Discerning the Discernment Bloggers

Over the past few months I’ve begun to refamiliarize myself with the heresy-hunters of evangelical Christendom. It’s been many years actually. Apparently, they are now called “discernment bloggers” and are doing their thing via blogs, podcasts, and tweets. My problem with these individuals is that they too often go after good Biblical preachers, speakers, and pastors. Their false targets tend to be highly effective and popular ministers who are making a huge impact for the Kingdom of God. These targets are labeled “false teachers” and “heretics” while pursuing their God-ordained ministries.

I’d like to delve into the matter of “discernment bloggers”. I’m not going to name any names because 1) that’s not my purpose, 2) I’m speaking generally here, 3) occasionally they do point out a real false teacher, and 4) I know some of them personally. With this in mind, I’m also not going to offer any specific examples so as not to link back to specific individuals. Rather, I want to give you some of my observations into their methodology so you can discern whether or not those being critical are being false or not. Here is what I notice about “discernment bloggers”:

• They tend to be profoundly ignorant of the Scriptures and have an immature understanding of the faith. They are often fundamentalist in theology and disposition.

• They approach their subject in hateful, arrogant, and worldly manners. They show little signs of humility, which is actually fundamental in accurately discerning Biblical truth and falsehood. They never approach their subject matter with gentle, loving correction. Indeed, they don’t show the necessary spiritual fruit to be taken seriously.

• They are often short on evidence and long on opinion and characterization. Instead of providing evidence of false teachings or explanations of why such teachings are false, they prefer ad hominem attacks. Usually, one has to read several paragraphs of vitriol before coming to the current point of attack.

•  They often mischaracterize a preacher’s sermon, taking bits out of context.

• Their rants are not analyses of preachers’ arguments but characterizations of particular pull-quotes. This, in of itself, is strange. You would think that if they were so concerned with a false teaching, they would actually involve themselves in the actual argument, the actual point, that these false teachers are attempting to make. But they aren’t. Instead, they focus on individual quotes. They seem either incapable or unwilling to understand someone’s overall argument and then understand the quote in light of that argument. But this shouldn’t be surprising; they frequently take Scripture out of context.

• Their evidence often consists of links to other discernment bloggers who themselves mischaracterize a preacher’s sermon, taking bits out of context.

•  When I’ve finally tracked down the sermon in question, I find that a preacher’s words have been obviously mischaracterized. Indeed, so obvious are the mischaracterizations that I often suspect that the blogger is being deliberately false. Indeed, it’s almost as if they hope you won’t look at the evidence or listen to the whole sermon, but just take their word for it.

• Guilt by association seems to be the most prominent means of attack. A preacher’s sermons, quotes, ministry, and/or person is dismissed as false because he or she can be somehow linked to another presumed false teacher. “He is friends with X.” “She’s friendly with Y.” “He spoke at the same conference as her.” “She went on his show.” What is not discussed is any similarities in their teachings and theological positions. Furthermore, at most, a mischaracterized pull-quote is taken out of its context to link a preacher to a “disreputable” movement. Again, what is missing is an analysis of the actual teaching.

These observations come down to three points about “discernment blogger” methodology: ad hominem attacks, Scriptural ignorance, and lack of analysis. It’s the last point that seems the most important to me. Whether from laziness or intention, the lack of analysis of a presumed false teacher’s argument should absolutely disqualify a “discernment blogger” from serious consideration. It seems most people like ad hominem attacks and most people are ignorant of Scripture. At the very least, you should recognize when someone is not analyzing a quote within the intended point of the sermon.

Even if these “discernment bloggers” are not deliberately mischaracterizing a preacher’s sermons, their sloppy criticism and lack of analysis on such a serious issue absolutely disqualifies them from discernment. Indeed, they themselves are false teachers. They themselves are leading people astray. This is the great irony of the “discernment bloggers”. Their ignorance and mischaracterizations are damaging the Kingdom of God and ministries of individuals within them. Furthermore, they are making it more difficult for people to spot real false teachers. As I’ve often said, “Wolves in sheep’s clothing often don’t know they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

                So just be careful when someone labels another person a false teacher. Before you accept such a characterization, please do your research. Listen to the entire sermon, look at the overall work of a preacher. Be sure you are discerning the discerner. That includes me.

The Real Problem with Andy Stanley’s Sermon: A Response to the Argument in Aftermath, Part 3: Not Difficult

Personally, I really like Andy Stanley. I’ve read a few of his books and used a few of his series at different churches. I think he’s done amazing work for the Kingdom of God in Georgia and elsewhere.

