Interactions With Fred Butler, ShepCon Repentance

All too predictably, Grace To You employee Fred Butler became very upset when abolitionists suggested out loud that the vast majority of pastors in the United States probably need to repent of abortion apathy on some level, and did so in person just outside the property of his boss' church buildings during the famous Shepherds' Conference 2017. That's the same church whose buildings thousands attend for Sunday service and which is located less than 10 miles from no less than three abortion facilities with empty sidewalks all 'round them all week long, week after week.

Let's give credit where due - at least Fred accepted one of the abolitionist pamphlets instead of flatly rejecting them like the majority of church people do. At least he put up the initial impression of wanting to be a Berean. Unfortunately for him (and everyone), the Bereans are praised in Acts 17 not only because they examined the Scriptures but also because they came to correct conclusions regarding the Scriptures they were reading and the oral message the Apostle Paul and his team were delivering. Fred at least gives it a shot but ultimately fails in his alleged quest for biblical accuracy. With respect to the contents of the pamphlet, see the review here and an abolitionist reply here.

In light of the fact that I think it is 51% probable that my comments on Fred's relevant note will be deleted, I reproduce the conversation here in which Fred and others discuss their badly skewed and groundless opinions about what AHA is and who abolitionists are. Thankfully, Pulpit & Pen's supposed chief editor (the real chief editor is Jordan Hall), Jeff Maples, stopped by to demonstrate that he, like Jordan, never understood AHA either despite his repeated claims to have been an abolitionist. It's always gratifying when "abolitionists" expose themselves as pro-lifers, ecclesiolaters, and willing deceivers in public so as to reduce the likelihood they deceive anyone else.

Jason Wallace Misrepresents Abolition

Jason Wallace is a religious service provider at an OPC branch in Utah. Unsurprisingly, James White mentioned him specifically as a personal friend in a recent Dividing Line program. In recent social media interactions he has shown himself to be, much like Rich Pierce, a closed-minded sower of division who cares not at all when he willfully misrepresents servants of the living God despite numerous corrections.
Since I'd say the odds favor his eventual deletion of one of the notable threads in which he amply demonstrates his evil thinking, I'll reproduce it here. First, though, his 13 objections to AHA, which will be followed by rebuttals.

UPDATE: Before the fold, though, I'd like to throw in a sideways sigh toward JD Hall, who refers obliquely to this article in his copy+paste of Wallace's 13 points.

He even mentions me specifically and the fact that I criticise the points here, but unsurprisingly doesn't link here so people can evaluate the 13 points and their rebuttals. He does take time to make the assertion that my statement that "Virtually all abolitionists are part of faithful visible churches" is a "laughable inaccuracy", and of course, though he has been corrected on that many times, gives no indication that he cares about correction, truth, or fairness. Nor does he give any evidence that the statement is inaccurate, let alone laughable.
And since JD reads this blog, I will now make another plea to him directly: Jordan, let us be brothers again. You invited me over to your house! You left me alone in your house where I had access to anything I would have wanted to steal or sabotage or whatever you think a dangerous church-hating cultist might do. You called me "closer than a brother" in public not long after, and then less than two months later were tossing me aside in public as a cultist. I guess better a cultist than a jihadist...

Warning Signs - Avoid Jordan Hall

Jordan Hall has done all us the favor of informing us why he and his ministry should be strictly avoided. It turns out that he displays many of the signs of a cult, so watch out!

Just joking. He's actually warning about the Abolish Human Abortion movement, the movement about which he let me stand in his church building and talk to his congregation literally two months ago, only now to throw me away. The man dispenses with friendships quicker than most anyone I've ever met. Just the other day I was "a close friend" of his. Now I'm an anathematised cultist. That sort of turnaround you can't find every day. The man has some problems. Instability, probably some paranoia going on. It's sad, really it is, but it would appear that while I tried (and probably failed in some ways) not to enable his flaws while he still thought I was his friend, he just picks up enablers to surround himself with. Out with Tom Buck and in with Justin Pierce. Out with Dustin Germain and in with Bud Ahlheim. Out with Gene Clyatt and in with Brandon Hines. It will continue, I figure, until God should mercifully intervene to, I hope, break Jordan's heart unto repentance.

