Major Charismatic Denomination Biffs It On LGBTQXYZ and Communion

*Editorial Note: Pulpit & Pen continues in unrepentant sin and enabling of the ongoing sin of Jordan Hall. While it is my understanding that P&P does not plan to take down the content I contributed, any role I can play in reducing their traffic until they repent, I will. Thus I migrate this article here. 

If we can give some segments of the charismatic Christianoid world credit for anything, it’s their history of standing firm against the acceptance of the invasion of a militant homosexuality in our culture and the church. Dr. Michael Brown, a well-known figurehead of the charismatic movement, and popular author and writer at CharismaMag, has been very outspoken about this issue. Brown debated self-described “gay Christian” Matthew Vines, one of the leading false teachers of “gay Christian” theology, in which he stated:

When Moses wrote that it is an abomination for a man to have sex with another man, he didn’t add, “unless they’re committed to each other long term.”

Brown was a major leader in the Brownsville Revival, a counterfeit revival within the Assemblies of God. However, another major denomination, Vineyard USA, who broke away from the Calvary Chapel in the 80’s, has taken a very interesting position on sodomites in the Church. In a position paper, titled Pastoring LGBT Persons, put out by the denomination states the following regarding Communion:

Paul’s exhortation to the Vineyard today would be to discern the body, and to make sure to include everyone Christ includes. This means that drug addicts and alcoholics that haven’t kicked the habit, gays and lesbians that haven’t left the lifestyle, and divorced adulterers that are still with their mistresses are all welcome at the table if they sincerely desire to turn toward Jesus and place their lives under the faucet of God’s grace. What better place is there to go for someone trapped in sin and deceived by its sickness than the table of our Lord?

I don’t know about you, but I can think of a better place to go for someone like that – flat on one’s face in humble repentance at the foot of the cross.

This document, thus titled, was ostensibly intended to teach how to pastor people who choose to self-identify by their preferred sex partner(s) (rather than, say, as a follower of Jesus Christ). Already we have a problem – Vineyard USA is implicitly granting one of the premises of the gay agenda. Since the gay agenda has experienced such success in our culture as to make it common parlance, however, we shouldn’t make too much of this, though it represents a missed opportunity. There are bigger fish to fry, though.

Vineyard USA plays with fire as they explicitly endorse open communion, meaning that non-members can partake of the Lord’s Table whenever everyone has taken a break from
experiencing anointed worshiprolling around on the floor, making animal noises, and laughing uncontrollably. The Lord takes abuses of the Lord’s Table celebration pretty seriously, given His words in 1 Corinthians 11, but this position paper barely scratches the surface in giving proper warnings. Following a quote from John Wesley, the paper states:

The only fitness required is “…a sense of our utter sinfulness.” No other moral qualification is demanded before receiving communion.

This is errant Lord’s Table theology, but it points to something more fundamental and damnably dangerous. This is a paper about how to pastor LGBTQXYZ people, in a segment designed to teach how to handle communion with such folks. We must ask: How would the leadership of the church know that so-and-so is gay and living the gay lifestyle? The only way to know would be that the person has made it known, right? If the leadership were unaware, then this section (and indeed, the whole paper) is unnecessary and inapplicable. If they don’t know, then they just allow anyone to approach the Table (and let his blood be on his own head) and that’s that. But we are talking about whether known gay people can approach the Table.

Let’s grant hypothetically that God does not in fact bring down special wrath on those who take the Table and yet are in knowing and deliberate sin. When you know that someone is living in blatant rejection of the Word of God (for example, by living the gay lifestyle and identifying as such) but they want to come and take the Table anyway, that’s the problem – you are letting them pretend to be Christians, reconciled to God, in a very real and obvious way, when in fact they stand under His wrath and are not reconciled to God. You’re aiding and abetting their self-deception. Where is the call to repentance? Where is the sharing of the Gospel? How will they know they can be set free from this slavery, this captivity? The Lord’s Table is a spiritual reality that creates unity among the Body of Christ, and all Vineyard requires is a sense that one is a sinner? How about a hatred for sin that is an infallible product of the new birth?
Let me try to have some compassion here – I don’t want to pretend that it would necessarily be emotionally easy for a same-sex couple to break up. They have a twisted definition of love, yes, but their affections they have mistaken for love can doubtless be a strong emotional bond (though based on lies). The emotional angst produced in such a way would qualify as a trial and tribulation. What someone in a true biblical oversight role should do in this case would be to remind the person that such difficulties are meant to create perseverance and endurance: James 1:2-4, Romans 5:3-5. It’s meant to make them like Jesus and indeed serve as evidence of their salvation: Romans 6:11-18, 1 Peter 2:16, 2 Peter 1:10.

