Pulpit & Pen blog - Caught in Ashley Madison Leak? Do Not Despair.

Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” But they said, “What is that to us? See to that yourself!” And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. -Matthew 27:3-5 –

So much Scripture could be cited to discuss the sad aftermath of the Ashley Madison affair. Reports are being published that men caught red-handed by the personal information upload are attempting to escape the guilt and shame by ending their earthly lives, thus bringing upon themselves the immediate judgment that Hebrews 9:27 describes (and very probably, the judgment that Revelation 21:8 describes for the cowardly and murderers).

You may find that, in God’s providence, this article appears before your eyes mere days after your own adulterous activities were laid bare for anyone to find. Perhaps you’ve been discovered already and your heart is full of fear, shame, and bitter poison today. Perhaps you are pretty sure it’s only a matter of time before someone peruses the data and finds your information. Perhaps you fear losing everything.

That is all part of the way God created and administers the universe and human affairs. We human beings think so much of our own cleverness and discretion. We deceive ourselves and move forward with the anticipation that we can hold it down, we can keep good secrets, we choose our friends carefully and portion out information according to great shrewdness… until the day when we find that our idolatry was part of a greater web of lies we tell ourselves and others.

Numbers 32:23 –
But if you will not do so, behold, you have sinned against the LORD, and be sure your sin will find you out.

Matthew 10:26 –
Therefore do not fear them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.

Matthew 12:35-37 –
The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil. But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Sooner or later, your sin will be brought to light. You might hold that light at bay for 80 years, the length of your very mortal life. If so, let me offer you a word of sarcastic congratulations; your standing command is to glorify your Creator and spread His Word, and instead you elected to store up power for and exalt yourself (Luke 12:13-21). “You had one job”, as it were, and you discarded it for the sake of that which will crumble into dust (Matthew 6:19-21), relationships that will be forgotten, achievements that will burn up (2 Peter 3:10-13), and voices that will serve as witnesses against you on that great and terrible day when you stand before your Creator to be judged (Revelation 20:11-15).
If your name is on that Ashley Madison list (as well as if it isn’t), here is what your Creator and Judge is commanding you to do:

1) Grieve, mourn, and wail.

James 4:4-10 –
You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God…Therefore it says, “GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE.” Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be miserable and mourn and weep; let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you.

2) Repent.

Mark 1:14-15 – Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”
Acts 3:19 – Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.

3) Check your repentance and examine yourself, for there is more than one kind of repentance.

2 Corinthians 7:8-11 – For though I caused you sorrow by my letter, I do not regret it; though I did regret it—for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while— I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful, but that you were made sorrowful to the point of repentance; for you were made sorrowful according to the will of God, so that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow that is according to the will of God produces a repentance without regret, leading to salvation, but the sorrow of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow, has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter.

4) By *NO* means think that suicide is an answer that holds any good, any promise of escape, or any possible relief.
To think such a thing is to ignore the whole Word of God and to engage in the worst kind of self-destructive self-deception, and to give the devil as much victory in your life as it is possible for him to have. We saw earlier that Judas’ remorse did not lead him to tears and to redemption. It led to his suicide.
And what happened after Judas killed himself? He, like all other cowardly murderers, went to Hell. Forever. There is no relief, ever, from anything in Hell. Lay aside for a moment all the harm that the self-murderer inflicts through his action on anyone who loves him. Just being in Hell is worse in every way than even the most horrific sufferings that anyone can imagine on Earth, which is why Jesus cautions us that it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and yet lose his soul (Matthew 16:26). How much less a good thing is it to lose everything and in response to that, lose one’s soul, as Judas did?

5) Fall on the mercy of Jesus. Fall down at the Cross. Beg Jesus to save you and make you new.
The life of Peter, which we’ll look at in a moment, is instructive in this. Look at King David for now, though. He and God were tight. Had everything going for him. Then he did the Ashley Madison subscribers one better – he was king and saw a woman he lusted after, and she was married, but he was the king and so what? and so he took her, pure and simple.
Then he murdered her husband to simplify the matter.
Then he delayed months.
Then he was caught.
Then he repented.
He mourned and wept. He fasted. He prayed. He humbled himself. He confessed.
The Lord disciplined him.
Then the Lord restored him.
David wrote Psalm 51. Go read it. But that’s not the end of the story.
Some years passed and David sinned again. See above.
Then he did it again. And then again.

Lamentations 3:39-40 – Why should any living mortal, or any man, offer complaint in view of his sins? Let us examine and probe our ways, and let us return to the LORD.

And there’s the answer. Return to the Lord. Your ugliest sin demands the ugliest death imaginable, and yet there too God has provided. Jesus, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God without blemish or stain, was tortured, abused, and messily murdered to set the vilest sinner free.
Jesus cleans.
Jesus redeems.
Jesus restores.
Jesus can make your life into something worth living, because He Himself is the only One worth living for. He has eternal life in His hands, and He has defeated the most humiliating and undeserved death conceivable, through His victorious resurrection from the dead. He is able to make you clean and to restore you.
Jesus’ close friend Peter found that out.

Matthew 26:69-75 – Now Peter was sitting outside in the courtyard, and a servant-girl came to him and said, “You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” But he denied it before them all, saying, “I do not know what you are talking about.” When he had gone out to the gateway, another servant-girl saw him and said to those who were there, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth.” And again he denied it with an oath, “I do not know the man.” A little later the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.” Then he began to curse and swear, “I do not know the man!” And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, “Before a rooster crows, you will deny Me three times.” And he went out and wept bitterly.

But did Peter kill himself? No! Read on…

John 21:15-19 –
Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”… When He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”

This is the testimony that same Peter gave near the end of his life, looking back on the indescribable mercy of the Son of God. You have sinned, as Peter did. Let this be your testimony too. Cling to it. Repent. Let go of your pride. Confess your sin fully. Be set free. Walk in the light. Follow Him.

1 Peter 1:3-9 –
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of your souls.

Relationship evangelism

Jason Engwer made the following excellent observation:

I recently heard somebody commenting on how Christians often use Facebook, Twitter, and other media to do things like post photographs of their children and discuss sporting events, yet say nothing about subjects like God and the Bible. I've been astonished by how many people's Facebook accounts are a form of evangelization for secularism... They have so much to say about their children and grandchildren, friends, music, movies, television, sports, their jobs, politics, travel, food, etc., but so little to say, if anything, about matters like God, theology, and apologetics. When people see something like your Facebook account, blog, or Twitter page, do they see a secular, or nearly secular, lifestyle?

I'd disclaim that there are very important matters we should be discussing, and a lot, other than theology and apologetics, such as national sin, Christian obligation in response, and how we are confronting the culture with the Gospel. But a charitable reading of Engwer's remark could subsume those things under his having mentioned God, so let's let that go.

A friend responded on my Facebook wall:

It is called relationship evangelism. I see Facebook as a tool to build relationships. When you build a relationship with someone and get a deep look into their everyday lives, then people feel comfortable coming to you and talking to you about other things including religious beliefs. Why would anyone want to come to you for support if they feel you are going to judge them?

We let others know we are sinners too and our hope for a better tomorrow doesn't come from what we do but instead because of what Christ did for us.

I am not a better person because I go to church, abstain from certain things, or preach more than someone else. I am a better person because my heart is right with God because of what He did, not because of what I do.

"In the last days many will come to Me saying, didn't we preach in your name, heal the sick, raise the dead, and I will say to them, depart from me I never knew you" Jesus said.

We have to be careful that we do not preach to be seen by men but only speak to people as led by God. If a person's motive for posting is so others see you as a "good Christian" they will have their reward with men. If their motive for posting is because the Holy Spirit put it on their heart, the reward will be from God.