But as it turns out, Jordan's self-made, self-serving, ad hoc list of "cult warning signs" isn't quite what he probably hoped it would be when he wrote it, for it exonerates groups that really are cultic while incriminating Jordan's own ministry endeavors as well as, strangely enough, the earliest Christian church of the apostolic era. To see how, let's explore them one by one, but not before you peruse the pre-requisite reading here and pre-requisite viewing here.

1. Sub-Christian sects often purport to be the only authentic believers, and characterize all others as sell-outs, compromised, or watered-down imitations of the real Church or of real Christians. This tactic has been particularly powerful since the Restorationist Movement in the mid-19th Century. They will speak of “restoring” the church and going back to the “real church” that was lost in the Apostolic Age. This belief eventually causes them to reject the Visible Church.

Did the apostolic church of Jesus purport to be such? Yes. So, cult.
Do conservative Bible-believing Christians purport such, over and against liberalism, ecumenism, Rome, and other challengers? Yes. So, cult.

Strangely, an organisation like the LDS Church often does not claim to be the only authentic believers, for various reason. So, I guess the LDS Church is not a cult. 

2. Sub-Christian sects focus on proselytizing believers rather than evangelizing the lost. The false teachers the church was warned about in Acts 20:30 come into the church, appearing to be disciples, only to “draw men after themselves.” Satan desires to destroy Christians, and typically leaves the pagan alone. Sub-Christian sects, like their lord and master, Satan, spends most of their time trying to proselytize professing, church-going Christians rather than win the lost.

Where did Jordan get this idea? I'd be interested in sources for these thoughts of his. It seems like he just made them up, and yet while I have quite a bit of experience with cults myself, I don't know of any special counter-cult background Jordan has that's more substantial than my own. To what cult study is he alluding?

Do Pulpit & Pen and the Polemics Report focus on proselytizing believers rather than evangelizing the lost? Yes, they sure do. So, cult.
Do the vast majority of American churches do the same? What about Jordan's own church? Yes. So, cult.

Interestingly, this pervasive inward focus is one of the main problems for which abolitionists call churches to repentance, but Jordan wants to blame abolitionists for it. And if you're going to try to indicate cultic tendencies on this count, it doesn't make a lot of sense to try to point fingers at a movement that is made up of people who are generally extremely active in public evangelism like AHA.

3. Sub-Christian sects spend an inordinate amount of time lobbying for approval of the church-at-large, desperately asking (or demanding) acceptance. Of extreme strategic importance to the schismatic is having established churches lend the sub-Christian cult credibility or to embrace them as orthodox. A massive amount of time and resources of the sub-Christian sect will be spent trying to project themselves as orthodox. Those within orthodoxy simply don’t have to spend much – if any – time desperately trying to gain acceptance by the established church, but sub-Christian sects have to.

Jordan demonstrates his extremely poor understanding of AHA yet again on this point. In literally no way are abolitionists lobbying for approval of anyone. And if we were, we are amazingly bad at it; you don't generally make friends by calling for repentance of major sins, of apathy, and so on. What facts led Jordan to think that anyone is desperately asking for for acceptance? I can't think of a single one.
Rather, when abolitionists say stuff like "Repent with us", we are inviting others to walk more closely with Jesus and to forsake their sin just as we are trying to do. It is a benefit and a loving act to them. They need to repent. They need to get closer to Jesus and love their neighbor and stop not loving their neighbor. This is a blessing for them. Jordan has never understood that about Church Repent though it has been explained to him numerous times by many people, including myself. That he still complains it's unclear does not speak well to his acumen and/or intellectual honesty.

But don't Pulpit & Pen and Polemics Report fit this description? Yes, they do. They love to keep pastors like Emilio Ramos comfy and happy where they are. They love to accept invitations to conferences like NorCal Fire and put on conferences like Reformation: Montana. Other people whom they admire, like Dr James White, regularly mention (almost as a badge of honor) that they don't get invited to "the big conferences", that they're just small fries, and then when they review the stupidities uttered by some Big Shot, they shake their heads and mutter "theology matters." Why do they do that? Is it because they are a cult?

And don't P&P and PR spend a "massive amount of time and resources" on trying to affirm orthodoxy in contrast to others? It sounds like this is true of them.