Also, while it may be emotionally trying to break up with one’s partner (whether a partner in same-sex or in heterosexual immorality), it’s not actually that hard. It’s unambiguous – move out. Call them to repent as you have done. If they won’t repent and are a temptation, stop seeing them. Block them on phone, Facebook, etc if necessary. This is a one-time event that is then perpetuated by staying away from that person.

But this paper gives no mention of how to actually shepherd these folks, but rather it jumps straight into a discussion of Lord’s Table theology without getting into the real nitty-gritty. Glaring and obvious matters which were definitely visible in this culture of death by 2014 are conspicuous by their absence. What does repentance look like? How can the person kill their sin consistently? How should they self-identify to other people, since calling oneself by one’s sinful propensities is inappropriate and unbiblical? Must they stop going to bars, being promiscuous, having gay sex, etc? What if they have been living together and they need to find other living quarters because they want to start actively hating their sin? What about transgender stuff? What about transvestism? What about same-sex couples that have adopted children?
That sort of content would be really helpful for the folks who call themselves LTBQXYZ. It’s a shame that a so-called “position paper” mostly serves to lead astray on such an important matter, when they expend so much energy on making sure they have big fancy sound systems and stages so their “anointed” heroes can attract thousands to hear gibberish they mutter into the microphones without an interpreter present.

One more praise from men won't hurt

Sometimes I think that once you pass a certain threshold in church membership, the temptation to think you don't need to be Christian anymore must be nearly unbearable, for it infects pretty much every big-church pastor type person. Which is why the hiss of the serpent is so unmistakable in church-growth strategies of which so many in the Southern Baptist Convention are so fond, like this one, which is basically inviting people toward less faithfulness in the guise of fulfilling "the mission of the church". The unspoken assumption is that the mission of the Invisible Universal Church is to make individual visible local churches bigger, rather than to make those individual VLCs more numerous, more faithful, and more bold in engaging the culture with salt and light.

Sigh. It's actually pretty disgusting when you think about it. "Here, let me give you eight extra-biblical ideas that will help you, Mr. Pastor Man, to get to a place where the vast majority of people in that position end up in self-glorification and a refusal to follow Jesus with any discernible fidelity and sacrifice."

Look around you - the evidence is everywhere. Today, I was stricken particularly by a photo tweeted by someone I don't know about a pastor I wish I didn't know about.

I had to take a moment to consider the sheer hubris and entirely unbiblical attitude that Johnny Hunt would have to have and foster for this highway to be a thing. How one gets to a place where he is willing to accept some place named after himself because he decided he wanted to disobey Jesus for a living

Matthew 23:5-12 -
"But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted."

and teach others to do the same

Matthew 18:6 - 
"whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."

is beyond me.

Luke 14:7-11 - 
And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests when He noticed how they had been picking out the places of honor at the table, saying to them, "When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not take the place of honor, for someone more distinguished than you may have been invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this man,’ and then in disgrace you proceed to occupy the last place. But when you are invited, go and recline at the last place, so that when the one who has invited you comes, he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher’; then you will have honor in the sight of all who are at the table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

This is bald-faced fawning - the man tweeting "feels anointed" (whatever that means; I'm sure it's something Bibley, since "feeling" and "anointed" are both words that appear in the Bible) (aren't Southern Baptists supposed to think that Scripture is a sufficient guide for faith?) for the mere reason that he passed a sign with the name of The Great Man, Former President of the Southern Baptist Convention. That might be all it takes before suddenly The Anointing falls.

Let's backtrack. Doesn't the Bible say stuff about how mere humans, creations of Almighty God who were helpless without His intervention and generosity, are supposed to be humble?

Prov 15:33 and 18:12, 2 Cor 4:5, Phil 2:3-4, James 4:6-8, and 1 Peter 5:5 all say so, while other passages like Acts 10:25-26, 14:14-17, and 20:18-21 give us some really good examples of what that would look like.