When I first saw the headlines about his “OT-unhitching sermon” I first assumed he was either being misunderstood, mischaracterized, or taken out of context. So I ignored it. But then I saw people whose insights I appreciate make criticisms. So I read some sermon quotes from some critical articles.

"[First century] Church leaders unhitched the church from the worldview, value system, and regulations of the Jewish scriptures."

"Peter, James, Paul elected to unhitch the Christian faith from their Jewish scriptures, and my friends, we must as well."

"Jesus' new covenant, his covenant with the nations, his covenant with you, his covenant with us, can stand on its own two nail-scarred resurrection feet. It does not need propping up by the Jewish scriptures."

To me the quotes were extremely distressing as well as highly inaccurate about apostolic teachings, and I couldn’t see how they could be taken out of context. I thought, “You better rethink that, brother.” Nevertheless, I’ve heard preachers in the past speak about legalistic Judaism and how Jesus came to abolish the Law. Certainly, the ceremonial and sacrificial requirements, as well as the cultural identity markers, are no longer required for followers of Jesus; perhaps Stanley was simply uncharacteristically muddled in his presentation. Perhaps he went off script in his enthusiasm. It’s possible.

A few days passed, and I saw the following comment by a theologian:

“The reactions to Andy Stanley by Rachel Held Evans and many others seems to me largely based on a clickbait headline. If he had said ‘the OT is not directly normative for Christians’ he would have said the same thing. It's a pointless controversy.”

To me the sermon quotes did not indicate a pointless controversy, and they did seem to go further than simple questions about normative practice. However, to clear up the confusion in my own mind, I decided to listen to the entire sermon.

Having now twice listened to the sermon, Aftermath, Part 3: Not Difficult, I must admit that it is far worse than even the pulled quotes indicate. People are rightly upset about Stanley’s disregard of the Old Testament, but, actually, his disregard is a means to a specific end. It’s that end, and the argument he constructs, that is the real, serious problem.

Much of his sermon is a theological train wreck. He obviously has a terrible grasp of the covenant, Israel, the Law, Judaism, and how the Apostles and New Testament writers understood the Old Testament scriptures. However, he is only somewhat more confused than the average pastor is with this stuff. But, far beyond the misconceptions of some popular theology, Stanley confuses the “Law of Moses” with the Old Testament. He appears to confuse the ceremonial and ethnic cultural badges of the Old Testament with the moral rules, especially the sexual morals.

In his teaching on the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, Stanley argues that the conclusion to the question of whether Gentiles should adopt circumcision (and other “works of the law”) was summed up in James’ statement, “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” (Acts 15:19 NIV).

Stanley argues that the Jerusalem Council concluded that Gentiles should not follow the Law of Moses or the Old Testament as a whole. He says the Jerusalem Council was effectively saying to the Gentiles, “You are not accountable to the Ten Commandments.” Stanley then tells his congregants what James is effectively telling them: “You should not obey the Ten Commandments because those aren’t your commandments. Yours are better. And yours are far less complicated.”

Here’s the key thing: no one in the American Church or contemporary evangelicalism is currently advocating that today’s Christians follow circumcision, Jewish dietary laws, ceremonial cleanliness, or any of the other Jewish ethnic traditions involved in the Acts 15 debate. So what are the Jewish, Old Testament rules that Stanley intends his congregants to abandon? Stanley doesn’t really say. He doesn’t specify. He doesn’t give a direct, practical application to his sermon. He leaves it up to the congregation to decide how to specifically apply his teaching. However, he does give a general idea of what he’s thinking about.

Stanley states that the letter from the Council telling Gentiles to avoid foods sacrificed to idols and the eating of blooded animals (15:20, 29) was simply a compromise to keep the peace with the Jews. He then states that the reference in the same verses to abstain from sexual immorality is not tied to Old Testament sexual ethics, while also saying that probably everyone would have a different view of what sexual immorality means. Notice these sermons quotes:

“This is so important: This was a general call to avoid immoral behavior but not immoral behavior as defined by the Old Testament.”

“Paul tied sexual behavior, not to the Old Covenant, not the Ten Commandments, but the one commandment Jesus gave us: You are to treat others as God through Christ has treated you.”

“Paul was explicit about teaching on sexual immorality, but he did not tie it to the Old Testament.

“The old covenant, law of Moses, was not the go-to source regarding sexual behavior for the church.”

“The old covenant, law of Moses, was not the go-to source regarding any behavior for the church.”

Basically, Stanley appears to be saying that New Testament teachings on sexual immorality are not tied to Old Testament conceptions and that sexual immorality should be defined as treating others like Christ has treated you.