4. Sub-Christian sects engage in victory-by-victimhood, projecting themselves as virtuous and long-suffering victims of marginalization or mistreatment. These sects “cry foul” at every given opportunity, clinging to the status of victimization in order to signal help from unsuspecting Christians who are drawn in at the accusation of mistreatment, playing on the good but naive intentions of believers. It could be called the “Servetus Syndrome,” in which five-hundred years after the death of a heretic, people still give sympathy and credence to one who (although he should not have been burned at the stake) was still a heretic and should have been marked as a schismatic and shunned from society. Every accusation against the sect is met with charges of “slander” or “persecution,” a martyr-syndrome that manifests itself in crying for help from well-meaning believers.

All it will take is a little bit of time watching someone like Jordan Hall, or BibleThumping Wingnut, or Matt Slick, or James White, to know that this description fits them perfectly.
As for abolitionists, I suppose it isn't false that when strawmen are erected, we like to point them out. How is this a bad thing or the mark of a cult, precisely? Is it true that abolitionist cry foul at every opportunity? Can Jordan document such a thing?
Also consider the Catch-22 here - if abolitionists didn't try to show why false accusations are false, wouldn't those who are determined to oppose us jump up and down and claim victory? "I suggested that ___ and ___ were true, and the abolitionists didn't deny them!"

Finally, it's a commonly known fact of history that the apostolic church faced not only persecution but also lies from within and without. Many of the New Testament writings are meant to overturn falsehoods arising even from within the ranks of the believers. I guess the earliest church was a cult. They should never have spoken up to define true doctrine or call for consistency on the part of their opponents. Since they did, though, they were a cult.

5. Sub-Christian sects engage in double-dog daring “are you saying I’m not a brother in Christ” strategy designed to force the critic to anathematize or accept them. A very popular tactic, these schismatics will demand that you call them a “Brother in Christ” or a “fellow Christian” or dare you to say they aren’t. If you concede they seem to be a fellow Christian because the confess orthodoxy on certain soteriological matters, then their charge is that you’re “attacking fellow Christians” and YOU will be made out to be the schismatic. If you say they aren’t Christians, then they’ll demand you explain why, given they agree with this point of theology or that point of theology. They’ll then make you to be an uncharitable curmudgeon. Don’t fall for this. You are not obligated to affirm or disavow anyone’s salvation based upon their profession alone (heretics lie).

I'd like to see Jordan document that this is a common occurrence. I don't think it is. I rarely see such a thing. It's one thing to ask if someone thinks someone else is a brother in Christ. It's quite another to demand or dare the same.

This double-talk on Jordan's part is so sad because the accusation takes a virtuous action and calls it evil. Just because someone disagrees about a certain tenet of abolitionism, for example, doesn't mean that they are unregenerate, and I don't know of any abolitionists who think it does. So when we say "We're brothers in Christ, aren't we?", it's an appeal to the commonality of the Gospel and the Word of God to which we all hold. Yet Jordan loves to chide abolitionists for equating the Gospel with abolitionism, even though we don't. And the proof we don't is that we seek common ground with others who profess the Gospel. But Jordan here uses that against us.

It reminds me of Matthew 11:16“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children, 17and say, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.’ 18“For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon!’ 19“The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is vindicated by her deeds.”

Jordan says: "You are not obligated to affirm or disavow anyone’s salvation based upon their profession alone."
Fine. Should we give someone the benefit of the doubt, at least, when they profess the Gospel, without evidence that they don't actually love Jesus?
 

6. Sub-Christian sects make their beliefs as nebulous and ill-defined as possible, so as to confuse their opponents and make them harder to discern. They claim “straw man” at virtually every criticism, yet don’t define their convictions clearly enough to be properly understood. Schismatics do not like confessions or exhaustive faith statements, because they like to have beliefs that are fluid and ill-defined. Because their goal is achieving for themselves their own disciples, they find that a wide and shallow theology is more conducive to accomplishing their goals, as it is less exclusive as to who can follow them.

It's hard to take this seriously, since there are probably hundreds of hours of abolitionist lectures online and our myriad websites include tens of thousands of words describing what we believe and why. Many abolitionists are on social media a lot and are immediately available to answer questions almost 24/7. The amount of literature about abolitionism dwarfs the relatively paltry offering of, say, the London Baptist Confession of 1689.

Further, this objection once again exonerates the LDS Church or the Watchtower. I guess they're not cults.

And would Jordan go so far as to say that most American churches are cults, since their online professions of faith definitely qualify as "nebulous"? If not, why not?

Finally, it's laughable to suggest abolitionists seek a wide and shallow theology. That describes the pro-life movement! You know, the thing against whose ideology abolitionism is at war?