Check out Acts 10:25 - 
When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man."

So... in February 2012, the government of Georgia officially named that stretch of road after Hunt. "He’s been a real leader in the community for over 25 years now. He’s a real difference maker in the community," is what they said about him. The Guttmacher Institute says the following:

In Georgia, 197,300 of the 2,077,660 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2011. 67% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 18% in induced abortions.

Approximately 35,000 abortions in Georgia in 2011. That's nearly 100 per day in the state. It's 14 miles from the building that houses the "church" known as FBC Woodstock to a Planned Parenthood. What effect did Hunt's 20+ thousand-member church have on its operation? Does Planned Parenthood fear First Baptist Woodstock?

Of course they don't. That's just one example of what Hunt and his church won't do for the kingdom of God, but which they should be. Instead, they're apparently fine with naming highways after themselves and concerning themselves with the upkeep of their huge complex. Besides, making war against powers and principalities of the darkness can be bad for business. It can reduce your tithes and offerings, and it usually leads to the false converts in your church leaving and even turning against you, which means your attendance decreases, which means you don't get feted by the Southern Baptist Convention at every turn.

What has Hunt done to merit this obsequious fawning? Here's a better question - Does a godly, Christian attitude accept it? Does a holy character allow others to make much of them to such an embarrassing degree without taking them aside and insisting they stand up, for they too are merely a man, rather than cultivating or at least passively standing there while lesser men worship their hero, The Great Man, The Pastor, The Teaching Elder?

Here's what Hunt did:

He apparently is attempting a make a joke after having seen this outpouring of hero veneration. Hunt is so far down the road, has bought into his own hype so much, that he can't see what just happened. This man has just put him way up there on a pedestal. Hunt apparently doesn't stop to think
1) how far down it is from such a pedestal
2) how many others have fallen therefrom
3) because it's sinful to be up there

4) and so Jesus can get upset and discipline you (if you're His child) or throw you down (if you're a vessel of wrath and unrepentant) because He resists the proud
5) and also the man whose fawning exaltation Hunt accepts today will be that much more embittered and disappointed if that should happen, his having fallen from a lofty height.

Pride is dangerous and sometimes hard to see. A spiritually mature man, especially one in a highly visible position like Hunt (if it is indeed possible simultaneously to be spiritually mature and to let people call you "teacher", when Jesus explicitly told you not to, which is, come to think of it, highly doubtful) would be careful to go out of his way to turn back pride at every turn, rather than revel in his loftiness and how even those good old church boys in the Georgia Senate recognise his grandeur and brightness.



It gets even worse when I read about that very highway and then read more about the Georgia Baptist Convention from good brother Seth Dunn. It's no stretch to get from one sin to more sin, as we see Hunt move from self-exaltation toward accepting more exaltation from others toward becoming insecure about diminishing his glory in any way which leads to abusing those who want to speak truth to power.

At some point, what more can one say except to sigh, "Lord, how long?"

First Blood

---------------------------
UPDATE, 10 March 2017: 
Damon Rambo has made a public statement that looks mostly like repentance, so let's be gracious and give him credit for it. Combined with the fact that he has deleted the posts on his blog to which my own blogposts refer, I am noting the facts here in this update so that all may be informed of the current situation. Note that he has not taken down any comments on other blogs such as Gospel Spam, which probably means he has not done as rigorous and thorough a job of scrubbing his slanderous and wicked comments as I would ask if I had opportunity. Thus, my own posts will remain public and all links will point to Archive.org records of his posts until further notice. 
---------------------------

Damon Rambo is certainly doing his part to live out the title of his blog ("The Angry Pastor Blog"). The target of a recent hatchet job based almost entirely on ignorance, hearsay, unrighteous judgment, and poor reading comprehension is Abolish Human Abortion.

Apparently we're "rogue evangelists" and other unsavory labels.

The conversation continues in his combox, but I'll reproduce below the fold the comments so far, minus a string he deleted, which he says he did because they were redundant, which is not true of all of the content, but we can give him the benefit of the doubt if he leaves the other comments unmolested.

I don't get humans sometimes

RC Sproul Jr, for whom I have had a good deal of respect (though I'm unsure whether it's warranted), biffs it:

RCSJr: Were we motivated by God's glory alone our biggest concern about Steve Furtick would not be the square footage of his house.