Now obviously Stanley’s argument is Scripturally erroneous. The New Testament writers, Jesus, and Paul himself frequently defined Christian morality (sexual and otherwise) by the Old Testament and pointed to the Old Testament Scriptures frequently as a basis. One of the major parts of the New Covenant and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was not a rejection of the Law but the Spirit-driven ability to actually do the Law. But I leave it to others to pick apart Stanley’s theology here. My focus is not the merits of the argument but the construction of the argument and the end to which it points. He’s obviously not going of script. You can tell he’s not fumbling about, misstating what he actually means. He is making a deliberately intentioned, scripted argument. And that’s my concern. Here’s how I would sum up his argument:

“‘People are losing faith because of something in or about the Bible, especially the Old Testament.’ We should not make it difficult for people to embrace the Christian Faith. The Apostles and early Christians abandoned the Old Testament rules, including the rules of sexual immorality, to include others; we should do so as well. Instead, our sexual ethics should be based solely on one rule: ‘You are to treat others as God through Christ has treated you.’”

If this correctly summarizes Stanley’s point (and I believe it does), what do you think he is referring to?

Note the following summary Stanley gives concerning Peter’s testimony:

“God is doing something new in the world and we [referring to Peter speaking to first century Jewish Christians] need to be a part of it even if it means letting go of and setting aside the traditions, the *Scripture* [Stanley says with emphasis] we grew up with.”

I think Andy Stanley has left his application unstated but heavily implied.

Again, I really like Stanley. I really tried to give him the benefit of the doubt and consider other interpretations of his sermon. If I have mischaracterized his argument and point, I do apologize; but I really don’t think I have. Regardless, I recommend people listen to the sermon and gauge for themselves if I have been unfair in my critique. If I am right, I hope some learned pastor friends of Stanley’s will pull him aside and offer some loving correction.

Getting the Gospel Right: Correcting the Popular Misconception about the Message of the Gospel

The biggest, most fundamental misconception of the Christian Faith is the Gospel itself. I find it utterly bewildering that the most essential concept of the Christian religion is so completely misunderstood by the vast majority of Christians, including well-known preachers and theologians. I find this somewhat baffling because even a casual reading of the New Testament gives a clear indication of the meaning. Let’s examine the evidence.

The word Gospel is derived from the Greek work euggelion and literally means “good news”. So what is this good news to which the Gospel refers? The popular and pervasive belief is that the Gospel refers to the idea that “Jesus died for your sins, so you can be saved if you believe”. The problem with this conception of the Gospel is that it’s wrong. The gospel itself is not principally about “personal salvation” but specifically about the coming of the Kingdom of God. You can see this in Matthew 4:23: “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom.” (Other places are Matthew 9:35; 24:14; Mark 1:14-15; Luke 4:43; 8:1; 16:16; Acts 8:12; 20:25; 28:31.) The Kingdom of God (or Heaven) is the rule, will, and reign of God on earth and heaven (Matthew 6:10).

The good news of Jesus is that he is the King of that Kingdom of God. Thus, we get references to the “gospel of Christ” (Acts 5:42; Romans 15:19; 1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 4:4; 9:13; Galatians 1:7; Philippians 1:27; 1 Thessalonians 3:2). The Greek word “Christ” (Christos) is the translation of the Hebrew word Messiah. The Messiah/Christ was the term used for the King of the Jews. When Jesus is identified as the Christ, he is being identified as the King of the Jews (Matthew 2:2; 21:5; 25:35, 40; 27:11, 29, 42; Mark 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26, 32; Luke 19:38, 23:2-3, 37-38; John 1:49; 12:13, 15; 18:33, 37, 39; 19:3, 12, 14-15, 19, 21; Acts 17:7; 1 Timothy 6:15). This is why Jesus is identified as coming from the line of King David (Matthew 1:6; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30; 21:9; 21:15; 22:42; Mark 10:47-48; 11:10; 12:35; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4, 11; 3:31; 18:38-39; 20:41;  John 7:42; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8; Revelation 5:5; 22:16).

