, your theology has to suffer from it, because your human reason is corrupt… every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of Biblical doctrine. There wasn’t a single exception.

This corrupt Bibliology then lead them to the next step. Their theology began to be touched by it, their view of the Cross, the Virgin Birth were both immediately questioned; then came the miracles of Christ… And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content; they were simply using the outward shell so that they go on collecting money from the people and the churches; because they knew that if the people in the pew knew that they were apostate, they’d throw them out. So the strategy was hang on to the trust funds; hang on to the money we’ve got; hang on the properties we control, and we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology.

And then finally we will take control of everything. The gradual process of feeding you theological poison until you become immunized enough so that you don’t know what’s happening to you. And when you wake up to what’s happening to you, it’s too late they’ve got everything. That is not a baseless charge, I stand prepared to prove that the Cult of Liberal Theology in the United States has deliberately and consistently followed this methodology to entrap, control and dominate the denominations and the churches of the United States and our educational institutions.
(The Cult of Liberalism, available from Walter Martin Religious InfoNet)

The question then becomes: Why can’t evangelical leaders recognize The New Downgrade And Its Apostles Of Unbelief?

See also:

JAY BAKKER REFLECTS THE SAD CONDITION OF THE VISIBLE CHURCH

OUTLAW PREACHERS KHAD YOUNG AND JAY BAKKER DON’T LOVE ENOUGH

ROB BELL AND POSTMODERN NEO-LIBERALISM

BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY IS A POSTMODERN PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM

THE EMERGING CHURCH ON A WILD GOOSE CHASE

DOUG PAGITT AND THE EMERGING CHURCH GAY AGENDA

BUT DO EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY AND BRIAN MCLAREN REALLY LOVE GAY PEOPLE?

Print this entry

By using warped and toxic teachings of EC leaders like Emerging Church rock star pastor Rob Bell the mainstream of the visible church has been poisoning its own young; and since squishy evanjellyfish has now followed the mortally wounded mainline denominations out of the closet, with its man-love of heart murmur spirituality at the expense the God-centered spirituality of sola Scriptura, I’ve also been giving you peeks at its bleak future of division and compromise of God’s Word.

Let me remind you here that, not only is Tony Campolo a leading spokesman for this postmodern progressive de-formation of the Christian faith—Liberalism 2.o—he’s also still quite influential within younger sectors of evangelicalism as well. It’s important to remember, that as admirable as some of his social concerns are, Campolo is actually in bed spiritually with his fellow Red Letter Christian (RLC) friends Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren and universalist Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr.

Other notable RLCs would be Campolo’s disciple Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis, progressive/liberal historian Diana Butler Bass, and Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at the Emerging Church of universalist Doug Pagitt; a spiritual motley crew if there ever was one. Against this background I’ll point you to the following tweet this morning by Campolo:

(Online source)

If you didn’t know “the Wild Goose” reference has a double meaning; first, Celtic Christianity calls the Holy Spirit an Geadh-Glas, the Wild Goose, and “teaches that the Holy Spirit is the representative of God’s femininity.”[1] Secondly, it’s the name of an upcoming apostasia-palooza called the Wild Goose Festival (WGF), which has the Emerging Church buzzing with excitement. The link Campolo provides takes us to Pentecost: The Coming of the Wild Goose by Jim Wallis where he informs us:

In two weeks, my family and I will be headed down to Shakori Hills, North Carolina for the Wild Goose Festival. In the Celtic Church, the symbol for the Holy Spirit is a wild goose — wild, free, and untamed. The festival will be a weekend of justice, spirituality, music, and the arts. It is an “and” kind of space, more than an “either/or.” It will, no doubt, be a busy weekend. But I am looking forward to it, not just for the activities, but for the reminder that it is by chasing after the wild goose, the Holy Spirit’s movement, that we see ourselves, and our world, transformed. (Online source)

As you watch the promotional video for WGF below you’ll see a veritable who’s who of heretics who’ll be embarking upon some Wild Goose Chase after another spirit (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4); this includes all the people I’ve mentioned above, as well as others quite familiar to AM such as gay-affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker, self-professed “queer inclusive” ELCA pastrix Nadia Bolz-Weber, EC interspiritual leader Samir Selmanovic, Christian universalist Chad Holtz, and the Empress of Emergence Phyllis Tickle.

It’s also interesting to note that among the speakers we find outright purveyors of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) in Living Spiritual Teacher and Jesuit priest John Dear as well as Carl McColman of the spiritually whacked website Anamchara and author of The Big Book of Christian Mysticism: The Essential Guide to Contemplative Spirituality. Dear is a disciple of Thomas Merton, the Golden Buddha of CSM and just take a look at who recommends McColman’s book:

The history section of WGF tells us:

The Wild Goose Festival began as a simple but potent idea: What if Greenbelt could happen in a unique United States context?

For those of you who aren’t familiar, Greenbelt is an arts, music, justice and spirituality festival that’s been happening in the UK for nearly 40 years. (Online source)

I talked about Greenbelt a couple of years ago in Greenbelt Festival A Peek At Future Inclusive Christianity where I explained it’s really another glimpse of the all-inclusive faith these Emergent Christ-followers find worth believing; and in fact, this perversion of the Christian faith may have already slithered into the Young Adult and Youth ministries of your own local church. Essentially, it’s really a spiritual free fall out into the delusion of creating your own Christianity with a mystic mush god made in your own image.

The wise Christian will have nothing to do with these neo-Gnostic fools who’ve unbuckled themselves from the Word of God and have embarked upon their Wild Goose Chase of subjective experience; with no gravity, they will only drift deeper into spiritual outer space. While debunking the mythology of Dallas Willard, a major perpetrator of CSM along with his twin Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, Bob DeWaay hits upon the critical issue with this pragmatic existentialism:

If pragmatic tests are the means of determining which practices are valid, and if these people feel closer to God and more like Christ through their practices, then Willard has no valid way of rejecting their practices. Having no valid argument, he resorts to an invalid ad hominem argument.