I have serious, serious reservations about this notion of "relationship evangelism". A few reasons why:
1) By aiming not to offend with too much overt Jesus, you show that you are willing to not be all about Jesus pretty much all the time. And that provides an example for others to follow. They can justify also not being all about Jesus because you aren't.
2) Most of the time, "relationship evangelism" is used an excuse NOT to share the Gospel. People never get around to it.
3) When/if you do get around to it, how credible will your profession to love Jesus be since you rarely talk about His being the King of your life?
4) Relating to people is not exclusive to being overtly all about Jesus. What you're actually doing is relating to people who are not convicted of their sin, while those who just might be convicted of their sin don't know that you are all about Jesus because you don't act or talk like you're all about Jesus. You're dealing with swine, in that case, and not even finding out that they're swine.
5) How can you avoid talking about Jesus all the time if you belong to Him? Where is your heart?
6) Where in the Bible do we ever see anything that looks like the relationship "evangelism" you propose?
7) When *do* you preach the Gospel? When you said "preach", did you mean "talk to someone one on one"? Did you (God forbid) mean something that a "pastor" does on Sunday mornings within the walls of a church building?
8) How is it the act of a friend to withhold the most important message that you have ever heard from them, the only news that can save them from Hell and eternally suffering the wrath of God?

You said:
\\I am a better person because my heart is right with God because of what He did not because of what I do.\\

I'd be really careful with that sort of language. You're not better. Anything good that you have or are you received from God by pure grace. It would be far better to say "I am better off". Saying "I am a better person" calls attention to yourself rather than Jesus.

You said:
\\We have to be careful that we do not preach to be seen by men\\

True, but ironically, your notion of relationship "evangelism" *AVOIDS* preaching so as to be seen (and esteemed) by men.

The negligible danger of making evangelism one's mistress

UPDATE: Tony Miano is on a downward slide into a very dangerous spiritual position and is leading his family down that path as well. As I said in my review of his book, "I sometimes honestly fear for him at the time when (not if) the elder(s) of his church fail him."
Well, now I fear for him even more. See here and then more importantly here. Lord have mercy. He who has presumed to lecture so many, block them on social media, and sow division between them and other believers on the basis of ecclesiology, "pastoral authority", "the authority of the local church", and whether one has been "sent" to do evangelism has shown himself to be an immature nomad, tossed about by winds and waves of doctrine.
Psalm 9:15 - The nations have sunk down in the pit which they have made; In the net which they hid, their own foot has been caught.
Proverbs 29:6 - By transgression an evil man is ensnared, But the righteous sings and rejoices.

And yet...
Proverbs 24:17-18 - Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles; or the LORD will see it and be displeased, and turn His anger away from him.

Pray for the man. Pray he will repent of all his bombastic rhetoric and realise the massive piles of hypocrisy in which he has engaged the last few years.
=======================================

Certain street preachers of some popularity take every opportunity they can, it seems, to warn their readers/listeners against making evangelism and open-air preaching a "mistress" (here for example) and thus neglecting family, marriage, and the more "mundane" (as it were) aspects of church membership.
Yes, that happens, here and there. Yes, nobody should neglect their family or other responsibilities while they do other good things. Yes, it is a warning well taken. Yes, it should be stated here and there.
But is that a relevant warning to the vast, vast majority of professing Christians in America? Are we in the middle of a huge movement of men spending forty hours per week at work and then another forty out on the street or at the abortion mill preaching and evangelising while their families languish at home? No.
So, forget a "huge movement" - are we witnessing even a significant minority of the professing Christians of America doing so or anything close to it? No.
As conceded above, of course to do such a thing would be bad and sinful. But there's something else that is bad and sinful, which *is* in fact a vice shared by the vast, vast majority of professing Christians in America - a profound and vast complacency vis-à-vis the fact that people, BY THE THOUSANDS, are dying and going to Hell and murdering their babies, every single day, and that same vast, vast majority is doing nothing about it while they pursue their leisure, vacations, book studies, sports and fantasy sports, and potlucks.
These men are like doctors who during your annual checkup make a big deal out of your chronically stuffy nose while not even mentioning the fact that your aorta is 99% blocked and that your blood pressure and cholesterol are way too high. Upon coming to one's senses and a full realisation of the actual situation and its dangers, one would abandon that physician and warn others about his neglect and/or incompetence.

Church Fathers

(This is intended as a companion piece to Dustin Germain's excellent article.)

People everywhere within Christendom want to claim the "Church Fathers" as supporters of their own position. Eastern Orthodox cite Chrysostom against Rome, which counter-cites (sometimes-imaginary quotes from) Augustine, whom Protestants then cite against Rome, who then counter-cites Irenæus, who then gets claimed by the Eastern Orthodox... on and on it goes.

For the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, it's understandable that they do this, for a few reasons. One is that their concept of spiritual authority is pretty murky and leaves room for "Church Fathers" to hold sway in persuading people. If Basil of Cæsarea believed it, well, who am I to question such a Great Man? Another is that for a great deal of the distinctive doctrines of Rome and the East, there is no legitimate or remotely convincing biblical proof, so really all they have are quotes from church history and naked appeals to their own authority.

But for the adherent to Sola Scriptura, the usage of the appellation "Church Father" is puzzling and unnecessary and should be jettisoned. Further, Sola Scripturists ought to take great care in how they cite "Church Fathers", for what reason, and in which context. Let's explore this more.

First of all, the word "Father" has to do with generation and origin, parenthood. In no way are any of the men usually referred to as "Church Fathers" actually fathers of The Church. The Father of The Church is God the Father. The Founder of The Church is Jesus Christ. He who inducts people into The Church is the Holy Spirit.
Jesus handpicked men who would be the first preachers of His Church. Their names are recorded in the Gospel accounts and Acts. There are twelve of them, give or take one.
"And He went up on the mountain and summoned those whom He Himself wanted, and they came to Him. And He appointed twelve, so that they would be with Him and that He could send them out to preach, and to have authority to cast out the demons. And He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom He gave the name Peter), and James, the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James (to them He gave the name Boanerges, which means, “Sons of Thunder”); and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Zealot..."
--Mark 3:13-18

Throw in Paul and maybe Matthias, subtract Judas, and you have your human Church Fathers.

Second, there is no reason for confidence that we in modern times, so far removed from the context in which these "Church Fathers" lived, taught, and wrote, have sufficient understanding of their writings. Here are some challenges to hubristic overestimation of what can be gleaned for our use today from their extant writings:

Greek, and the imaginary biblical support for the office of deacon

Translator bias is a very real possibility when we evaluate Bible versions, and that bias can have very substantial and practical implications for how we live and do church, who believe the Bible to be the Word of God.

Consider the case of perhaps the grossest bias I have yet discovered in my years of reading the Bible among Bible translations that are usually considered to be reliable, conservative texts, leaning much more toward formal equivalency than dynamic - that of the inconsistent treatment of the word διάκονος (diakonos) (a noun) and its verb form διακονέω (diakoneō) in the major English versions.

The English word "deacon" is usually explained as a transliteration of the noun diakonos from Greek into English. I lack the resources to dig into the etymological history of the word "deacon", but suffice it to say for our purposes that it appears as early as the Wycliffe Bible, and that probably means it had been part of regular ecclesiastical English usage for quite some time before. I would not be surprised at all to find that it is a holdover from Roman Catholic language, thoughtlessly brought over into the Reformation tradition by men who got much right but also left much unreformed.

I will argue that this traditional language has slipped past the guard not only of pastors and religious service providers, lecturers, and theologians of the past 500 years or so, but even worse, past the guard of Bible translators. I can see no sound reason why either of these Greek words ought ever to be translated with the word "deacon" in any English text of the Bible. To claim "deacon" belongs there is to hold to this translating tradition that is actually at odds with consistent translation and contextual practice. The conclusion that it is translated this way in all these Bibles because of the tradition-colored bias of the translators is very hard to escape.

The Data

In the Greek NT, there are 27 occurrences of διάκονος. The NASB renders those as "minister" or "servant" every single time except Philippians 1:1 and 1 Timothy 3:8 and 3:12. The ESV similarly says "deacon" only those three times and "minister" or "servant" every other time except Matt 22:13, where it reads "attendants".