7. Sub-Christian sects commonly twist words and phrases from their intended meanings (also known as ‘equivocation’) to make themselves appear orthodox. For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses advertise celebrating Easter, but only speak of the crucifixion because they don’t believe in a bodily resurrection – and yet, people seeing their fliers at Easter time assume they believe in the resurrection. AHA speaks of their protests (which include picket signs and disrupting church services) as mere “exhortation.” Andy Stanley claims he believes in “inerrancy,” but means that term far different from the way others understand it. Again, this is to fool people into assuming their orthodoxy.

The blindness this paragraph indicates is amazing. Jordan regularly redefines words, including "cult" and "organization", just because he has some bizarre motivation to slander abolitionists. He also redefines "preach" like the rest of American churches do, in a very self-serving way I might add, and "deacon". He also regularly cites Hebrews 13:17 and inserts the word "elder", even though that word does not appear anywhere in the entire epistle. He regularly confuses the concepts of the invisible universal church and visible local churches in his discussions of ecclesiology, to a degree and with a frequency that suggests nothing short of extreme ineptitude.

Ultimately, what you believe about who gets to define terms will decide whether you think this point has merit. If you think that Muslims get to say that "Jesus" is a mere prophet, if you think that Mormons get to tell you what "monotheism" means, if you think that Jews get to tell you what "Temple" means, then I guess you'll agree with Jordan here. But if you think that it is important to understand what your interlocutor believes before you engage their position so as to avoid erecting a strawman, you'll think that Jordan's point here is foolish. Abolitionists do not believe they are protesting churches. We are exhorting them as fellow Christians. Jordan doesn't like those words, but that is not our problem. He needs to argue, not assume, that his definition is the one that ought to be used. He can assert "equivocation" all he wants; he needs to demonstrate it is equivocation.

8. Sub-Christian sects are dishonest about the details of how their organization or ‘fellowship’ operate. They want to purport that their sect is just another church, but in order to continue the charade, have to conceal the real truth regarding the details of their organization. Those who follow after them will find out the details after they’ve already been inducted. Pay close attention as to how many people leave the organizations once they’ve joined. Often, the sub-Christian sects have “large back doors” through which a sizable proportion of their converts leave after being within them long enough find out their real beliefs.

Oh, does that mean that Jordan has already released or is willing to release at a moment's notice the financial details of his church, his salary, and the expenditures involved in Reformation: Montana? I'd like to see those put out there.

To what facts would Jordan point to indicate that abolitionists are dishonest about these details? All anyone need do is ask. AHA is not an organization. It is a movement. There are churches and abolitionist societies that adhere to the ideology. They all operate somewhat differently. There exists a store that so far is the main provider of so-called AHA Gear, but that could change in the future. It is run out of Norman, OK, in a retail space that it rents that sometimes our church also uses to assemble and inside of which sometimes we make videos. How is any of this mystical or weird?

Jordan says: "Pay close attention as to how many people leave the organizations once they’ve joined."

Yes, pay close attention to how many have left Jordan's church.
How a former elder has tried to get Jordan fired. How a former deacon has also caused major trouble for him at his church. How his church is shrinking. Look at how many people who used to blog for P&P no longer do - Kofi Adu-Boahen, Tom Buck, Dustin Germain, Cameron Dobbins, Gene Clyatt, and more. I guess Jordan is part of a cult. Large back door and all.

Jordan makes a major blunder in saying: "They want to purport that their sect is just another church".
This is wrong wrong wrong wrong. Nobody is saying that AHA is a church! We don't even say it's an organization! We say it isn't one! What we keep saying is that AHA is a movement among people of God, and thus since we are regenerate people of God, it is part of the Bride of Christ that is rising up. Literally nobody is saying that AHA is a church.

Finally, this seems to strike against one of the mainstream, and actual, definitions of what constitutes a cult. One of the real markers of a cult is the manipulation by leaders and peers of those who might show a wavering allegiance to the cult, so pressure is brought to bear to make sure they don't leave the fold. As a result, cults usually have small back doors. This is further evidence that Jordan is just making this stuff up as he goes.