ME: It's legitimate to be concerned with both. :-)
I am quite concerned that a pastor be qualified, and someone who lives in a huge mansion is going to have a hard time having a good reputation with outsiders, for one thing.
A pastor above all should take care about his appearance because he is the most obvious representative of the Gospel that many people see.
A pastor above all should eschew the apperance of overt wealth for that reason.

A large income is not the problem. Spending it on yourself is.


RCSJr: So Rho are you saying that having the appearance of wealth is having the appearance of evil? You are saying that having the appearance of wealth causes one to lose his good reputation? Is it possible for a believer to have a bad reputation with those outside the church, and still be qualified? I'm familiar with the text, and it certainly is true. But we need to understand what it is saying. If it is saying, "People in the world can't complain about you" then Jesus is not qualified. I would suggest that it actually means "People in the world can't legitimately complain about you." So, for instance, a man who doesn't pay his bills, or is unfaithful to his wife might legitimately have a bad reputation with the world around him. A man who has a big house, or who disapproves of sexual perversion, or abortion, might have a bad reputation with the world. But since he has done nothing wrong, it is actually persecution for righteousness sake, not disqualification for office. Hope that helps.

Finally Rho, where in the Bible does it say a man can't buy a big house for himself?


ME: Hello brother RC,

\\having the appearance of wealth is having the appearance of evil?\\

Pastors are supposedly men who love the next world more than they love the pleasures of this one. If a pastor is spending a whole lot of money on himself, what will outsiders think? They'll think he loves money, and they'll think hey doesn't Jesus say something about denying yourself and taking up your cross and all that? It hinders and doesn't help. So yes.

\\You are saying that having the appearance of wealth causes one to lose his good reputation?\\

In the eyes of quite a few, yes. I can't count how many times ppl have argued against the Gospel with "look at those rich preachers" with me personally.

\\ If it is saying, "People in the world can't complain about you" then Jesus is not qualified. \\

That's not what it's saying, as you well know.

\\I would suggest that it actually means "People in the world can't legitimately complain about you."\\

And we're not supposed to love the things of this world. Like 16K sq ft houses.

\\where in the Bible does it say a man can't buy a big house for himself?\\

The same place it says "God is a Trinity". That a PASTOR IN PARTICULAR ought to eschew such is an obvious inference from the numerous passages that warn us against loving wealth and seeking pleasures of this world.


RCSJr: Rho, how many square feet does a house have to have to be a thing of this world? And if pastors are not to have nice things, are non-pastors allowed to have nice things? If I invented a cure for cancer could how many square feet am I allowed to have? If I decide then to become a pastor, how much smaller of a house must I change to? In addition, am I allowed to marry a beautiful wife? Is that a "thing of this world?" Should pastors only marry ugly women, to prove to scoffers that their pleasures are in the next world? Now, suppose I move to Africa. Suppose I, having cured cancer, and earning billions in the marketplace, but having now become a missionary, may I have a 1000 square foot house, with running water, internet, electricity, even though my wealth might upset my unbelieving neighbors, or make them, who have none of these things, think I love the things of this world? I'm afraid your additions to the law of God here are not only unbiblical but unworkable. It is a bad thing to lust after money. It is a bad thing to depend on money. It is a bad thing to proudly display money, to see it as some sort of accomplishment to be proud of. It is not, however, a bad thing to earn money. And it is a wicked thing to fail to give thanks to God for all that he provides.


ME: \\how many square feet does a house have to have to be a thing of this world\\

I think that is a lot like asking how much cleavage has to be shown to be porn.
I don't have an answer but I know one family does not need 16k sq ft. Do you disagree?

\\ And if pastors are not to have nice things, are non-pastors allowed to have nice things?\\

I didn't say "no nice things". But pastors ought to pay VERY close attention.
Pastors are biblically held to a higher standard, so that's why.

\\If I decide then to become a pastor, how much smaller of a house must I change to?\\

I don't know but I should think that RETAINING a 16k sq ft house that one already had would be more defensible than BUILDING one once a pastor.

\\ Should pastors only marry ugly women, to prove to scoffers that their pleasures are in the next world?\\

1) It's not only scoffers. Real people have these issues with big rich fat cat pastors.
2) Who would deride someone for marrying a beautiful woman? Do you really know someone like that?