In the Greek NT, διακονέω (which is the verb form, you'll recall) appears 32 times. The NASB and ESV render those as "administer", "minister", "wait on", "serve", "take care of", and suchlike. They read "serve as deacon" only twice, in 1 Timothy 3:10 and 3:13.

Thus we find that the NASB and ESV translators continued an established tradition, whose backing we will go on to question, that led them to render 11% of the occurrences of διάκονος as "deacon" and 6% of the occurrences of διακονέω as "serve as deacon". That's a very small amount; when the majority of the translations of a given word are a more general word like "servant" or "minister", but in certain situations one wants to change it to something more specific, one needs a good argument to do so, whether etymological, contextual, whatever.

All the New Testament occurrences of each word can be found at Blue Letter Bible, which is a wonderfully helpful resource:
--διάκονος
--διακονέω

Thus you can review each text in context. It will probably also be helpful to take a look at διακονία, "ministry", which has the same root, a very close relationship to the other two, and note how many times (out of 34 occurrences) it is translated with anything like "office" or "deacon" (never).

Now, let's take a look at some specifics.

The Epistles to Timothy

Of some note is the fact that neither render διάκονος as "deacon" in 2 Tim 1:18, despite the fact that it's the same author as 1 Timothy, Paul, writing to the same recipient, Timothy. Why the different translation?

Even more noteworthy is the same phenomenon in 1 Timothy 4:6. Note the way the  NASB translates the three verses in 1 Timothy that employ διάκονος:
--1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain...
--1 Timothy 3:12 - Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households.
--1 Timothy 4:6 - In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following.

Here in the very same letter, just a few sentences down from the other two appearances of διάκονος, the NASB translators use a different English word. One may object that the context calls for that different word. Fine; I invite anyone to show me how the context is appreciably different such that one could know that Paul is referring to some sort of specialised office or something that demands the creation of a new English word in the third chapter, but just a little later when identifying what Timothy will be if he does these things, suddenly it's a different meaning entirely. I don't think that argument is sustainable. The only reason one would say this is if he had a pre-existing commitment to the existence of a thing called "the office of deacon". The Greek text certainly doesn't lead anyone to that conclusion, taken by itself, which is pretty much what we're supposed to do if we want to go ad fontes as good Sola Scripturists.

Just Who Is A διάκονος?

I don't see a reason not to render διάκονος consistently across the board. To whom is διάκονος applied in the New Testament?

--Phoebe (Rom 16:1)
--Tychicus (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7)
--Epaphras (Col 1:7)
--Apollos (1 Cor 3:5)

Interestingly, I think most people would think of Apollos as more of a teacher or something, and that doesn't fit the traditional "deacon" role.

But it gets better.
--Old Testament prophets (1 Peter 1:12)
--Paul (1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Col 1:23-25)
--Jesus (Rom 15:8)

So, does the word mean "deacon" or doesn't it? If you're going to go to the trouble of creating a new English word (back 600+ years ago when it was created, I mean), why wouldn't you apply it to every occurrence? Are these people deacons or not? I can't think of anyone who would contend that they are, with the possible exception of Phoebe. Phoebe is often the center of "can women be deaconesses?" debates, and of course the reasoning behind those debates is that there is an office called "deacon" in the New Testament.

But wait, there's more!

Not only are these individuals referred to with διάκονος; other individuals such as Onesimus (Philemon 13), as well as all believers, are said to engage in διακονέω (the verb), in Hebrews 6:10 and 1 Peter 4:10-11! If Phoebe is possibly a deacon, then so are Jesus, Paul, Apollos, Amos, Jeremiah, Daniel, and everyone else who believes in Jesus.

Also, don't forget that Jesus Himself said that the greatest among His disciples shall be διάκονος (Matthew 23:11). One wonders, then, why deacons don't occupy such a lofty position in modern churches, as usually it's the pastor who's the greatest among the disciples.

A Third Church Office

Now that we mention 1 Peter 4:10-11, it would appear we have approximately equal biblical support for saying that "steward" is an office in the church.

As each one has received a special gift, employ it in serving one another as good stewards of the manifold grace of God. Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves (διακονέω) is to do so as one who is serving (διακονέω) by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (1 Peter 4:10-11)

If we're going to go around willy-nilly creating church offices out of thin air based on isolated passages in which we translate words in a way that is inconsistent with the way we translate it everywhere else, why not do that with "steward" (οἰκονόμος), given the way Peter uses it here in 1 Peter 4, in the context of local church life?

What's the difference? It is that "steward", in the course of medieval Roman Catholic and proto-Protestant history, never came to be thought of as an office. If it had, I have no doubt the modern pastoral zeitgeist would ensure we're all teaching and seeking men to fill the three church offices of which the New Testament speaks, and there would be whole sermons where the Scripture is butchered to "support" the establishment of the office of steward as we now see for the office of deacon.

You see, holding a church office allows men to feel important and achieve recognition, which is a basic (and usually sinful) human desire. It also allows for people to, when convenient, parry questions about their behavior and teaching, since they have a Badge of Ecclesiastical Approval, to which the hypothetical inquiring "layperson" has not attained. It's the "Touch Not God's Anointed" syndrome, which is common, many claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Deacons and Women

Further evidence that the Apostle Paul meant something other than to be setting out "qualifications" for "church offices" in 1 Timothy 3 appears in verse 11.

The claim is that Paul is saying "if a man has the following qualities, he can be a candidate for the office of 'overseer/elder/pastor/bishop/presbyter/whatever else' or of 'deacon'." While this is less a question of translation proper, it raises questions with reference to the backing tradition that brought the translation about that included "deacon". If these are indeed qualifications for offices, why do we see parallel sentence structures in verses 2, 8, and 11?

Verse 2 - An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach

Verse 8 - Deacons likewise must be men of dignity, not double-tongued, or addicted to much wine or fond of sordid gain,

Verse 11 - Women must likewise be dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things.

Is "woman" a church office? I know of no one who thinks so, but one of the most significant arguments in favor of these church offices is the language in 1 Timothy 3, and if "overseer" and "deacon" are offices, then "woman" would seem to be one as well.

A Better Suggestion

Bible translations ought to communicate as clearly and faithfully as possible the meaning of the original language text. I'll just say it like it is - inserting the word "deacon" in 1 Timothy 3 and Philippians 1, instead of sticking with what διάκονος actually means, which is "minister" or "servant", is an unhelpful and false translation that stems from the traditions of man rather than properly passing on the meaning of the Greek text.

The inconsistencies we have seen already. Of course it is preposterous that Jesus be a deacon. Of course it is preposterous that all women hold a "church office", leaving churches that are majority "clergy" and minority "laypeople". That's the point. Whoever it was who thought of the word "deacon" should have cared about these points, enough to not transliterate διάκονος into English. Later translators should have corrected that error - such a thing has been done numerous times, but not in this case. Rather, translators and theologians and the like have, up to this very day, perpetuated and promulgated this mistaken notion and thus led churches into error.

My proposal is simple - remove "deacon" from the English text and replace it with "minister" or "servant", like the word is translated in pretty much every other occurrence. Let us rejoice that the Lord has given us yet another opportunity to be semper reformanda and throwing off the false practices, structures, and teachings that Rome bequeathed to us.

Then, let's consider what 1 Timothy 3 actually means, since it doesn't mean "holder of a church office called 'deacon'", bear fruit in keeping with repentance, walk in the truth in all things, and reform our churches to match true biblical teaching.

Pulpit & Pen blog - Murderers Are Bad People?!?!?!?!!?

So you’re outraged that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts that they harvest from the unborn humans they get paid to murder?
Good! It IS outrageous!