9. Sub-Christian sects portray their beliefs as common or ordinary as a means to deflect criticism. Theonomists – those who believe the Mosaic judicial law (including penology) is obligatory for all nations and times – will say that the term “theonomy” is limited to its etymological definition of “God’s Law,” when in fact it means far more than that. AHA claims that the organization is synonymous with abortion abolition, when in the fact the majority of its work is directed towards converting Christians to Sectarian Minimalism and following after their leaders. These sects reduce their beliefs to a simple, often-repeatable mantra that lacks controversy, hiding their actual beliefs and intentions.

It is very difficult to see how this point can be harmonised with points #1 and #4.
Further, Jordan here condemns the Apostle Paul, of whom it says in Acts 24:

10When the governor had nodded for him to speak, Paul responded:
      “Knowing that for many years you have been a judge to this nation, I cheerfully make my defense, 11since you can take note of the fact that no more than twelve days ago I went up to Jerusalem to worship. 12“Neither in the temple, nor in the synagogues, nor in the city itself did they find me carrying on a discussion with anyone or causing a riot. 13“Nor can they prove to you the charges of which they now accuse me. 14“But this I admit to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect I do serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is in accordance with the Law and that is written in the Prophets; 15having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. 16“In view of this, I also do my best to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before men. 17“Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings; 18in which they found me occupied in the temple, having been purified, without any crowd or uproar. But there were some Jews from Asia— 19who ought to have been present before you and to make accusation, if they should have anything against me. 20“Or else let these men themselves tell what misdeed they found when I stood before the Council, 21other than for this one statement which I shouted out while standing among them, ‘For the resurrection of the dead I am on trial before you today.’”

Jordan says: "AHA claims that the organization is synonymous with abortion abolition"

Not only have abolitionists claimed that, but we have argued for it. Where are Jordan's counterarguments? Or is he twisting the word "abolition" because it sounds cool and he wants to be an abolitionist too, just without the icky parts?

Jordan says: "when in the fact the majority of its work is directed towards converting Christians to Sectarian Minimalism and following after their leaders"

Jordan has been told that the majority of abolitionists do not hold to an ecclesiology that would match his "Sectarian Minimalism". He has been told numerous times. He does not care.
I challenge anyone to review our website, our material, our videos, and our public proclamations to see how true this is. It isn't true. I personally can't recall a time I discussed ecclesiology for more than a few seconds with anyone on the street! Not even once! Where is Jordan's evidence?

Finally, the notion that we try to inculcate some sort of unthinking obedience to leaders is beyond laughable. Not even Jordan thinks this! Otherwise he wouldn't attack us for "Sectarian Minimalism"! You can't have both unquestioning obedience to leaders and "Sectarian Minimalism". You have to pick one accusation and stick with it. That Jordan tries to pin both of them on abolitionists is more evidence that he is not arguing in good faith.
In point of fact, "following after their leaders" is precisely what he tells us over and over that we should do. In this matter, he and his church and P&P and PR are a lot more cultic than abolitionists, for they seek to establish and maintain a church structure in which the leaders hold a very powerful sway. Listen to how papist Jordan sounds in this podcast and tell me I'm wrong.


Jordan asserts: "These sects reduce their beliefs to a simple, often-repeatable mantra that lacks controversy, hiding their actual beliefs and intentions."

So Jordan evidently believes that abolitionists' real aim is to get everyone to agree with the ecclesiology to which only some within even the body of abolitionists in Norman, OK adhere. We are sure doing a good job of hiding our real aim in that case! Such a good job that it virtually never comes up.
 

10. Sub-Christian sects prefer to project themselves as movements or ideologies rather than as organizations, in order to insulate themselves from criticism. Almost every sub-Christian sect in the last 170 years (since the Restorationist Movement) has claimed that their sect was just a grass-roots or “organic” movement, repudiating “organizationalism” or “insitutionalism.” They repudiate the label of organization (or denomination, etc…) even though they fit the qualifications of such. This way, they can argue that it is a move of the Holy Spirit and not the subtle guise of spiritual schemers. This also insulates the organization from criticism regarding the claims of more honest members, who are sure to be radicalized and ostracized for their unorthodoxy.

Or maybe it's because AHA actually is a movement/ideology and not an organization. In what real way does such a setup actually insulate anyone from criticism, anyway? Jordan doesn't seem to have had difficulty figuring out who at least some of the leading / most influential abolitionists are. We get criticised all the time. I'd love some of that insulation I ordered right about now, please. I want my money back.

Jordan claims AHA fits the qualifications of an organization. How so? Let him bring forth his evidence. Let him show also how Calvinism isn't an organization by the same standards.