He cannot have it both ways. Either God’s Word determines both how we come to God and how we grow in grace, or humans determine these things by pragmatic means. (Online source)

As I close this out, for now, I bring your attention to a piece by Dr. Al Mohler entitled An Unmitigated Theological Disaster — Kirby Godsey Strikes Again. You may wonder what this has to do with the Wild Goose Festival; in a word, everything. Consider the opening quote Mohler uses and, if you’ve been following what I’ve been covering here lately at Apprising Ministries, see if it doesn’t sound mighty familiar:

“Most Christians assume that Christianity is the one and only  religion that is God-inspired and that carries the imprimatur of God’s  blessing,” laments R. Kirby Godsey. In his new book, Is God a Christian?,  Godsey sets out to oppose that assumption and to argue that “the  stakes for mankind have grown too high for any of us to engage our faith  as if our understanding of God represents the only way God’s presence  may be known in the world.” (Online source)

Did you recognize the theme song of the emerging Wild Goose set; in Emerging Church Leader Samir Selmanovic Worships With Witches I told you this WGF speaker sings it this way:

Can it be that the teachings of the gospel are embedded and can be found in reality itself rather than being exclusively isolated in sacred texts and our interpretations of those texts? If the answer is yes, can it be that they are embedded in other stories, other peoples’ histories, and even other religions?…

God’s table is welcoming all who seek, and if any religion is to win, may it be the one that produces people who are the most loving, the most humble, the most Christlike. Whatever the meaning of “salvation” and “judgement,” we Christians are going to be saved by grace, like everyone else, and judged by our works, like everyone else…

For most critics of such open Christianity, the problem with inclusiveness is that it allows for truth to be found in other religions. To emerging Christians, that problem is sweet… Moreover, if non-Christians can know our God, then we want to benefit from their contribution to our faith.[2]

This is what underlies the Wild Goose mythology, and it’s not Christianity; it’s at best the heresy of Christian universalism, and at worst, it is pagan universalism. So, while Al Mohler is discussing someone not necessarily aligned with Emergent Wild Goosers, what he says fits these deluded dreamers perfectly:

In When We Talk About God … Let’s Be Honest, Godsey embraced positions that the church has openly declared to be heresy. In Is God a Christian?,  Godsey just picks up where he left off in his earlier book, but this  time he is even more explicit in his embrace of radical pluralism.

“Christians need to get over it,” he admonishes. “Jesus is not God’s  only word.” As he explains, “Every person is a word from God that has  never been spoken and will never be spoken again in exactly the same  way.” He also admonishes Muslims to “get over it” when they claim  exclusive status for the Qur’an. The very idea of exclusivity is a  “peril” that “simply defies reason.”…

For the most part, Godsey studiously avoids engaging the biblical  text. That is at least consistent with his marginalization of biblical  authority. “The notions of inerrancy and infallibility are treacherous  human fallacies,” he argues. In his earlier book, he had asserted that  “the authority for our faith should not rest on the Bible alone, or even  primarily.”…

Instead, he argues that Christians should “weigh scripture against the  word that we have heard and seen from God in Jesus.” At this point,  Godsey is left in an untenable position. What does he know of Christ  apart from the Scriptures? This is a familiar predicament for liberals  who deny biblical authority but claim a knowledge of Jesus. Whatever  knowledge of Jesus we have apart from the Bible is just a figment of our  imagination. If the Bible is not the authoritative source of divine knowledge, we are left with nothing more than our own imagination and arbitrary judgment. We can make Christianity anything we might want it to be.

In the place of the Bible, Godsey claims human reason as his authority. Thus: “No rational pathway can lead us to the conclusion that Christians alone or Muslims alone have sole access to the ultimate reality that underlies the meaning of the universe.” Based on that judgment, Godsey then argues that claims of exclusivity are immoral because such claims turn Christianity “into a self-centered, narcissistic religious system that says to the rest of the world that they must become like us if they wish to be accepted by God.”…

There are different forms of universalism and inclusivism within theological circles today, but the most intellectually embarrassing form of pluralism is the very one that Godsey champions. He writes as if all the religions of the world are basically similar, when even a cursory knowledge of the belief systems of the world reveals how dissimilar they are. Godsey does not even privilege monotheism, arguing that Christians should see adherents of all other religions as “equals before God.” (Online source)

You need to know that the people I mentioned earlier are all on that same broad path; some further along than others, but they are on it nonetheless. My question is: How far down this wide road to destruction does mainstream evangelicalism itself have to get before it finally recognizes the New Downgrade? The sad fact is, these associated with this Wild Goose Chase after another spirit have absolutely no business whatsoever teaching in the heart of the Christian community:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18)

Wild Goose Festival – June 23 – 26, 2011 – Shakori Hills Farm, NC from Wild Goose on Vimeo.

_________________________________________________________________________
End Notes:

[1] http://tiny.cc/y22d1, accessed 6/12/11.

[2] Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness – Finding Our God in the Other,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 192, 195, 196, emphasis mine.

See also:

BRIAN MCLAREN SPEAKS AS A UNIVERSALIST

TOXIC THEOLOGY OF DOUG PAGITT

THE EMERGING CHURCH, DOUG PAGITT & PROCESS THEOLOGY

DOUG PAGITT AND HIS SOLOMON’S PORCH AFFIRM HOMOSEXUAL SIN

ROB BELL AND POSTMODERN NEO-LIBERALISM

BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY IS A POSTMODERN PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM

MORE ON—THE gOD OF THE EMERGING CHURCH

Print this entry

This is the spiritual cesspool from which the new liberalism of the seeker-friendly/sinner-sensitive methodology of letting culture define the church visible would spring. Then circa 2005 mainstream evangelicalism would became spiritually spineless and begin to embrace the warped and toxic teachings of EC leaders e.g. like the Emerging Church rock star pastor Rob Bell.

Sadly, in the very heart of the visible church we’ve seen this spiritual cancer metastasize throughout its body spreading the awful influence of sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church aka the Emerging Church all throughout its ailing body. Now upgraded to the Emerging Church 2.0—with its newer, more clearly delineated, postmodern Progressive Christian theology, which these rebels against the final authority of the Word of God will often refer to under their circus “big tent” as Emergence Christianity.

You should know that the first line of attack upon the heart of the church visible by these rebels against the final authority of the Word of God was to batter down sola Scriptura, the key pillar of proper Christian spirituality. This is critical to understand because in articles like Jay Bakker Critiques Ken Silva At Religion Dispatches and Doug Pagitt And The Emerging Church Gay Agenda I’ve explained that the tip-of-the-spear for this area of attack upon proper biblical Christianity is gay-affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker of the “church” Revolution:NYC. Unfortunately the very near future for foolish evangelical leaders who’ve embraced these EC rebels against the authority of the Word of God can be seen simply by looking at mainline denominations, who long ago gave in to the Cult of Liberalism and kicked out sola Scriptura as well.