But is your reaction partly fueled by the fact that Planned Parenthood is funded by your tax dollars and you have financial and economic concerns? In two weeks, after you’ve vented on Facebook, and told everyone how outrageous this is, what will you have changed in your life to reflect your outrage?
Will you begin to publicly speak out against the unborn Holocaust?
Will you visit clinics and call out to women with the Gospel and offers of assistance?
Or will you pour out all your outrage upon your keyboard or smart phone and then go back to blissful ignorance, in your comfortable living room, ensconced in your leisure and your hobbies, and safe in your religious bunker, behind the walls of the religious edifice you irreverently and incorrectly call “a church”?
Will you repent from your apathy and call your brothers and sisters to do the same?
Will you repent of your age-ism?

Let me explain what I mean by “age-ism” here. It is the same flawed thinking that leads to

• committing in-vitro fertilization
• turning a blind eye to IVF’s practice
• accepting IVF in your family or congregation
• thinking that while abortion is bad, partial-birth abortion is REALLY bad
• supporting bills that say it’s OK to murder babies that are less than __ weeks old but not OK if the baby is old enough

As racism is prejudicial discrimination against human beings created in the image of God due to their ethnicity, and/or the color of their skin, so age-ism is prejudicial discrimination against human beings created in the image of God due to their age and size. Age-ism is expressed in many different ways, and believe me, I’m not claiming to be perfect in this regard! But let us all walk in repentance of our errors once light from the Word of God is shone on them.
In-vitro fertilization supplies the embryonic stem cell research establishment, not with human body parts, but with live human beings to be treated as lab rats.

While we are all slacktivistically clicking to Share the latest outrageous action on Planned Murderhood’s part, we are missing it along with virtually all our conservative pastors, conservative politicians, and conservative media personalities. That is what happens when moral outrage becomes a hobby, not righteous anger, loving what God loves and hating what God hates. We can applaud the latest governor or Senator vowing to “investigate PP”. What’s he going to find that’s more gruesome than murdering little children? If that man had the true fear of God in him, he’d use all the power of his office to end murder in his jurisdiction, not just end Planned Parenthood’s failure to murder according the pro-life regulations in place.

You see, Planned Murderhood is not the problem. Focusing on defunding or abolishing Planned Murderhood is the equivalent of cramming Kleenex in your nostrils to stop your nosebleed while you are dying from leukemia. It’s the proverbial band-aid applied atop the lethal illness. Neither is getting 0bama out of office, even through impeachment, or even imprisoning him (or handing him over to justified execution at the hands of the government whose laws he has so willfully violated again and again) (and make no mistake, if our government loved the law of God, that’s precisely what they’d do), or removing most or all of the members of SCOTUS from the bench.

The problem is that the professing churches of the United States of America, the professing, visible people of God, have lost their saltiness and their brightness. Instead of taking up our crosses to put our fleshly lusts and priorities to death, we have redefined what Jesus wants and neglected weightier matters of the law – justice and mercy – in favor of all sorts of pursuits of Christian liberty and the leisure that our comfortable bourgeois American lifestyle affords us. And there are lots of other pursuits of “Christian liberty” than just smoking pipes, brewing and drinking craft beers, and ensconcing ourselves deep in superhero movies.
Being moved to action or compassion by the knowledge that the parts of murdered babies are being sold on the black market or seeking to fight child sacrifice by exposing the fact that professional murderers are immoral in other ways is just plain silly. That is, it is silly if you are at the same time supporting or ignoring laws that protect the right to murder babies so long as they are not 20 weeks old or the children of wicked men.

Stop fighting abortion for any other reason than that it is murder. And stop not fighting abortion. It is child sacrifice. As RC Sproul Jr says, it is impossible to overreact to this gross injustice, this amazing violation of the love of neighbor and of the image of God in human beings.

Wake up! Obeying God’s commands to love Him and your neighbor IS the main thing! Take this opportunity these undercover reporters handed you to repent and go in the power of the Holy Spirit to be salty and bright in this culture of death. Yes, read your books and your Bible, and then DO WHAT THEY SAY.

But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was. But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does. –James 1:22-25

If you are slack in the day of distress, your strength is limited.
Deliver those who are being taken away to death, and those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold them back.
If you say, “See, we did not know this,” does He not consider it who weighs the hearts? And does He not know it who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?
–Proverbs 24:10-12

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.
–Proverbs 31:8-9

What Abolitionists Do - Why Incrementalist Critics Can't Have It Both Ways

Tchividjian, Sin, and the Cult of Celebrity

So by now you are probably aware of the news surrounding Tullian Tchividjian. Judging by the fact that the various attempted spellings of his name combined to be the second most numerous Google search term for a time a couple of days ago, a lot of other people are too.

Numerous discussions have already been had of Tchividjian’s soteriology and hamartiology (not to mention his associations), which sometimes appear to be staring wistfully over the border into Antinomianism (and other times go ahead and execute full-blown insurgencies therein). In the wake of the holiness fail of this very prominent proponent of this sort of strain of Reformed theology, it can be tempting to rehash it all again.

Yet I urge resistance to that temptation. The fall into sin of a proponent of a given theology does not necessarily have any connection to the propriety and truth of that theology any more than the fact that Mormons often give off a very shiny, happy, holy veneer while they hawk their gross polytheism.

Rather, let’s look at three other, different angles to this sad saga, all inter-related.


BIG NAMES HANGING WITH BIG NAMES

It’s hardly unique to Tchividjian to be a Big Name, and he is of course hardly the only Big Name to hang out extensively with other Big Names in places and situations in which Big Names get together to hang out.

In current evangelical culture, conferences and book deals abound, making celebrities of people who may or may not originally have sought to be celebrity. If you land one of these book deals and get booked for some conferences, it is still possible to avoid the celebrity limelight, but you have to be intentional about it.

And when your job title is “Pastor”, rather than “Itinerant and Part-Time Sunday Lecturer” (which is a more accurate descriptor of what someone like this actually does), is it not at minimum a measure of disingenuousness NOT to change that title? Why wouldn’t someone do that who is actually a partly-itinerant lecturer? I think I know why. It’s because the title “Pastor” holds a great appeal, and once one has it, one can easily become loathe to let go of it. Open your eyes – this is all around you. People afford more respect when one bears that title. When one is a “Pastor”, one gets the respectful greetings not only in the marketplace but also in the conferences. One gets the best seats, not only on stage but also at the luncheons and prayer breakfasts. That’s why one doesn’t divest oneself of the trappings though the substance is lacking.

This is the reality, really, of someone who has made The Big Time nationally and internationally as well as having an enormous congregation, one tenth of whom you could never hope to know well. But that lack of relationship is made up for in the minds of many due to the fact that they can say or think, “My pastor was on ___ show last week”, “My pastor’s book is selling ___ thousand copies per month and was on the NY Times bestseller list”, “My pastor preached to __ thousand people last week and __ people made decisions for Christ”, or something similar. It becomes an insidious thing, this kingdom that you, The Big Time Pastor, are building.


THE FOOLISHNESS OF MAKING PUBLIC STATEMENTS ABOUT THIS SORT OF THING

And that status can all too easily lead to thinking that you have some sort of responsibility to the general public to communicate details about your sin (especially in your most intimate interpersonal relationship[s]), should you fall into sin in a readily apparent way, that you probably shouldn’t communicate.
Tchividjian provides a sadly outstanding example thereof.

• It is announced he has had a moral failing.
• He says basically – I returned from a trip and found that my wife had been having an affair. (Translation: It’s her fault first.)
• I responded badly.
• I resign.
• Pray for us.

But get this – his wife then contacts the Washington Post and says, quote: “The statement reflected my husband’s opinions but not my own.”

Friends, this statement and its implications terrify me more than all the rest of the sad event put together. Tchividjian went public about his marriage and its troubles without working with the woman who is still supposed to be his wife, his partner, his helpmate/meet, his closest confidante, to not only present a united front but to actually be one! And then she rebuffed him, in public, to a secular news outlet! They are now not partners but rather, at minimum, debate opponents.

This is a very, very grievous turn of events. I believe it reflects Tchividjian’s intention of retaining a protective barrier around what remains of his pastoral reputation. Hey, at least he didn’t strike the first obvious blog against his marriage. That woman God gave me – she’s the one to blame.