Leaders of institutional churches insulate themselves from criticism all the time by hiding behind their office and their "authority", and Jordan is no exception. This is thus a hypocritical accusation.

Jordan makes a prediction: "regarding the claims of more honest members, who are sure to be radicalized and ostracized for their unorthodoxy."
So... P&P has never tried to insulate itself from criticism by former contributors? Sure it has. This is hypocrisy yet again. But as for AHA, we can only guess what Jordan means by "radicalized". Does he mean that certain members might become even more peacenik and non-violent than they currently are? God forbid such a terrible thing!

11. Sub-Christian sects have a tendency to rove in packs in social media, and they call for help from fellow sectarians in the event of argumentation.  Infiltrating one social media group at a time, the sect targets seemingly vulnerable subjects and strategically “run together” to intimidate, annoy, or in some way coerce Christians into either following after them or risk being abused, shamed or shunned if they speak out against them. This is a very successful and common strategy, as it appears the movement is far larger, when it only has a small handful of highly motivated adherents.

Does Jordan mean like #the15? All you need do is listen to some older Pulpit & Pen podcasts to hear Jordan refer repeatedly to how he is able to marshal together social media followers to involve themselves in some social media skirmish. Jordan put together just such a social media takeover of at least one running hashtag (one example: #askrickjoyner). So I guess Jordan is part of a cult. What hypocrisy on his part! His hypocrisy is furthered by the statement "This is a very successful and common strategy, as it appears the movement is far larger, when it only has a small handful of highly motivated adherents." Such is precisely true of P&P and #the15! Does Jordan care?

In reality, there is nothing wrong with this. So many people have access to social media; why not use it to contend for truth? The fact that most people adhere to false beliefs is no reason not to speak up for that which is true!

Jordan says: "the sect targets seemingly vulnerable subjects"
Where is his evidence that this is something abolitionists have done and focused on? It just sounds like unsubstantiated well-poisoning.

Jordan says: "to intimidate, annoy, or in some way coerce Christians into either following after them or risk being abused, shamed or shunned if they speak out against them"
As if most people don't look at P&P and PR as exercises in intimidation, annoyance, or coercion that lead to abuse, shame, and shunning. Is Jordan even reading the words he is writing?
And what would be some examples of abolitionists intimidating or coercing people into some sort of action? I'd like to see that. If he means a few people holding signs outside a church building on Sunday morning, making no move to go inside, making no threatening gestures of any kind, all the while vastly outnumbered by the congregation as well as the police officers that the congregation usually summons (in violation of 1 Cor 6, by the way), then there is little to say in response to such limp-wristed foolishness.

Finally, the Bible tells us that we are to admonish and teach and sharpen each other and help each other to grow in understanding of the faith once delivered to the saints. Often one person will not be able to think of all the pertinent angles to a given question or challenge, which is why it can be helpful for others to chime in and offer their own thoughts. That's just Bible. What's wrong with that? How is it a mark of a cult? Do JWs or LDS do this? I've not met many, but I've seen a lot of Reformed people do it. Are they cultists?

I've seen a lot of abolitionists get intimidated and coerced to pipe down about AHA in numerous Facebook groups, like the Reformed Pub and the Pulpit Bunker, lest the admins kick the offenders. By Jordan's standard, these admins are cultists.

12. Sub-Christian sects often try to win arguments through a victory-by-volume approach to argumentation. The schismatics produce an over-abundance of blogs, articles, books, videos and (in 2016) Internet memes to simply repeat over and again the same talking points. Schismatics, because they are by nature law-oriented and works-focused (as opposed to being Gospel-focused) are highly motivated (their righteousness depends on it), deeply fanatical, tireless individuals who will dedicate the many hours upon hours necessary to win a single argument. Their goal, after all, is building up their organization. Schismatics often believe they’ve won an argument simply because they’ve used more words.

Such as spending 114 pages in pdf format to talk about one single debate like Jordan did? That a guy who has made a name for himself by writing long articles and doing regular podcasts could say this with a straight face doesn't speak well of his objectivity. Do P&P and PR repeat over and again the same talking points? Yes, they do. Is that bad? No! But Jordan says it is a mark of a cult, so I guess he is a cultist.

Jordan asserts: "because they are by nature law-oriented and works-focused (as opposed to being Gospel-focused)"

Where is his evidence? His mere say-so should not suffice for any lover of truth.