Currently they’re being torn apart by this powerful, and highly divisive, pro-gay lobby. Let me simply highlight for you where the battle lines are now being drawn; because of progressive/liberal rebels against the authority of the Bible masquerading as evangelicals like Doug Pagitt, the front line is already being moving closer to your own mainstream evangelical church than you likely realize. Perceived conservative evangelicalism had better heed the wake-up call; you’d best prepare for the very same debates within your own halls. It’s going to be a huge surprise, and soon, when evanjellyfish—unity at all costs—leaders find out that most professing Christians don’t actually hold to the final authority of God’s Word in the Bible at all. And so what are you then left with; doing what is right in your own eyes ala Judges 17:6.

In earlier articles, e.g. Gay Christian Singer Jennifer Knapp Out On Larry King Live, I’ve been doing what I can to remind you that there is indeed a same-sex storm gathering hurricane force, which is right now, looming only slightly off the horizon of the mainstream evangelical community. I also shared, once again, why the Lord moved me to begin covering the issue of a growing acceptance within evangelicalism that the deviant and sinful lifestyle of having sexual relations with another of the same sex, i.e homosexuality, is a viable one for the regenerated Christian. The imagery I’ve been using is that of fire bases in Vietnam, which were temporary artillery encampments there to provide fire support and quarters for ground operations near the front lines. Being so close to the front, in the dark of night many times enemy forces would try and move in for a sneak attack.

That’s why periodically flares were shot high above the area to light up the night sky in order to monitor any possible movement of enemy troops. And even in this spiritual war Satan’s seducing spirits sneak around in the darkness with their didaskaliais daimonion (doctrines of demons). Well, I’m using the issue of homosexuality to light up the sky with the Word of God to give you a chance to see the wide, and very rapid, advance of the Emerging Church and its postmodern Progressive Christian theology. Their full frontal attack on Biblical Christianity is also being pushed along by the corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) that’s responsible for creating the current evangelical fad of practicing what’s merely refried mysticism-lite of apostate Roman Catholicism.

Instead of going to Holy Scripture, now issues are instead being dealt with by how people feel about them. Against this background I now point you to a very interesting story by Kathleen Gilbert over at LifeSiteNews.com entitled Gay columnist: let’s face it, we want to indoctrinate children where she tells us:

As the same-sex “marriage” battle heats up again in New York, one writer at a prominent gay news source is questioning why his lobby refuses to admit that the gay agenda involves “indoctrinating” schoolchildren to accept homosexuality.

Queerty contributor Daniel Villarreal criticized (WARNING site contains inappropriate images) the homosexual movement’s knee-jerk reaction against accusations of meddling in public schools. Villarreal pointed to a recent National Organization for Marriage (NOM) ad launched in New York that points out how homosexual indoctrination has been introduced in Massachusetts and California schools.

While gay activists usually deny that they want to indoctrinate children, said Villarreal, “let’s face it—that’s a lie.” “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it,” he wrote. (Online source)

The other day at the Twitter account of Queerty we find the following tweet:

(Online source)

As we follow the link it takes us to the piece Gilbert references from Daniel Villarreal Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids? Now I certainly don’t recommend you go to this Queerty website; that said, Villarreal is quite frank as he begins his honest article:

In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it…

The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? … Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal? …

The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I don’t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop. I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak…a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. (Online source)

Pretty plain talk from Daniel Villarreal indeed; while in no way do I approve of the sin of same-sex sexual relations, I do respect Villarreal for being real. Now consider that, in their lust for number$, for nearly a decade pretending to be Protestant mainstream evangelical churches have used their Young Adult and Youth ministries as spiritual guinea pigs by using the marred materials of leaders in the Emerging Church. So when Christian singer Jennifer Knapp, one of the first more mainstream Christians to come out, the reaction of way too many evangelicals concerning their view of the Word of God in the Bible was really very telling. And I’ve mentioned before that Jesus led me onto this subject of homosexuality a couple of years ago to teach again that its practice is sin; and after-all, this is just about a crystal clear as it gets in Scripture. Yet, the debate’s begun…again.

Ironically, on the very same day that the above article from Daniel Villarreal came out, I was warning you again in PCUSA Votes To Allow Openly Gay Clergy that there’s a very dark and threatening same-sex storm—now rapidly approaching hurricane force—looming just off the coast of your own local evangelical church. So I must also humbly suggest that you seriously begin asking yourself, now that more and more—particularly within those younger sectors of the mainstream of evangelicalism—are conditioned to reject sola Scriptura (as those in mainline denominations once were), just how it is that you plan to respond when openly homosexual “Christ-followers” are held up as acceptable role models for your own Christian youth. Because you see, it’s only a matter of time…

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] http://tinyurl.com/2do9obh, accessed 5/20/11.

See also:

KEN SILVA VS. JAY BAKKER FROM THE HEART

DOUG PAGITT AND HOMOSEXUAL SIN

THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT

JESUS DOES CONDEMN HOMOSEXUALITY

TIME’S UP BRIAN MCLAREN

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH

DR. WALTER MARTIN CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AND CHRISTIANITY

Print this entry

I first became interested in the issues of homosexuality in the early 1950′s when I was a graduate student at New York University centered in Greenwich Village in New York. It was in that particular area I came in contact with every conceivable kind of deviation from the norm, shall we say, and particularly there was a tremendous amount of homosexuality apparent out in the open, and even flaunted at that particular time.

Today [circa 1980], of course, we have gay lobbies, legislation being proposed for the benefit of the gay community; we have gay public relation departments, we have the phrase, “Gays of the World Unite,” and we have about us, on every side, the media quite obviously trying, or attempting, to give the gays—or the homosexuals—a fair shake. I don’t think you can honestly evaluate the problem and look squarely at it from the perspective of Biblical theology without being provoked in your thought processes and in your spiritual nature.

The 17th chapter of the Book of the Acts, the Apostle Paul in Athens, was provoked by the evil he saw about him. In that case it happened to be idolatry in which the whole city was given over to the worship of idols. Now had the Apostle not been provoked in his spirit and become angry, spiritually, at the evil—not the people—but the evil they were practicing and which held them in bondage, he would never have had an opportunity to go to the Areopagus, which was the court that heard public speakers and licensed them to talk in Athens.