\\may I have a 1000 square foot house, with running water, internet, electricity, even though my wealth might upset my unbelieving neighbors, or make them, who have none of these things, think I love the things of this world?\\

Yes, the inevitable Africa argument. I don't think it's a good argument, however. Humans are a specific size and shape. 1000 sq ft is not excessive for one family. 16k is.

\\I'm afraid your additions to the law of God here are not only unbiblical but unworkable.\\

I don't believe I am adding to the law of God. I have referred to Jesus' and James' words on wealth and the qualis for pastors in Titus and 1 Tim.

\\It is a bad thing to depend on money.\\

But mansions are totally fine?
I don't understand what you're arguing here.

\\It is a bad thing to proudly display money, to see it as some sort of accomplishment to be proud of.\\

16,000 square feet!
Thousand! That's a lot.

\\It is not, however, a bad thing to earn money\\

Brother, EARNING money is not the issue here. SPENDING gobs of money on a HUGE HOUSE is the issue here.


RCSJr: Wish I knew how to do all that formatting you are doing. I don't know any families that need 16000 sq ft. But then I don't take the position that one can only have what one needs. You do. Since you are taking that position, it is incumbent on you to tell us how we can draw the right conclusions. If you take the porn, "you know it when you see it" approach, what do we do about that fact that me, and Mr. Furtick do not see it, but you do? You are going to judge him for how he spends his money? When did Mr. Furtick become big and fat? And a cat? And why are those bad things. You seem to suggest that it is a sin to be rich. Then you fail to see my point on Africa. Rich is a relative term. Would it be right for Africans to look down their noses at you because you have more sq ft per person than they do, very likely the gap between you and they is greater than the gap between you and Furtick? That is, a ten foot by ten foot shack, for a family of five in Africa provides 20 sq ft per person. If you are in a 1700 square foot home and have 5 people, that is 340 sq ft per person, 17 times as much. A 16,000 square foot home with 5 people affords 3200 sq st a person, less than 10 times more than the 1700 foot house.


ME: I just add \\ (above the Enter key) before and after, to point out the point I'm replying to in stepwise fashion. Nothing fancy.

I disagree but I think the conversation has run its course. In all sincerity, thank you for your time and thoughts, and I pray God's blessings on you.


RCSJr: Depending on money is a matter of the heart. It can be done by a guy in a shack, or a guy in a mansion. Displaying wealth can be done by a guy in a shack, or a guy in a mansion. But, if you give thanks for God's provision for your labors, pay your tithes, then no man can rightly judge you, whether you are in a shack or a mansion. Jesus' and James' warnings were directed against those who trust in their wealth, who make it their security, who are not grateful to God. But the Bible has plenty of godly men who were profoundly wealthy, and who enjoyed the wealth God gave them. And all of us, in eternity, will be immeasurably wealthy, living in mansions on streets of gold. That friend, means having wealth is not bad..


ME: \\having wealth is not bad..\\

Agreed there!


RCSJr: Finally, the point about ugly women you sidestepped. Who would deride someone for having a beautiful wife? The same people who would deride someone for being worldly simply because they have a large house. Beauty, like wealth, is fleeting. If having one is proof that you are guilty of overvaluing them, or enough to make you look guilty before the world in such a way as to disqualify you from the ministry, then the same is true of the other.


ME: Do you think you or the Scripure would have anything to say to a pastor who lives in a 60,000 sq ft house and owns 9 Rolls Royce's and drives them himself?


RCSJr: No. All things being equal, depending on howGod has blessed him, no. Why?


ME: It seriously would not disturb you to find a pastor who spent $10 million on a house and $1 million on cars for his own personal benefit and comfort? This is not about whether God has blessed him with that kind of wealth. This is about how he chose to spend it - on his own pleasures instead of the immense good he could've done toward practicing pure and undefined religion. Has not such a man already received his reward in full?


RCSJr: Rho, it seriously would not, not if he earned the money, paid his tithe etc. I don't believe in adding law to God's Word. If God would not judge him, I aspire to not judge him as well. Feel free to jack it up to a 600,000 foot house that costs a billion, and it won't change a thing.


ME: James 4:17 - Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

------------


I would certainly advise the good brother that, when confronted by an obviously ridiculous example like my last one, it's not a good idea to double down.