This is what a Big Name would do, but it’s not what a Christian should do, and it’s a horrible example to follow. Someone who pretends to be a pastor ought in all things to strive not only to say right things (i.e., to teach well) but also to set the right example, probably the latter more than the former. “Be hearers of the word, not merely doers” and “in speech, conduct, love, faith and purity, show yourself an example of those who believe” says the Bible. “I can’t hear you ‘cause your actions are speaking too loud,” says conventional wisdom.


WHERE IS THE LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY?

And all of that is connected to what appears to be a lack of local connectedness. Sure, the man can tweet pictures of his spacious and well-appointed office in his church building, showing that he’s physically present there at least sometimes.
And yet when trouble really crashed down on him, what do we see?

“My family and I are members at Coral Ridge Presbyterian church where the senior pastor is Tullian Tchividjian. We have many elders. A few weeks ago, the elders told the church that Pastor Tullian was going to take a sabbatical for some time in order to tend to family issues. They assured the church that this wasn’t a matter of disqualification, and they’d keep us updated. Today was that update. Apparently, Paul Tripp flew down to counsel Tullian and his wife, and Paul walked away from it finding no reason to disqualify Pastor Tullian from the preaching ministry. However, a few days later, Tullian resigned, disclosing that he had in fact had an extramarital relationship.” (Source)

I know Tripp is well-respected and all, probably a wise man. I thought he had useful things to add in a DVD series on marriage to which he contributed that I once watched, and I’ve read some of his writings. Well and good. What is he doing “flying down” to counsel with Tchividjian in the midst of this crisis? Where are the rest of the elders? Where are Tchividjian’s local friends and brothers in the faith? To whom could he pour out his heart who really knew him? Is this why he fell into that inappropriate relationship with the female friend – because he didn’t have any male friends?

Questions abound, few of them with any promising answers.

Beware fame and the praise of men. If someone in your church has it, especially your pastor, if you love him you will warn him and hold him accountable, even perhaps turning him back from a path that seems good to man but whose end is death.

“Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him, for fear that they would be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God.”
—John 12:42-43

Gregg Cunningham and a Gospel-less Debate

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/06/gregg-cunningham-and-gospel-less-debate.html

Pulpit & Pen blog - Why Lifeway Sells Contraband

Why is it that the big shots of the Southern Baptist Convention don’t bat an eye when clear and obvious evidence is presented to them that their publishing arm sells heresy such as JoelO and TD Jakes and Joyce Meyer? Don’t they know that these people who are presented as teachers to the evanjellyfish world are poisonous snakes and false teachers who will lead their adherents straight to Hell?

Let me venture a hypothesis on that topic. It’s not because they are ignorant. It’s not because they are fine and godly strategists. It’s not because they know better and have good reasons for what they do; how could they?
It’s because, at the heart, they don’t actually disagree with JoelO and Jakes and Meyer.

These men act the way they do because they aspire to be like Joel Osteen and TD Jakes when they grow up.

What is holding them back? It could be any number of things. The tradition in which they grew up, too far a distance from which they are loathe to wander. The daunting task of raising up a new posse of sycophants whom they might lose if they let too much of their true selves be known (though in this I might be giving said entourages too much credit). The prudence of not intruding on another man’s turf when there’s plenty of gain ripe for the taking on this side of the fence.

I know what their reasons are not.

• A desire to be faithful to Jesus. How could it be when they not only don’t live out the examples of the apostles and prophets, but they in fact fit quite nicely the role of those who opposed them?
• A zeal for biblical teaching. Which is easier – to hold an unpopular opinion, or to make that opinion known and to live it out consistently in the face of adversity? Yet these men don’t even try, don’t even stick up for the consistent proclamation of the correct propositions to the people for whom they claim they are spiritually responsible.
• Loving pastoral care that the people who look up to them would know Jesus well. If it were, they would show what it means to follow Jesus. They would set an example of self-sacrifice rather than Armani suits, big time travel arrangements and conference appointments, professional photoshoots, gladhanding politicians and big shots, demanding parsonages with a swimming pool when they move from minor league churches to big league ones, and six- or seven-figure salaries. They would refuse titles like “President”, and would certainly object to being called “Mr. President” 400 times during the course of the day. They would take very seriously the fact that their “flocks” are putting them up on a pedestal and would act and speak in such a way as to disintegrate that pedestal.
• A care that equality of all men, poor and wealthy, under the lordship of Christ be the order of the day. See above.

They have no principled reason to push back against JoelO. That’s why they don’t do it except when it makes them look good (and even then, only sometimes). That’s why what they teach half the time sounds a lot like Joel and treats the Bible in the same slipshod, loose, and obtuse way. That’s why they live like him and construct massive church campuses and buildings like he does, minus the most ostentatious outbursts (like charging admission for “Nights of Hope”) that would offend too many of their target audience. They’re just as careful for their image as Joel is.

It’s strange to me that their self-interest doesn’t extend to being very careful to remove the competition that JoelO offers to their own little kingdoms within the control that they have, but then again, perhaps Satan has learned a lesson or two in the 2000 years since Jesus said “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:25-26). And of course, only a fool would accuse Satan of steadfast consistency.

I know that you, dear reader, probably think the preceding rant is too harsh. I urge you not to be like the listeners who heard the Messiah’s lips utter what they did in John 6 or Matthew 20 or 23, or what that Messiah inspired Jeremiah, for example, to preach from the gates of the Temple into which these men’s spiritual forebears had denied him access. Why is this “convention” taking place in such a sumptuous setting? Why the evidence of wealth all around? Why the travel expense? And then why the talk about “we can fund an increase of missions through sacrificial giving!” and suchlike, as if their very event and presence didn’t militate directly against such a thing! It is all upside down, as if the very lifestyle and salary of the fat cat saying it didn’t render it all so absurd!

When all other options are exhausted, what else are we left with? However improbable it may seem, take a really close look at what’s going on. Watch the live stream. Think about the way that the actions taken, the money spent, the priorities upheld, reflect the precise opposite of what is proclaimed on stage, the way these men talk to each other and preen before the cameras. Think about how Jesus and His apostles dressed, what they experienced, in what way their godliness was proven. Think about how these men’s so-called godliness has been allegedly proven by, again, the precise opposite of how it was in the men whom we are supposed to see as the foundational examples of our faith.

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king; for he endured, as seeing Him who is unseen…and others experienced mockings and scourgings, yes, also chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were tempted, they were put to death with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, ill-treated (men of whom the world was not worthy), wandering in deserts and mountains and caves and holes in the ground. And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

(Hebrews 11:24-27, 35-40)

You are already filled, you have already become rich, you have become kings without us; and indeed, I wish that you had become kings so that we also might reign with you. For, I think, God has exhibited us apostles last of all, as men condemned to death; because we have become a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men. We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor. To this present hour we are both hungry and thirsty, and are poorly clothed, and are roughly treated, and are homeless; and we toil, working with our own hands; when we are reviled, we bless; when we are persecuted, we endure; when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things, even until now. I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children.

(1 Corinthians 4:8-14)

Cage stage anti-abolitionists

CR 6/13/2015 10:04 AM

The claim is also absurd on its face as it runs counter to all the (overwhelming!) evidence that AHA evinces a very strong "in-group / out-group" mentality in both speech and in writing.

AHA's proponents' rhetoric drips with contempt for its ideological foes both within the pro-abortion and pro-life spheres.

One wonders to what "overwhelming" evidence this CR individual refers. I've seen worse, personally, in Reformed circles like the Reformed Pub Facebook group, where in some ways if you don't homebrew your own beer you're not part of the cool kids crowd. But status as alcohol connoisseur aside, the term "cage stage Calvinist" exists for a reason, and quite a few people have gone years in that stage. Same with covenant theology, or one's preferred eschatological position, or cessationism, or pretty much anything. Does CR decry the same among the Reformed? Does that mean Reformed theology or covenant theology or amillennialism is an organisation?