And had he never debated in the marketplace, and made it a basic issue for everyday communication, he would never have had the opportunity to preach his message on Mars Hill. So what got him to Mars Hill and out [into] the marketplace where people could listen to him on the higher echelons of learning, and to penetrate and to permeate all other levels—as a result—was the fact that within himself he was provoked at the presence of evil.

And I think the Christian Church has to be provoked, always, at the presence of evil. The great sin of the church today, and there are a number, is that we are apathetic, lethargic—happy to go along with the tide—and courageous when it doesn’t cost us something. And because of that, today we have  a whole community of individuals for whom Jesus Christ died—the gay community—and they’re not being ministered to, they’re not being penetrated, they’re not being successfully evangelized.

And because the church will not move forward, [it] has become essentially impotent in the area because it doesn’t want to “get involved.” Evangelical Christianity has drawn back from the conflict, liberal Christianity has plunged into it; not with the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the soul, but attempting to find some rationale for the permission of the acts—which of course is and scholastic, theological, and historical madness.

Now there are people who say, “Well, there are convincing arguments put forward by homosexuals who are good theologians.” There is no good theological theologian; and the reason why there isn’t any good homosexual theologian is, to adopt the position, you must vitiate Biblical revelation. And this is something nobody wants to face. I am vigorously opposed to the prostitution of Holy Scripture in defense of what God has considered one of the most vile of all acts.

Now that’s just plain Biblical revelation that has to be faced. And someone will say, “Well, that’s a very hard line.” It’s mitigated by God’s attitude toward Sodom and Gomorrah before He destroyed [them]. Let us no forget that before the Lord rained fire and sulfur on Sodom that He first was willing to spare the city. That He first loved enough—despite the evil—to say, “Find 50, find 10, find 5, who were justified and I’ll spare it.”

It was not an arbitrary, capricious, annihilation of a city; it was the result of cosmic judgment because love was rejected, judgment ensues. Now, there are those who take a very hard line on homosexuality; and when they take too hard a line, they forget that the homosexual is a victim of sin. What is sin? It is defined for us as transgression of the Law; and all unrighteousness is sin. Now if we accept that, the next question which must follow logically is: What saith the Law?

For if sin is unrighteousness, and all unrighteousness is sin—and sin is described in the context of the Law—you would automatically have to go to the Law to find out what it was. That’s if you know anything about exegesis and Biblical hermeneutics, you’d have to do it. And immediately when you go to the Torah you find God saying, “Cursed is any man that lies with a man as with woman.” I don’t even think that needs interpretation.

I don’t think it needs blackboard diagram; or any amount of sophisticated logical presentation a fortiori. I think you can be a fifth-grader and understand that if God says “cursed” is something He takes an extremely dim view of it. I think that’s a rational approach. So the homosexual theologians who are attempting today to defend homosexuality on the basis of Biblical theology are in the same position as the Sadducees, to whom Jesus addressed this remark: “You do err. Not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God.”

That’s exactly where they are. They are trying to put Christianity and homosexuality in the same bed; and you’re not gonna do it because Jesus Christ very forcibly condemned it. And you say, “Where in the New Testament did Jesus ever mention homosexuality?” Open your Bibles and find out; because contrary to what the gay church says, He not only spoke against it—He went out of His way to make it very clear [so] nobody’d misunderstand Him.

Of course, you do have to study your Greek New Testament to come up with it. Most homosexual theologians, so-called, that I have talked to don’t even know the Greek alphabet, much less their Greek exegesis so they miss it completely—but it’s here in the passage and it should be looked at. Matthew, chapter 15, Christ is speaking, verse 19, “For out of the heart proceeds evil thoughts, murders,” notice the differentiation, “adulteries, fornications,” plural, “thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”

“These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile.” “The word homosexual is not there; what are you arguing about?” I’m arguing about the use of the word porneus, which was found written over the wall, and the doorway, and the arches, in excavations [by]  archaeologists of Roman brothels. And the word porneus did not mean “sex before marriage” alone.

It meant homosexuality, bestiality, and all forms of degraded sex. And it became well known to everybody in the culture, if any of them ever did their homework, that porneus referred to anything goes. Jesus well knew the Roman brothels. He well knew the culture of His time; and when He said adulteries and fornications—plural—He was making a direct reference to the practices of the Romans and the Greeks and the pagans of the time who prostituted themselves to all forms of evil.

He knew it; He condemned it. It’s not just the matter of the word, it’s a matter of the culture; and Jesus certainly understood the culture of His time—if He didn’t, nobody did. And therefore, when He used the word fornications, He obviously was making reference to all forms—all forms, inclusive forms—of that which was the deviation from the norm of Jewish law.

And the reason I can say that with such dogmatism is because He was a rabbi. And if a rabbi didn’t know Jewish law on the subject of homosexuality, nobody on earth knew it. Jesus was a rabbi; a master of the Law. In fact, He was the only person that could ever say to a man on the Sabbath day, “Take up your bed and go home.” And when He was questioned on it He responded in John, chapter 5, that He could loose the Law of the Sabbath any time He wanted to for the Son of Man was Yahveh of the Sabbath.

Which meant He could do whatever He wanted with His Own Law because it was His. I do think that we have forgotten the fact that universe belongs to Somebody else; that this creation was ordained by Somebody Who had a specific plan in mind. He did not make Adam 1 and Adam 2. He made Adam and Eve. Now if He wanted to have the “gift” of homosexuality bestowed upon His creation, I feel He would have bent over backwards to explain to us that homosexual love was perfectly acceptable, as was heterosexual love.

And we would have had more partners in the Garden; but we don’t have more partners in the Garden, because what the Creator designed as natural, He says is natural. Not us, He says it’s natural. Now our homosexual revisionist theologians say that [homosexuality] is a gift from God. No, it’s a gift from Satan; because it is sin, and is a transgression of what God says, not obedience.

Who is the first transgressor; the liar and the murderer from the beginning. Who first broke the Law? Satan. Who first disrupted the natural order of heaven; which was the love of God and fellowship with Him. Satan. Who penetrated creation and destroyed… Satan. Who penetrated the Garden and led [Adam and Eve] astray; “You will not die, you will become gods.” Satan.