The four Gospel books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are stories about how Jesus became King. That is there primary function. That is the story they are telling. Jesus as King is what they want you to know. More importantly than just becoming King of the Jews, the enthronement of Jesus as King by God has also made him King over the world (Psalm 110; Daniel 7; Mark 12:36; 14:61-62). Essentially, Jesus is currently ruling this world, sitting at the right hand of God (Mark 10:35-38, 40; 14:62; Matthew 19:28; 22:44; 25:31-34; 26:64; Luke 22:38-30; John 21:31-33; Daniel 7:13; Acts 2:33; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; Hebrews 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; Revelation 3:21; Psalm 110). Having been made king over the world, all power and authority has been given to him (Matthew 28:18) and all powers and authorities have been subjected to him (Ephesians 1:20-22; Philippians 2:8-11; 1 Corinthians 15:24; Colossians 1:13; 2:10, 15; Jude 1:25; Revelation 2:26-27; 12:10; Matthew 9:8; 21:23; Mark 3:15; John 5:27; 17:2; Psalm 110).

The coming of the Kingdom of God with Jesus as its King, who now rules the world, is the “good news” of which the proclamation of the Gospel speaks. But let’s be exhaustive.

In other places you find references to the “gospel of God” (Mark 1:14; Romans 1:1; 15:16; 2 Corinthians 11:7; 1 Thessalonians 3:2; 1 Timothy 1:11; 1 Peter 4:17). However, the “gospel of God” (euggelion tou theou) could mean “the good news of God” or “God’s good news”. Regardless, while Mark 1:14 says that Jesus proclaimed the “gospel of God”, he immediately clarifies this in v. 15 by giving the content of that proclamation: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Again, the Kingdom of God is the substance of the good news. This then clarifies for us what Mark means by his other indirect mentions of the gospel (8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9). Since the Kingdom of God is God’s Kingdom and Jesus does share in the nature of God (Philippians 2:6), however you interpret euggelion tou theou, the reference is still the same.

In other places, we see references to “gospel of Lord Jesus” (Acts 11:20; 2 Thessalonians 1:8), “gospel of his Son” (Romans 1:9), and the “gospel of Jesus” (Acts 8:35). These references still refer to Jesus, and, knowing how both Luke and Paul understand the Gospel to refer to the Kingdom and its King by their other references, we easily grasp the designation.

However, while the specific content of the Gospel is the Kingdom and Jesus as its King, we do see a few references where the Gospel results in peace (Ephesians 6:15; Acts 10:36) and salvation (Ephesians 1:13). Paul can refer to the “gospel of the grace of God” (Acts 20:24) in the same breath as he states that he is “preaching the kingdom” (v. 25). Only in Romans 1:6 do we get an affirmation about the Gospel being about the power of God for salvation.

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.”

This verse (along with Ephesians 1:13) is the sum total of the direct evidence that has been used to water down the message of the Gospel from the rule and reign of Christ upon the earth to one of personal salvation in order to “go to heaven”. Though the message of the Gospel does have the power to bring people to faith, the message of the Gospel itself is not “salvation”. As N.T. Wright notes in his book What Saint Paul Really Said, “when the gospel is proclaimed, people come to faith and so are regarded by God as members of his people. But ‘the gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved” (pp. 132–33). Now, again, this does not mean that salvation is not a result of the Gospel. Salvation is very much a result of the Gospel, but just as is peace (Ephesians 6:15; Acts 10:36), power (1 Thessalonians 1:5), healing (Matthew 4:23; 9:35), grace (Acts 20:24; Ephesians 1:13), justice (Romans 2:16), and repentance and faith (Mark 1:14; Acts 15:7). However, these are effects of the Gospel of the Kingdom, not the Gospel itself.

In all other places, the Gospel is not directly qualified; it is simply called “the gospel”. But, again, knowing how these writers elsewhere do qualify the “good news” with reference to the Kingdom and Christ as its head, we can readily grasp how they conceptualized it. Just one example: While Matthew 26:13 does not directly reference the content of the gospel, Matthew 4:23, 9:35, and 24:14 inform us that Matthew does mean the gospel of the Kingdom of God (Heaven).

Therefore, it should be clear that when the Bible speaks about the Gospel, it is not referring to personal salvation but to the coming of the Kingdom of God and Jesus as its King. Now why is this clarification important?

First, the Gospel message is fundamental to the Christian Faith. It behooves us to get it as accurate as possible so that a) the message reaches its peak effectiveness and b) we have a clear idea of the mission and ministry God requires of us.

Second, the Gospel message that Jesus is currently ruling the world means he is not some distant figure. Jesus is actively at work in this world through his Spirit and his Spirit-empowered followers bringing all the corrupt powers of this world into obedience under him (1 Corinthians 15:24-27; Luke 20:43; Hebrews 10:13; Psalm 110:1). That is the goal. That is the endgame. 1 Corinthians 15:24-27 is very explicit that Jesus will reign until he has put all things into subjection. In doing so, this chapter also tells us that, in light of the Resurrection, the work Christians do in the Lord is not in vain (v. 58). God is using all our obedient work for the Kingdom purpose of bringing everything, all the corrupt powers, rulers, and institutions, into submissive obedience. That is the Gospel (v. 1).