Of course not. Those are ideologies. Like AHA is an ideology. There are people who adhere to amillennialism. There are people who adhere to Reformed theology. There are people who adhere to Abolish Human Abortion ideology. They're called "abolitionists (of human abortion)". This is only complex to the intentionally obtuse.

At any rate, if someone wants to show a very strong "in-group / out-group" mentality, it would be wonderful if they could

• prove it
• demonstrate it is relatively stronger than other comparable examples
• show how it is inordinately strong and not just a more or less average outflow of the natural human tendency to cohere among like-minded people

I bet CR would claim his own church has an in-group/out-group mentality. He would probably say it is justifiable. I would probably agree with him. So why does he object to the same among abolitionists?

As for "dripping with contempt", I simply say: May the Lord protect us from harboring contempt for other people. That would probably be sinful, though not always; Scriptural examples could certainly be forwarded of godly people and even the Lord Jesus treating especially false professors and false religionists with contempt. I mean, God straight up laughs at the wicked in the second Psalm.
But of course, each instance needs to be judged on its own merits. If CR loves abolitionists, he ought to call us on our sin. I pray he will do that, so that if we have indeed sinned, we may repent of it and be holy as our Father in heaven is holy.
(Side note: What are the chances he'll actually do that? Yep; I agree that they're probably pretty low. Snide swipes from afar as a barely-pseudonymous [mostly anonymous] commenter are much easier than actually laboring with brothers in love, as I tried to do with Steve via email.)

Intransigence and Steve Hays

So Steve Hays decided to post his side of our email correspondence. I wasn't going to do that, but I might as well give the full context. Notice the way Steve refuses to take correction, how he speaks so harshly, in such an unbrotherly manner. I tried to reason with the man. Sometimes he just can't be reasoned with. It's kind of sad, actually.

Also, this might help before we get into the correspondence:



I realise that I might have lacked some needed specificity in this interaction when I used the word "group" at times. In my mind, I was equating "group" with "organisation", and those are not exactly the same things, but they are close. Steve could have chosen to enter into a constructive conversation with me in an attempt to come to a common understanding that edifies everyone, but he chose not to.
Keep in mind that he and I have been acquainted via email and blogs for probably around 7 years, maybe more. I used to contribute to the Triablogue; I thought Steve was a friend. I was wrong; I don't know what he was looking for when he said I could contribute, but I guess he got what he wanted and then has dispensed with me.



ME:

It's really sad that you are doing this. Trying to point out actual flaws is one thing. You're just on a vendetta.

May the Lord help you, man.

Flaunting Good Works - AHA Blog

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/06/flaunting-good-works.html

Maybe Give A Spiritual Answer - AHA Blog

http://blog.abolishhumanabortion.com/2015/06/maybe-give-spiritual-answer.html

Lack of balance and monovision in James White

No, I don't actually think James White lacks balance or has monovision.

However, his most recent Dividing Line focused solely on responding to a British charismatic Christian about same-sex marriage.


If someone were to listen to only one single Dividing Line broadcast like that one, which focused on narrowly-focused subject matter,

AND

if someone were to refuse to listen to any rebuttals on his part or search out whether he has written or spoken on any material that's not related to conservative Christians talking about same-sex marriage,

THEN

one could say that James White is an "unhinged little micro-group" (after all, there are two men that run AOMin, which is a very, very small group, but still a group) that lacks balance vis-à-vis his churchmanship. After all, I didn't hear him say anything about his church membership or anything during the entire Dividing Line broadcast. Not even once! He had a whole hour to talk! He could've even done a jumbo or mega DL, thus taking longer than an hour.

Could not one say that he is a "one-string banjo, zealous for the one note he has learned to play on what is supposed to be the orchestral symphony of God's truth"? Couldn't one conclude that his narrow focus is "just sad"?

Again, don't bother me with evidence of the other things he has said or written about. I'm only going to pay attention to a small slice of life and intentionally and willfully ignore the rest. I'm going to insist that White is a caricature so that I can dismiss all the other things he says and pretend he has monovision on this topic of what British charismatic Christians think about same-sex marriage. Then I'll berate him for being a one-string banjo; that way I can be safely pre-insulated from anything else he might say that might ever convict me or persuade me to change my ways.

And if you still cry foul, I'll just say that I learned my method from White himself.

A/the church/Church

Here's a chart I created to help people understand how to use the phrases "a church", "the church", "the Church" (and its close cousin "The Church").
It's not exhaustive, but it offers some clear thinking on the topic. It's hard to find people who use these words correctly on a consistent basis.

I Allowed the IMB to Make a Mockery of Baptism

*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. 

…the International Mission Board (IMB) Board of Trustees voted to open new pathways of service by, among other things, removing previous restrictions that had been developed a decade ago. In 2005, the IMB BoT created restrictions to missionary service that included barring anyone from service who …had been baptized by immersion in a church that did not teach eternal security or that was not in line with the Baptist perspective on perseverance even if they were members in good standing of SBC churches today… Today, those policies have been changed…

(Source)

In 2006, I was freshly returned from a year as a tent-maker missionary in southern Japan and very zealous to get back on the foreign mission field once again. Having been a member of a Southern Baptist church for six years that was always in the very upper echelons of per capita giving to the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering (the big funding drive that provides a very significant portion, if not the majority, of IMB’s annual budget), the logical, obvious, and highly encouraged choice was to apply to IMB. The perquisites were equally obvious – official SBC pedigree, seminary discounts, well-established support structure. And, I can confidently say as someone who has by 2015 attempted (and failed) to raise his own missions budget, the salary, which means there’s no need to raise one’s own support, was the main attraction.

The salary means the missionary doesn’t have to “waste” his time networking and getting to know lots of people and churches and can instead focus on the actual mission work, the actual project at hand. It’s pretty compelling, to be honest, even though IMB missionaries still take the same kind of home furloughs as those do who have had to raise their own support. More could be said about that, but I’ll move on for now.

So my wife and I applied. We wrote down all the testimonies of our salvations. We got all the references and church information in place. We recounted our life histories, education, whether we were Calvinists, whether we had debt, whether we’d been divorced, etc. (Just kidding about the Calvinist thing.)

Then, the question to the effect of: In what church were you baptized?

Let’s step back in my personal history for a moment. The Lord saved me out of a fairly liberal Methodist family; one day, just before I turned 16, I just realized I was going to serve Jesus and be hated for His name, and that was that. A year later the Lord arranged that I meet some very charismatic high school seniors when I was a sophomore, and (despite my retrospective dismay at some of their sometimes very weird charismatic distinctives) their lack of the fear of man and of regard for others’ negative opinions became a powerful and mostly positive influence on me. I am thankful for them, even though hanging with them made me into a charismatic for around six years.

When in university some years later, I regularly attended Sunday morning service at a charismatic non-denominational church, and one day in 1998 I became convicted that my head-sprinkling as a baby at the hands of the Methodist pastor was not actual baptism. Wanting to obey Jesus, I asked that church to baptize (immerse) me (same thing), which after examination they did, at a Sunday evening service in the presence of friends and witnesses. These were people who give a credible profession of faith in Jesus and just as much evidence in my view of loving Jesus as anyone in most any SBC church.

Fast forward eight years, I am applying to IMB, and I discover the policy that IMB only accepts applicants who have been baptized in a church that at least affirms eternal security (or, in a pinch, the perseverance of the saints). Quite unhappy with that, I decided to try to avoid it by contacting my old charismatic church. On the phone with a staff member, I asked if by chance they affirm eternal security. They laughed “Of course not”, which turned into a brief but interesting conversation.

Thus thwarted, I reported the bad news to my pastor, who fully supported my wife’s and my desire to go overseas with IMB. He recommended that he (re-)baptize me. His reasoning can be condensed as follows:

• The SBC is a loose confederation of churches with non-identical beliefs regarding what constitutes real baptism
• Some of these churches who contribute to the Cooperative Program think that you have to be the right kind of Christian to apply baptism legitimately
• They are the weaker brother and so you can in good conscience accede to their weakness
• It’s worth it to get on the foreign mission field

So to my shame I conceded and was re-baptized a few weeks later. The pastor prefaced my re-baptism with an explanation to the congregation why a respected longtime member and a leader of a Sunday School class and community group was up in the baptistery. I held my nose, literally and figuratively, and got wet to satisfy the short-lived and short-sighted compromise that the IMB made with legalists.