Who has always deviated from the norm of divine revelation? Satan. And who today is trying to put Christ and homosexuality together? Satan. And it’s against this that the church must stand. There is a basic theological issue that must not be debated; it just simply must be affirmed. Jesus condemned all unnatural sexual practices. And that definition would come under the Law, which He Himself gave.

It was Christ Who gave Moses the Law on Sinai. If you don’t know that, you don’t even know the rudiments of Biblical theology; because in the 3rd chapter of Exodus, the Voice that spoke from the burning bush said, “AhYah Asher AhYah, I Am That I Am.” And Jesus Christ, to the Jews in John chapter 8—verse 58 said, “AhYah; I Am the eternal God.” The minute He said that, they reach for rocks.

They didn’t need any diagrams, they knew Who He said He was… Now I think, therefore, the bedrock position must be established; theologically, there is no room for homosexuality inthe revelation of God. There isn’t room, really, for it to be debated seriously. It simply has to faced for what it is; the practice is condemned by a divine curse.

Walter Martin

See also:

DOUG PAGITT AND HOMOSEXUAL SIN

JAY BAKKER CRITIQUES KEN SILVA AT RELIGION DISPATCHES

GAY AWAKENING FOR MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM GROWS CLOSER

Print this entry

Why should we believe that the apostle Paul, when he used the term arsenokoites, had in mind any kind of same-sex activity or practice? Is it not possible that he had in mind something very specific and did not refer to adult, mutual homosexual orientation? Is there any basis for insisting that the term does extend to homosexual orientation?

A fair consideration of the writings and background of the the apostle Paul reveals that he was well versed in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (LXX). It was his “Bible,” the text he used to share the truth of the gospel as he traveled the world. While it seems sure that Paul could read the Hebrew as well, he was the apostle to the Gentiles, and the Septuagint was the source of his proclaimation and the ground of his defense of the gospel as well.

Indeed, at times, when the LXX differed in its wording from the Hebrew text, Paul would choose the LXX, knowing that his audience would have a familiarity with that version. It is a fundamental axiom in all scholarly study of Paul that the LXX is central in the determination of his motives and vocabulary. Truly, no serious challenge can be raised to this simple fact.

The relevance of this truth however, is seen when we consider the terms that are used in the LXX at Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Leviticus 18:22, when transliterated from the LXX Greek into English, in stating that a man shall not be with a man as one lies with a woman reads,

meta arsenos (arsenos—male) ou koimethese koiten (koiten—to lie with sexually, have intercourse) gunaikos.

But even more striking is the wording of Leviticus 20:13 in the LXX:

hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gunaikos.

Note the close connection of arsenos (male) and koiten (to lie with sexually, have intercourse). The term “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is made up of those two terms, arsenos and koiten—hence, arsenokoites. As a compound word it is clearly referring to male intercourse. The next fact to consider is also very important. Arsenokoites is a term that most agree did not appear prior to its appearance in the New Testament, and specifically in the writings of Paul.

So where did it come from? Two possibilities suggest themselves, and both end up having the same impact upon our reading of the text. The term could have been derived from rabbinic discussions of homosexuality, based upon the terms arsenos and koiten in Leviticus 18 and 20. Or it could have been coined by Paul.

This would not be unusual at all, for Paul seems to have coined a number of terms based upon the need to communicate the truths of the Hebrew Old Testament… [M]ost importantly, since [Paul] draws so heavily and constantly from the LXX itself, the conjunction of the terms arsenos and koiten (from which arsenokoites is derived) proves that the LXX text of Leviticus is the most likely source of the term…

Corinth was know across the Roman empire as a center of cultic worship that involved sexual debauchery. Temple prostitutes walked the streets, and its citizens knew every form of sexual immorality. Given that Paul would have derived his explanation of God’s will for man’s sexual behavior from the Scriptures, and specifically from the LXX, the prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 could hardly have been ignored…

[I]mmediately prior to the discussion in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Paul quoted from Deuteronomy 17:7 regarding removal of the evil man from their midst. His words tell us that the Corinthian believers knew this passage was normative for them, and that they already knew they should have followed its direction. The relevance of this passage was a “given,” and so, too, the revelation of Leviticus 18 and 20.

Likewise, Timothy, having heard his mentor preaching and teaching on many occasions, having learned the relevance of God’s revelation at Paul’s feet, would share the same understanding and same common source of reference, the LXX (2 Timothy 3:14-17)… Paul places his usage of the term arsenokoites in his writing to Timothy squarely in the context of the law, which surely would have included Leviticus 18-20.

Having then established, then, the context of the word in Paul’s usage and its origins in the LXX, we can see why the broad term “homosexual” is the best term to use in translation. The prohibition on homosexual behavior in Leviticus is not restricted to prostitution, or pederasty, or any other subcategory of homosexual immorality.

It includes, and condemns, all such activity. Since this is the source from which Paul’s usage and understanding flows, it follows inevitably that we err when we attempt to limit the scope artificially to any more narrow meaning.[1]

Dr. James White and Jeffrey D. Niell

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

[1] James R. White & Jeffrey D. Niell,  Same Sex Controversy, The: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality [Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002] , 146, 147, 148, 149, emphasis theirs.

See also:

DOUG PAGITT AND HOMOSEXUAL SIN

JAY BAKKER CRITIQUES KEN SILVA AT RELIGION DISPATCHES

GAY AWAKENING FOR MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM GROWS CLOSER

Print this entry

The time has come to take off the velvet glove with these jokers, and tell people what they are really up to, and this is what they are up to: They are up to the perversion of the text of the Holy Scriptures.

We are more concerned in the United States about the rights of homosexuals than we are about Who Jesus Christ is and what He did.

We’re more conderned with social issues in the United States in the Christian church denominationally than we are with those who are dying in their sins without the Gospel. We are very concerned about everything except the things that really matter.

…the only way you can deal with this is to bring it out in the open and let people see it for what it really is: It’s filth, because it is attacking at the very core the character and nature of holy Scripture, and making the Scripture say what the Scripture does not say…

Dr. Walter Martin

See also:

EXCHANGING THE NATURAL USE FOR WHAT IS AGAINST NATURE

TIME’S UP BRIAN MCLAREN

WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE?