The Gospel is not a message of personal salvation so that you can one day escape this world - so you don’t have to care about this world. Far from it! The Gospel is about the coming of the Kingdom of God and Jesus as its King, so you are called to give him loyal-obedient-allegiance and help with the bringing all the people and powers of the world into that same allegiance. When we get the Gospel wrong, we lose focus of our purpose and mission. When we get the Gospel right, we become more effective at accomplishing our calling.

Some Thoughts on the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC and their Current Opportunity to Rid Themselves of the Resurgent Leaders

As a conservative inerrantist and someone who has studied the Conservative Resurgence, let me tell you that it was an absolute disaster that severely damaged the SBC and significantly impaired its ability to grow the Kingdom of God. It was led by very ignorant, egotistical, greedy, corrupt men with serious character flaws who employed brutal, unchristlike methods to gain power over the entire denomination. The results were catastrophic. During the period when mainline denominations were in decline, the so-called moderate SBC and its agencies and seminaries were still growing rapidly. Not resting on their laurels, the SBC leadership was planning a huge evangelical push in the late 70s and early 80s. Instead, the Resurgent leaders wrestled for control of the SBC, achieved it, and began a systematic operation to gain absolute power and purge the SBC of all undesirables. They began to centralize control of the SBC to the top of the denomination and then consolidating their power. Yes, during the same period in which these people were decrying how secular liberals and Democrats were centralizing government onto the Federal level and maintaining top-to-bottom control, the leaders of the Resurgence were doing the same thing in the SBC. Indeed, they used the political weapons of the world to defame, mischaracterize, silence, and fire everyone who didn’t agree with them or posed a threat. Thousands of SBC ministers were fired. No, not just liberals and moderates; thousands of conservatives were fired. They were fired for voicing concerns over how people were being bullied. Then after those conservatives were fired, the conservatives who protested those firings were fired. And if you protested the bullying methodology, the Resurgent leaders accused you of being a liberal, not believing the Bible, and being against sound doctrine. This is the equivalent of calling people a “racist” when they disagree with you. Yet, this was standard Resurgent methodology. It was the same methodology the communists used in Russia to denounce as “capitalists”, “colonialists”, and “counter-revolutionaries” any communists who opposed the purges of Soviet methodologies. Yes, the Resurgent leaders used left-wing tactics. They used Saul Alinsky tactics. In personal conversations, the leaders admitted it. Old copies of Rules for Radicals appear in their personal libraries. They labeled anyone who disagreed with them a liberal and had them fired. And all the while they imposed domination upon the convention and created fear in the minds of anyone who raised concerns over their tactics, these Resurgent leaders promised an Evangelical Harvest would be the result. Did you really think that God was going to bless such bullying tactics? So, instead of the continued, rapid growth of the “moderate” convention, the SBC has experienced a severe decline. Membership and attendance have dropped. Seminary enrollment gutted. Baptisms declining year after year. Yet, while the SBC declined, the Resurgent leaders enriched themselves personally and built monuments in their own honor on the denomination’s dime. I’ve spoken with seminary professors – professors who signed and agree with the BFM2000, professors who have strong character and Christian faith – who said he was an ungodly bully with whom they wanted nothing to do. Others pointedly refused to say what they thought of him. They feared telling the truth, but they also feared telling a lie before God. And that’s where we are. The denominational leadership fears the Resurgent leaders even while they loath their tactics and the damage they’ve caused. There are still very godly men and women in the convention trying to do Kingdom work while keeping their heads down. You people now have a God-given opportunity to be rid of these bullies once and for all. You see, eventually the history of these Resurgent leaders, who they are, what they did, and the tactics they used will be written by those in the future who no longer fear them. It’s all going to come out. At the same time, the question is going to be asked, “Why did the SBC allow this to happen?” Staying silent and keeping your head down is not going to cut it. People are going to notice that you knew the character and tactics of these men, knew how much damage they were causing the SBC and the Kingdom of God, and, even when they were exposed to the world, still refused to hold them accountable. Believe me, the world has barely tapped the surface of the corruption that lies beneath the façade of doctrinal purity. And, again, it’s all going to come out. And the longer they’re there the more the world is going to investigate. The secular press, who would love to see the Church and the SBC diminished, are going to start looking into things, and they won’t need to mischaracterize anything. So you better seize this opportunity while you have it or you are going to share in Resurgent leader’s ruin. Haven’t these men caused enough damage?