Jordan says: "Schismatics often believe they’ve won an argument simply because they’ve used more words."

That may be. What is his evidence it is true of any abolitionist?

Amazingly, Jordan says: "Their goal, after all, is building up their organization"

Yet in his post from April 2016 titled "Goodbye", Jordan said this:
"There’s Gospel to preach, souls to save, kids to rear, a wife to adore, animals to hunt, guns to shoot, lawns to mow and a church to pastor."

What he means is: He has among familial responsibilities and leisure, an organization to build up. So it's OK for him, but not OK for abolitionists, do I have that right? (And no, AHA is still not an organization.)

Notably, Jordan is obviously ashamed of this post, because even though it was live on the Internet as of the morning of 24 September 2016, the URL now redirects to a totally different article. He is trying to erase the past. Tell me that's not cultic behavior! Fortunately, the article lives on at archive.org and in my personal hard drive.

Notice also from the same defunct article:
"If I had one regret (and trust me, I have many), it would be that our polemics has not been seasoned with enough grace."

It doesn't seem he meant it, for he has moved in the course of just over a month from calling me a "close friend" to a cultist and anathema. That is not how stable people act, and it isn't biblical behavior.

To sum up, Jordan Hall's article is an ad hoc, self-serving mess and is devoid of any serious love of truth. The heart and mind of a man who could write such a thing is in several ways laid bare by that which he expresses. God help him. I truly greatly fear for the soul of a man I once trusted and counted a friend.

Abortion: The Evil of Our Age (Revised)

Improving on the talk I delivered with the same title some time ago, here is what I hope to be a definitive treatment of the topic.

Andrew Rappaport thinks abortion is no big deal

Andrew Rappaport Abortion has NEVER been the definition of the church.

http://strivingforeternity.org/.../ecclesia-the-church/

No one in history has abortion been a definition of the church so aha need to make this case. Since no where in Scripture is abortion ever an issue. Child sacrifice is always that the killing as part of the worship to a false deity and that is not abortion though aha twists it to make that argument

I am sharing because as you can see here AHA is attempting to redefine the church to justify the sin of protesting the church so that they can call these church false churches. I am calling aha to repent

Like · Reply · 4 hrs

Matt Ferro Andrew Rappaport What are the qualifications for a church to be a "Biblical" or "true" or "good" one that abolitionists should not call to repentance?

Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Andrew Rappaport Matt Ferro the gospel not a non-issue from a biblical perspective. AHA twists the Bibke to make abortion a major issue when that was never the issue in the Bible

Like · Reply · 2 hrs

Rhology \\Abortion has NEVER been the definition of the church.\\

Nobody is saying that. One reason is that I am not entirely sure what this statement is intended to communicate.

\\Since no where in Scripture is abortion ever an issue. Child sacrifice is always that the killing as part of the worship to a false deity and that is not abortion though aha twists it to make that argument \\

T. Russell Hunter corrected you on this before, and so did Jordan Hall, for crying out loud.
Psalm 106: 37They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters *****to the demons*****,

38And shed innocent blood,
The blood of their sons and their daughters,
Whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan;
And the land was polluted with the blood.

39Thus they became unclean in their practices,
And played the harlot in their deeds.

40Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people
And He abhorred His inheritance.

Also, just b/c someone murders someone else in the name of or for the commendation of a false god doesn't mean it isn't murder. This point is not only weirdly obscure, it's also totally irrelevant.

\\AHA is attempting to redefine the church\\

I totally disagree. We are calling the church to be biblical and to hate the things God hates and love the things God loves.
He commands we love our neighbors as ourselves. Who is more in need of love than our preborn neighbors?

\\the sin of protesting the church\\

You keep saying this but never proving it. I keep challenging you to debate me on the topic and you make fun of me and mock me.
Further, you say "the" church. Which one? Do you mean "the sin of protesting churches"? It's OK to stand outside literally NO churches in the USA to call them to repentance?
Also, you disingenuously continue to use loaded words that we reject, like "protest", thus burning a strawman, which shows how weak your position is.

\\the gospel not a non-issue from a biblical perspective.\\

1) Abolitionists love and proclaim the Gospel all the time. Read our website.
2) So if a church believes the Gospel, everyone should just ignore any other sin that church may ever commit or be involved in.
3) Did you just say that child sacrifice is a non-issue from a biblical perspective?