Print this entry

By Apprising Ministries correspondent pastor Rob Willmann of Rendering Truth.com

For those of you who don’t know who he is, Jay Bakker is the son of Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye Bakker. He has a church that he founded called ‘Revolution Church’, which has a branch in Brooklyn, NY. Jay is also known from the documentary called “One Punk Under God”, which was aired on the Sundance Channel.

Why am I blogging about Jay Bakker and Homosexuality? Well, Scripture tells us the following:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim. 4:3-4)

How can you put Jay Bakker in any category other than the ‘teachers in accordance to their own desires’?

In particular when it comes to the current hot-button issue of homosexuality, Jay Bakker (also a member of the group known as the Outlaw Preachers) said the following in his interview on the Larry King Live show:

KING: Would you say that you’re part of the liberal sect of Christianity?

JAY BAKKER: Well, I definitely say I’m a little bit more liberal than probably most, yes.

KING: You, for example, in your church would you marry gays?

JAY BAKKER: If the laws passed, yes.

KING: You favor there being a law, though?

JAY BAKKER: Yes, I do. I think they deserve equal rights just as much as anybody else does. And I think it’s — it’s such a big social issue right now, it’s something that really needs to be looked at and I think passed.

You see, here’s where Jay is wrong. Scripture says something completely different:

“Genesis 2:23-24 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” (24) For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.”

You see, God specifically talks about marriage being between two people of the opposite sex. So when Jay says that he would marry gays in his church, he is specifically standing in opposition to what God has decreed in His Word.

A little later in the same interview Jay Bakker says this:

KING: Do you feel withdrawn from the standard church?

JAY BAKKER: A little bit. When — I came out as a gay affirming pastor all of my speaking engagements were pretty much canceled right away. And we lost a lot of support. And that was really hard because I feel as Christians we’re called to love each other as ourselves. You know, Jesus say love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. And it’s strange to me that we can’t agree to disagree on certain issues and that we cut each other off and, you know, to me it’s like we’re supposed to be the ones who are tolerant and loving of one another but instead we have kind of devoured one another. And I think we’ve got to get back to the point where we can start to have discussion, you know, at least talk and be civil to one another rather than saying, well, if you don’t believe exactly the way I do, then I’m done with you.

See, here’s the issue that I have. Imagine how that last part of the interview with Jay would have sounded if the word gay was replaced with “rapist”, or “murderer”, or “pedophile”. Wouldn’t you be offended if Jay said he was a pedophile affirming pastor? Sure you would!

But here’s the catch: As homosexuality gains ground in the secular media and in humanistic circles, pastors like Jay Bakker try to ‘re-interpret’ the Bible to make it fit the culture.

It doesn’t work that way. Instead, Scripture has this to say of itself:

Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (13) And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

See, God’s word is eternal in nature because GOD is eternal in nature. When God decrees these things, they are simply wrong because He is the standard of righteousness. We as His creation don’t get to re-interpret what our Creator said. So if God said that homosexuality is wrong, then it’s wrong. Just like all sexual sins are wrong. Heterosexual extra-marital sex is wrong, affairs, homosexuality, bisexuality – it’s all sin in God’s eyes.

But what Bakker is doing here is exactly what is explained in this Scripture:

“…they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.” (2 Tim 4:3)

Jay Bakker in his sinful stance on homosexuality is actively rejecting the truth of God’s word, and instead is substituting a ‘myth’ of his own making. By doing so, Jay Bakker is essentially committing spiritual idolatry, by worshiping a God that doesn’t exist.

In the end, where does it stop? Just because homosexuality is ok today doesn’t mean that the line is drawn in the sand with this particular sin. What happens if 20 years go by and pedophelia becomes acceptable? Will Jay Bakker then be a pedophile affirming pastor?

Yes, I know the question sounds absurd, but think about it: the reason it sounds ridiculous is because according to Jay, the line in the sand as to what’s ‘right’ and what’s ‘wrong’ isn’t ultimately built on the authority of God’s word, but instead is built on Jay Bakker’s interpretation of what’s right or wrong.

My recommendation is that we actively pray for Jay Bakker, so that he will see that God is God, and Jay is not. Maybe Jay will come to realize that God’s Word says what it says regardless of how Jay interprets it.

Soli Deo Gloria.

The original appears complete with a comments section here.

See also:

JAY BAKKER CRITIQUES KEN SILVA AT RELIGION DISPATCHES

HOMOPRESSIVE AS JAY BAKKER

JAY BAKKER AND NADIA BOLZ-WEBER IN GRACE FAIL

Print this entry

Many times, if not most times, the sin we commit is a punishment for sin. When we sin, we are actually working out God’s punishment for our sin. We are not committing a new transgression every time we sin; rather, the sinful impulses that we harbor, embrace, and and experience in our transgressions are already the result of God’s judgment for our sin. That is what happens in judicial abandonment. God gives us over to our sinful impulses. We become slaves to the things that we want to do.

Paul is not satisfied to speak in generalities, so he gives a detailed description of how those sinful passions are manifested in concrete behavior: For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature (v. 26). This is a text that we will not hear often on television in this day and age. There are two things I need to say about it.

First, when the apostle Paul describes the radical corruption of the human race, he sees the sin of homosexual behavior as the sin most representative of the radical nature of our fall. It is seen here not simply as a sin, nor even as a serious sin or a gross sin, but as the clearest expression of the depths of our perversity.

Second, when Paul introduces the sin of homosexual behavior, he first mentions females. Throughout human history man has been the gender that seems most brutish, most without conscience and godliness. The woman has beenn understood as the fairer sex, but when Paul wants to describe the depth of the fall of the human race, he says that even the women exchanged the natural use for what is contra naturum, against nature, not simply against culture, or societal convention.

In other words, when we become involved in homosexual practices, we are not only sinning against God but against the nature of things. All the debates today about whether homosexual behavior is acquired or inherently genetic can be answered here in this text. The Word of God says that such behavior is not natural. It is against nature as God has created.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due (v.27). When men and women eengage in this kind of behavior, there are necessary, divinely appointed consequences. A price must be paid when people go that far to defy the law of God.

The word due has all but disappeared from our culture and vocabulary, but it is one that has a very rich history in ethics. It  goes back to the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle and on down through Western civilization, throughout which ju8stice has been defined not only in the church but also outside the church as giving people what is due them.

When people so act against God’s law and the law of nature, he gives them there due.

R.C. Sproul

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

[1] R.C Sproul, Romans (St. Andrew’s Expositional Commentary) [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2009], 50, 51, emphasis his.