One wonders how the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8) or the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) would answer the question “In what church were you baptized?”. I guess they’d have to get re-baptized too.

It’s hard to picture the Apostle Paul requiring people baptized by, say, John Mark (before their subsequent reconciliation), Barnabas (after their rift), or Demas to be re-baptized before they could join with him on missionary outreach.

It’s difficult to imagine the Apostle Peter holding one set of requirements for becoming a part of his local fellowship but reserving more stringent requirements regarding one’s past associations for “serious” Gospel work.

I can’t see the Lord Jesus finding no fault in a man’s work, confession, or doctrine such that he is called a son of the Most High, but telling him that a ritual he once engaged in wasn’t done by someone whose doctrine was quite as good and so remains entirely incomplete.

I allowed the IMB to use me to illustrate to my entire church body at the time the hypocrisy and compromise into which the Cooperative Program has had to enter for the sake of a “greater good”. I performed a shameful act in order that I might get in good with an organisation who would later bring my wife and me out to a candidate orientation, lecture us about nonsensical things like a “call to missions“, judge our personality based on nothing more than a few hours of observation, and never contact a single one of our references, church leadership, or friends to ask what kind of people we were.

I acceded to worldly wisdom in pursuit of a godly aim. Now the IMB is relaxing that requirement. Will it attempt to bear fruit in keeping with repentance in explicitly re-educating people against the hypocrisy and compromise in which it was until recently engaging?

I repent. I call on the IMB to repent.

"Be lukewarm and spewed"

Steve Hays renews his ill-advised critique of immediatism by... branching off into all sorts of issues that are not all that pertinent to immediatism.
\\It's revealing how abolitionists think their agitation gives them bragging rights\\

It's an uncharitable and in fact incorrect interpretation of my words to think that I/we have some sort of bragging rights.
Yet let the Lord protect us from such an attitude, to be sure!
Perhaps Steve thinks that the Apostle Paul was trying to claim bragging rights in Philippians 3 or 2 Corinthians 10-11.


\\Abortion isn't the only important issue that Christians need to be involved with\\


Nobody has said it is. Yet we have made the case again and again why the murder of 60 million and counting humans over the course of 42 years and counting should take a very, very high priority over even something like whether the gaystapo gets to tell 501c3 organisations whom they should marry.
Euthanasia - get back to me when it's legal to shoot senior citizens in the head willy-nilly and the death rate surpasses a few thousand a year. I'm not trying to sound callous here, but I actually think Steve is the one who is being callous and turning a blind eye toward child sacrifice. Nobody is saying that we should do nothing about those other things - those ought to be combated with immediatist calls to repentance and the Gospel of Jesus Christ the same as abortion ought to be. The Word of God is the weapon.
Steve also misses the fact that all of these are intertwined in many ways. Attack the powers of darkness in one area and you diminish it elsewhere too. But you have to use godly weapons and wisdom, not the worldly kind.


\\We need to resist secular totalitarianism in its various manifestations.\\

Ironic that Steve says this in defense of the pro life movement, which "resists secular totalitarianism" while teaming up with atheists, papists, eastern conciliarists, and other pagans.


\\the church has different body parts. Different members have different gifts. All Christians don't have the same duties or calling\\

Have this kind of discussion long enough with people and you can see this coming a mile away.
Steve runs afoul of the Bible at this point.

"Calling" is not the same as "gifting". And Steve needs to prove, not assume, that
1) variously gifted people can't address abortion with the Gospel
2) variously gifted people shouldn't address abortion with the Gospel
3) certain giftings mean you don't have an obligation to love your preborn neighbor who is being murdered down the street.


\\There's a need for Bible scholars, ethicists, and apologists.\\

A few, sure. Most churchgoing people are not in position to be those things, and that majority is too busy watching movies, amusing themselves, and "attending services" to do much of anything about anything, let alone sacrifice for the good of their neighbors being taken away to death.


\\Anti-abortion activism isn't the only way of loving your neighbor. \\

What about your preborn neighbor, 1.2 million or more of whom will die this year alone?


\\Visiting shut-ins and nursing home residents is a godly activity. Or caring for enfeebled parents.\\

Is Steve assuming these are mutually exclusive?


\\Moreover, it's very time-consuming just to be a breadwinner, as well as a husband and father\\

1) What does this have to do with immediatism, again?
2) Don't I know it! I have three children, one a newborn with Down Syndrome, two jobs, a 35 mile commute to the main one, and all the worries and difficulties of anyone else. I make time to speak up for my preborn neighbors, and all around me I see armchair QBs like Steve who whine they don't have time.
3) And this:

Alexandra and accusations of lying

In which someone posts on the AHA page, says a bunch of nonsense, then reveals herself to be nothing more than a troll.

Alexandra Stone
‎Abolish Human Abortion

10 hrs · 

We have had both T. Russell and Toby on our page recently. They are both cowards. They both lie. They acknowledge that your group is made up of many criminals who have had their children removed from their homes, all while trying to control women. They fight churches and communities with no thought of a reconciliation. Why work with people when they can get press and money for being liars? And, most importantly, they have admitted that this is not a charity. All money for merchandise or donations goes to them. Directly to them. No rules applied. Love the sheep that accept this. Good luck to you idiots!

Like · Comment · Share

• Kathy Wiles, Ashley Dawson, Kristen Knoll and 5 others like this.
• 

  Rhology @Alexandra Stone, this is a very serious set of accusations. I am part of the same church that Toby and Russell are, and if what you are saying is true, I would very much like to call them in front of the church and rebuke and discipline them for their lies. Lies are not fit for the mouths of those who claim to serve Jesus, and Jesus is not pleased with those who lie. The Bible says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire, and because I love Toby and Russell I want them to repent of whatever lies they have told so that they may perhaps escape the lake of fire and find forgiveness. 
  Please provide evidence of these lies so that we may examine the situation more closely. Thank you.

  Like · Reply ·  · 1 hr
• 

  Rhology Just a couple of other things also, since the truth is so important, as it clearly is to you:
  
  \\They acknowledge that your group is made up of many criminals\\
  
  I'm afraid you've misunderstood quite a lot. 
  1) AHA is not a "group". 
  2) My particular abolitionist society, as well as the one of which Russell and Toby are a part, has exactly one convicted criminal - Toby - and Toby makes no secret of his past sin and of his repentance of that past sin. His life is totally different than his past sinful way of living, and it has been for many years. 
  3) You may be thinking of other repentant criminals who call themselves abolitionists, like Michael Plaisted and Jered Ragon. That makes three total, but you said "many". I'm not sure what you could mean. Four or five out of hundreds isn't exactly "many". 
  4) Michael and Jered are also open about their past sin and their repentance and rejection of that past lifestyle, just as Toby is. I don't understand why you would try to use this as a rebuke of abolitionists or abolition. Did you know that Jesus Christ forgives repentant sinners and washes them clean? 
  
  \\who have had their children removed from their homes\\
  
  I can think of three people who call themselves abolitionists of whom this is possibly descriptive. One of them is currently deep in sin against other abolitionists, and I have publicly rebuked them for it. Another has done no abolitionist work in over two years, and another for over one year. I'm not sure to what you refer. 
  
  \\all while trying to control women\\
  
  I'm afraid I have no idea what this could mean. Why does proclamation of Jesus as Lord and the reiteration of His law against murder equal controlling women? Help me out, please. 
  
  \\They fight churches\\
  
  I'm afraid I don't know what this means, either. If you mean that abolitionists call churches that are sin to repentance, well, it's true we do that, but that's not fighting. That's loving. Please read the New Testament. 
  