See also:

TIME’S UP BRIAN MCLAREN

JAY BAKKER CRITIQUES KEN SILVA AT RELIGION DISPATCHES

WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE?

Print this entry

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?

Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Ears Grow Itchier In Evangelicalism

Apprising Ministries has told you that gay-affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker heads up a rather rapscallion, and largely Biblically illiterate, bunch in the sinfully ecumenical neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church who’ve crowned themselves Outlaw Preachers.

He’s also leader of a support group called Revolution NYC, which is trying to pass itself off as a church. Bakker’s appearance at the last apostasia-palooza of the Emerging Church, something called Big Tent Christianity: Being and Becoming the Church (BTC), was his coming out party in the EC. You should also know that Bakker, who really shouldn’t even be teaching Sunday School—let alone pastoring a church—is tip of the spear for the coming EC advance of their pro-gay agenda to convince your young evangelicals that the deviant and sinful lifestyle of having sexual relations with another of the same sex, i.e homosexuality, is a viable one for the regenerated Christian. 

That’s why I’ve been using the issue of homosexuality to light up the sky with the Word of God to give you a chance to see the wide, and very rapid, advance of the EC and its evil pro-gay agenda. I’ve also told you that because evangelicalism has rejected the proper Biblical spirituality of sola Scriptura in favor of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism it has placed itself upon the postmodern playing field of existential and highly subjective experience where there are no rules i.e. evangelicalism is defenseless against such as these. For example, Bakker’s already told us about a personal chat he had with the LORD God Almighty Who apparently has confided in “Punk Pastor” Jay that He’s now changed His mind about the practice of homosexuality:

“The more I follow grace, the more I’m drawn to him [God], the more I’m willing to stand up for people being persecuted,” said Bakker. “It sounds so churchy, but I felt like God spoke to my heart and said ‘[homosexuality] is not a sin.’ ” (Online source, emphasis mine)

My advice is you’d best get ready for gay affirming arguments like the above, which are not based upon Scripture, because soon they will be erupting within your own local church; this issue is about to detonate within the walls of evangelical churches where EC advocates have already been planted. Now consider the following tweet:

 
(Online source)

“Revtheodyke” happens to be Candace Chellew-Hodge, author of a book of mythology entitled Bulletproof Faith. Her bio informs us she’s an apostate Southern Baptist:

Born in 1965 as the grand finale of five children to a Southern Baptist minister… She gave up her faith at age 17, about the same time she entered a career in journalism that would span some 25 years (including a six-year stint at CNN in Atlanta),… Godless for a brief few years…

Chellew-Hodge did what so many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people do – she believed the lie that she couldn’t be both a lesbian and a Christian. She returned to the church in her early 20s, kicking and screaming, at the insistence of her first girlfriend. She describes her first service at a Metropolitan Community Church in Atlanta, Georgia as “coming home.” (Online source)

Sadly, we could hardly find a clearer example of the following from Scripture — people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths (2 Timothy 4:3-4). It doesn’t bring me pleasure to have to show you this; however, as a pastor-teacher it’s my job to — preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. “Rev.” Chellew-Hodge also founded Whosoever: An Online Magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Christians and further:

Chellew-Hodge graduated from the Candler School of Theology at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia in 2002 with a Master of Theological Studies degree… In 2007 she was licensed as a United Church of Christ minister and became associate pastor at Garden of Grace.

Chellew-Hodge is also a spiritual director, trained through the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta. She has also been the co-host of Rainbow Radio since it began in 2005. Rainbow Radio is the first radio show for GLBT people in South Carolina. (Online source)

The point being that Candace Chellew-Hodge, a practicing lesbian pastrix, is more than educated enough to be held accountable for her views, and Jay Bakker himself also claims to be a pastor. As such then, they both must hold firm to the trustworthy word (Titus 1:9)—which quite obviously neither of them do. Lord willing, I’ll have more on pastrix Chellew; but for now, the link in the tweet above takes us to Jay Bakker on LGBT Justice and the Demands of Grace, which is an interview with Bakker conducted by Chellew-Hodge at Religion Dispatches online magazine. In closing this, for now, I’ll just tell you that during the interview Chellew decided to bring me into the conversation:

(Online source)

If Bakker had been more truthful, his answer to the question about how he responds to criticism would have been, he doesn’t. I’ve told you before that these so-called loving and tolerant ones like Jay Bakker are only loving and tolerant until…you disagree with them. So, I’m “extremist and obsessed,” and nobody “fits in in [my] book”? Anyone actually familiar with my work will know I believe plenty of people “fit” within what renowned Christian apologist Dr. Walter Martin so often referred to as the “historic orthodox Christian faith.” However, people like Jay Bakker aren’t interested in the narrow gate (Matthew 7:13) to the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints ( Jude 3), which Jesus Himself said those who find it are few (Matthew 7:14).

Rather, Bakker opts for the universalism of the “big tent” postmodern version of Progressive Christianity, often referred to by these rebels against the Word of God as Emergence Christianity—the Liberalism 2.0 that Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren began laying out in his book A New Kind of Christianity. Actually it’s the very same skubalon also pushed by Bakker’s good friend Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at the Emerging Church of universalist Doug Pagitt as well. I recently covered the soteriology of this Liberalism 2.0 in Tony Campolo Goes On A Tirade and brought out the incontrovertible fact of its universalism. As I said, it does play very well for the pouty postmodern people-pleasers; but it isn’t at all even close to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

What Bakker says next is laughable: “You can’t even get in touch with Ken Silva or meet with him. I find it best to ignore those folks.” Translation: I can’t support my mythology from the Bible, so I don’t have any way to actually respond to Christian pastoral criticism; and perhaps, if he’s ever even been on Apprising Ministries, he missed this:

Or…he could have talked with his friend Tony Jones, he’s called me on the phone; as has Doug Pagitt a few times. Leaving aside his foolish ad hominem arguments, I’ll simply repeat what I just told a friend of Pagitt’s today, with whom I’ve been having a lengthy email exchange—rather odd indeed for someone who can’t be contacted, don’t you think? Jesus tells us in the Bible that the men he calls must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it (Titus 1:9). 1) this presupposes there is such a thing as sound doctrine, and 2) because Jay Bakker et al contradict it, then I am left no choice but to rebuke them because they make shipwreck of people’s faith (1 Timothy 1:19).

As far as Chellew-Hodges’ question about “how can we do that work of restoration with people like Ken Silva who don’t even want us to reach out to them,” there can’t be any restoration with those who preach another gospel, which is really no gospel at all (cf. Galatians 1:6-9). But Bakker dreams:

It’s going to have to be through prayer and relationships. I really don’t know other than continually living an example of grace and hoping that they’ll see the peace and joy that we have and will want what we have… We just have to try to give grace. (Online source)

No rather, Holy Scripture would place Bakker among those who have now crept in unnoticed while mainstream evangelicalism slips deeper into a spiritual coma, and who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (Jude 4). “O, but I love Jesus,” Bakker would retort; so e.g. did the Gnostics whose false gospel was condemned by the Apostles in inspired Scripture. See for yourself in Will The Real Jesus Please Stand Up? there’s tons of Jesus’ running around the landscape. The rest of what Bakker says, as it concerns the ”peace and joy” they personally have, is to commit the logical fallacy of appeal to emotion; I also have peace and joy as well so that, in and of itself, proves nothing. For example, the same can also be said of a devout Mormon, or even a Muslim.

The bottom line is this: What does God’s Word in the Bible teach about same-sex sexual relations i.e. homosexuality. I’m not “really hateful” at all; what I am is among unworthy ambassadors for Christ, with no righteousness of our own, imploring the condemned (cf. John 3:18, 36) on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God (2 Corinthians 5:20). I would tell you in the Lord that men like Jay Bakker are the ones leaving these precious LGBT people, for whom Christ died, locked away in the chains and darkness of their own personal prison cell of sin. As such then, here I am going to offer that the really hateful ones are, in actuality, those who practice this kind of evil homopression of the LGBT community. Let us pray that God in His mercy will grant such as these repentance from their sin, before it’s too late.

See also:

OUTLAW PREACHERS KHAD YOUNG AND JAY BAKKER DON’T LOVE ENOUGH 

WHY NO CONDEMNATION FOR CHRISTIANS WHO ARE HOMOPRESSIVE? 

BUT DO EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY AND BRIAN MCLAREN REALLY LOVE GAY PEOPLE? 

THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY IS DIFFERENT

APPRISING MINISTRIES: SHOCKING NEW EVIDENCE JESUS CONDEMNED THE PRACTICE OF HOMOSEXUALITY 

DOUG PAGITT AND THE EMERGING CHURCH GAY AGENDA

ADELE SAKLER AND KEN SILVA

Print this entry

Since squishy evanjellyfish has now followed the mortally wounded mainline denominations out of the closet, with its man-love of heart murmur spirituality at the expense the God-centered spirituality of sola Scriptura, I’ve been giving you peeks at its bleak future of division and compromise of God’s Word.

A crystal clear example of this is Jay Bakker, gay-affirming “pastor” of a sad church social club by the name of Revolution:NYC; and as I told you e.g. in Jay Bakker Reflects The Sad Condition Of The Visible Church, make no mistake, Bakker’s star is on the rise within the among the younger sector of apostatizing evangelicalism due to a boost by the EC. Bakker also heads up a group of largely biblically illiterate, and I say a rather rapscallion bunch spiritually, who anointed themselves Outlaw Preachers (OPs) and galvanized around him.

You need to understand that Bakker is tip-of-the-spear for the EC’s pushing for acceptance within evangelicalism that the deviant and sinful lifestyle of having sexual relations with another of the same sex, i.e homosexuality, is a viable one for the regenerated Christian.

This is a key EC point of attack as it continues its assault upon proper biblical Christianity; and Bakker’s whole shtick is spreading the myth that the practice of homosexuality isn’t always sinful. Another indication of Bakker’s newfound popularity is the following tweet by “queer inclusive” ELCA “pastor,” and former “professional f**k-up,” Nadia Bolz-Weber, whom you might recall from e.g. Did Nadia Bolz-Weber Just Call Jesus “A Schmuck”? 

Pastrix Bolz-Weber—herself one of these awful OPs— was featured at the recent EC Christianity 21 Apostasia-Palooza thrown by the dubious duo universalist Emerging Church pastor Doug Pagitt and his friend Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at Solomon’s Porch, two-thirds of the unholy trinity of the Emergent Church along with  Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren.

Bolz-Weber pointed us to: 

(Online source) 

The link takes us to pastrix Bolz-Weber *cough* tome The Important Thing to Know About Jay Bakker is that He Has a Tattoo of Luther’s Seal. Bolz-Weber dreams:

I just this minute finished reading Jay Bakker’s Fall To Grace and feel I need to say publicly what I have said privately to Jay on several occasions: “Jay, you’re basically a Lutheran” to which Jay generally responds “Wow, thanks!”.  As a matter of fact, I’m tempted to now give people Jay’s book when they want to know what distinguishes a Lutheran theological position from that of other forms of Christianity. (Online source)

Ah, how sweet; at least in the postmodern Wonderland of Humpty Dumpty language where words mean whatever a person wants them to mean. However, in the real and only world we have, the views of Jay Bakker have about as much in common with the Church Reformer Martin Luther as mine do with uber-liberal Living Spiritual Teacher and “Progessive Christian” scholar Marcus Borg. Even a cursory look at the theology of Martin Luther, whether we agree with him or not, reveals he would have had no fellowship with either Jay Bakker or Nadia Bolz-Weber.

The clear fact is that both practice homopression by affirming precious LGBT people, for whom Christ died, in their sin; and in addition, Bolz-Weber is a rebel against the Word of God as a woman usurping the office of elder in violation of Scripture. It’s well past time to stop letting progressive liberals and pouty postmoderns refine terminology according to their own whims.

See also:

MARTIN LUTHER ON HOMOSEXUALITY

MARTIN LUTHER SAYS NO…TO WOMEN PASTORS

KEN SILVA VS. JAY BAKKER FROM THE HEART

HOMOPRESSIVE AS JAY BAKKER

CHRISTIANITY 21 AND ALLEGED INNOVATIVE VOICES IN THE FAITH: NADIA BOLZ-WEBER

NADIA BOLZ-WEBER: SERMON ON JUDAS AND GRACE GONE WILD

GAY AWAKENING FOR MAINSTREAM EVANGELICALISM GROWS CLOSER

Print this entry