  \\most importantly, they have admitted that this is not a charity.\\
  
  Well, that's right. I'm unsure why you seem to think this is a problem. 
  
  \\All money for merchandise or donations goes to them. Directly to them. No rules applied. \\
  
  I hate to break it to you, but that sentence applies to charitable organisations as well. And the rules that apply are those that apply to running for-profit businesses, so the AHA Gear store has to run its business transactions honestly and forthrightly and provide the agreed-upon goods or services in exchange for whatever payment the customer pays. 
  This isn't rocket surgery, Alexandra. I'm really afraid that your blind hatred of what we stand for is leading you to all sorts of unfair and wicked statements. Please back up, repent, breathe, and examine us in fairness. Feel free to ask any questions you want. I will answer them openly and honestly, as long as they are reasonable and don't, for example, pry into things which you have no business knowing like deeply personal matters or something.

  Like · Reply · 1 ·  · 1 hr
• 

  Maddie Davis What page is it that they're commenting on?

  Like · Reply · 1 hr
• 

  Maddie Davis Rocket surgery....lol.

  Unlike · Reply · 2 · 1 hr
• 

  Rebecca Wood ....so you really put all the money you make back into your own pockets?
  
  I did not know that. Why aren't you donating to charities that help pregnant women or something?

  Like · Reply · 47 mins
• 

  Rhology Rebecca Wood Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. The answer is no - the Gear store actually puts virtually all its "profits" back into making more gear. The goal of the store is to seed the culture and aid abolitionists. 
  
  \\Why aren't you donating to charities that help pregnant women or something?\\
  
  We talk about that fairly often. 
  1) Most charities collude with enemies of the Gospel. 
  2) Tons of them will go with pragmatic interests instead of being faithful to the Word of God. 
  3) A 501c3 status is highly morally problematic. 
  4) People ought not to pay a third party to love their neighbor for them, whether it's individuals paying or churches paying. 
  5) And these charities enable that sort of thing, because it's a major part of their ability to exist. 
  
  Everyone ought to be contributing to their churches and their churches ought to be sacrificially loving people in need, not paying someone else to do it for them while they comfortably pursue the latest and greatest lights and video equipment.

  Like · Reply · 2 · · 39 mins
• 

  Gideon Athenagoras Alexandra Stone,
  
  When people who are wrong realize that they are wrong and have no ability to prove themselves right or convince others to be wrong with them they turn to just bold faced lies and accusation. 
  
  When people cannot answer the questions of their opponents or defend what they believe in the face of critical opposition, they turn to slandering their opponents in hopes that people will just be led away from the truth by their lies.
  
  This is what you are doing right now.
  
  Its weak and pathetic and any body with any sense at all sees right through it.

  Like · Reply · 22 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone "convince others to be wrong with them they turn to just bold faced lies and accusation. "

  Like · Reply · 13 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone Except Rho unwittingly just backed up everything I said.

  Like · Reply · 12 mins
• 

  Rhology \\Except Rho unwittingly just backed up everything I said.\\
  
  What are you talking about?

  Like · Reply · · 12 mins
• 

  Rhology Alexandra - evidence please. You made an accusation. Please provide your evidence.

  Like · Reply · · 11 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone Other than the bizarre semantics of "group", he has verified that there are multiple criminals, verified that they take the money and spend it how they wish, etc.

  Like · Reply · 11 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone "We talk about that fairly often.
  1) Most charities collude with enemies of the Gospel.
  2) Tons of them will go with pragmatic interests instead of being faithful to the Word of God.
  3) A 501c3 status is highly morally problematic.
  4) People ought not to pay a third party to love their neighbor for them, whether it's individuals paying or churches paying.
  5) And these charities enable that sort of thing, because it's a major part of their ability to exist.
  
  Everyone ought to be contributing to their churches and their churches ought to be sacrificially loving people in need, not paying someone else to do it for them while they comfortably pursue the latest and greatest lights and video equipment."
  
  As for this cop-out, I call balderdash. And it is topped with the point that people should give to the church. Gee, what tax exempt status do many churches have?

  Like · Reply · 10 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone Ah, the "morally problematic" one. Good for the church, but not good enough for AHA.

  Like · Reply · 10 mins
• 

  Rhology \\ he has verified that there are multiple criminals\\
  
  Not in "our group", though. So you're wrong there. 
  
  \\verified that they take the money and spend it how they wish\\
  
  I didn't say that either. I said what I said and anyone can read it. 
  Alexandra, I'm getting the feeling you're not engaging in good faith here. Please provide the evidence that Russell and Toby lied. False accusations like that are against our page rules, so please provide the evidence or you will be banned.

  Like · Reply · 10 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone Nice try, Rho. You are right, anyone can read it.

  Unlike · Reply · 1 · 9 mins
• 

  Rhology \\As for this cop-out, I call balderdash\\
  
  Why?
  
  \\And it is topped with the point that people should give to the church. Gee, what tax exempt status do many churches have?\\
  
  1) Not to "the church". I don't even know what "the church" means. Which church? There are good ones and bad ones. 
  2) The astute reader will note that I obviously don't think churches ought to be 501c3. Why else would I say "A 501c3 status is highly morally problematic"?
  
  \\Ah, the "morally problematic" one. Good for the church, but not good enough for AHA.\\
  
  This makes zero sense. Nowhere have any of us said that we think churches ought to be 501c3. We frequently say the exact opposite. And that's why no abolitionist society or group is 501c3. 
  I don't know what's unclear about this, for those who want to see the truth.

  Like · Reply · · 6 mins · Edited
• 

  Rhology Alexandra, since you're obviously also watching this thread closely right now, I must insist you provide your evidence BEFORE you post anything else. 
  Fair enough?

  Like · Reply · 7 mins
• 

  Rebecca Wood Oh. So only people that believe in God deserve help.
  
  I understand now.

  Like · Reply · 1 · 7 mins
• 

  Rhology \\So only people that believe in God deserve help.\\
  
  Rebecca Wood Blatant misrepresentation and word-twisting like that are otherwise known as "trolling" and violate our page rules. Do not do so again or you will be banned.

  Like · Reply ·· 6 mins
• 

  Rebecca Wood Why doesn't AHA donate it's money to it's church of choice that it trusts so that it can be given to people that need help? 
  
  You aren't selling your T-shirts at cost. There is profit being made. If you want to end abortion so badly, why not help the pregnant women in need so they don't feel they need abortion? 
  
  Is spreading your message THAT much more important than saving a preborn child?

  Like · Reply · 3 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone Sorry, Rho, unlike your sheep I don't follow your orders. Feel free to block me. I have found that is generally what this page does with truth and dissent. And ask your "brothers" about their lies. Although, based on their track record, I wouldn't expect a full accounting.

  Like · Reply · 2 mins
• 

  Alexandra Stone "So only people that believe in God deserve help.'
  
  Unless you are Catholic, lol!

  Like · Reply · 2 mins
• 

  Rhology \\Why doesn't AHA donate it's money to it's church of choice that it trusts so that it can be given to people that need help? \\
  
  AHA doesn't have any money, since AHA is an ideology and not a group or organisation. Please pay attention. 
  If you're asking about individual abolitionist societies or whatever, ask each one. In the case of the AbSoc of Norman, we don't know any churches in our area that we would entrust with that, and there's only 30 of us, so we use the resources we have to directly help women. 
  Why would we outsource loving our neighbor to someone else?
  
  \\You aren't selling your T-shirts at cost.\\
  
  1) Actually, recently they HAVE been doing just that. 
  2) Nowhere has anyone claimed that the store is non-profit. It has to make some money to invest in creating new resources. 
  
  \\why not help the pregnant women in need so they don't feel they need abortion?\\
  
  We do. It must be so embarrassing to keep saying false things instead of asking for the actual facts of the matter so you can make an informed and fair judgment.

  Like · Reply · · Just now
• 

  Rhology \\ unlike your sheep I don't follow your orders. Feel free to block me.\\
  
  OK.

  Like · Reply · Just now