\\when that was never the issue in the Bible\\

So... child sacrifice was never the issue in the Bible.
What about loving your neighbor as yourself?

Like · Reply · Commented on by Alan Maricle · Just now

United Methodists Step Back from Child Sacrifice… and That’s Not Good

*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. 


It’s instinctive for us to look favorably upon a situation where a markedly messed up and apostate group such as the United Methodist Church takes a step ostensibly in the direction of a better position than what they held before. But let’s check out some reasons why this is not necessarily a great reason to celebrate.

First, let’s note that 310 delegates voted against the resolution to stop supporting Roe v Wade. Let that sink in. I’m no mathematician, but it sure looks like 40% of the people that United Methodist churches across the USA selected to represent them at this official gathering think that it’s fantastic that 1.2 million+ tiny human beings are dismembered by edged weapons and poisoned by chemical weaponry per year.

Let’s be honest – this is not a complicated matter. Roe v Wade is judicial tyranny over the population and is a total perversion of the US Constitution. Even worse, it simply ignores biblical teaching vis-à-vis the image of God in human beings. It just isn’t unclear whether it is justifiable to poison a baby to death or rip her limbs from her body after sucking out her brain. This is evidence of a major divide within this supposed body of supposed Christians in which barely half their delegates have even a modicum of love for their preborn neighbors.

What is the appropriate response to when one has endorsed a position that has contributed to many, many deaths of many, many innocent victims?

Repentance. And we are all to bear fruit in keeping with our repentance. But what does this resolution actually accomplish? What are they going to do about this? To what actions of love and intervention are they going to call their people that would represent fruit? Is this just talk and hot air? What evidence could anyone produce that would show it is anything but?

What do you do with a church member who is pro-abortion and pro-tyranny? Church discipline. Not in the UMC, though. It’s just a matter of votes in this little suit-and-tie convention. Nothing to see here. Thousands and thousands of lost people, who don’t love their preborn neighbors and endorse their systematic legalised massacre, are church members in good standing. That’s a problem.

Delegates… voted… 425-268 to withdraw from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, whose pro-choice stance extends to late-term and sex-selective abortions.

Note again how many delegates voted to stay in the RCRC, a wicked and horrible organisation if ever there were one. Note also the implicit bias in the article – that abortion in the case of late-term and sex-selective abortion is really really especially bad, whereas regular old abortion for the sake of convenience is not worth mentioning. I mean, sure it’s bad or something, but when babies are older, it’s much worse, right? It is terrible thinking, though of course this could just be the thoughts of the reporter slipping through.

Imagine a vote in a similar convention, split 400-250, to affirm the Trinity and the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ. Do we just vote, announce the results, then break for lunch?

This fake repentance will make United Methodist individuals and churches harder to agitate and evangelise. Any confrontation of the sin of their denomination will now be met with a response that is plausible in their mind – “we just denounced abortion! Leave me alone.” It’s easier to draw dividing lines when the distance between truth and falsehood is wider. The lines have been blurred in the minds of many at this point. That’s why repentance done right is a shattering of the soul made public, not a respectable vote after which everyone shakes hands and smiles.

“This is a necessary and good step towards affirming that the unborn are persons of sacred worth,” he said. “This also shows that the UMC is moving away from other liberal, declining, ‘mainline’ denominations to embrace a new faithful, global identity.”

See? This is not repentance at all. You don’t take “steps” toward loving your neighbor and repenting of positions that are completely and horribly wrong. You repent and leave behind what you loved before. Again, this isn’t complex. You take up your cross. Follow Jesus. Love God. Love your neighbor. Stop playing church; people are dying and going to Hell. Don’t be fooled by fake contrition. Their very souls depend on it.

The Pro-Life Governor Just Out-Pro-Lifed the Legislature

(SB1552) was a predictable, cute show that the two factions of the pro-choice anti-righteousness conglomerate — pro-abortion and pro-regulation (aka “pro-life”) — slapped together to distract everyone from the real problem and its real solution.

Read more...

Mohler on Not Penalizing Moms Who Kill Their Kids

*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.  


President of Southern Seminary, Al Mohler, can usually be counted on to give measured, reasoned responses to world events and questions. Sadly, he is in grave error on the issue of abortion and abolition.

Take his commentary on the Trump abortion fiasco on the April 1, 2016 issue of The Briefing. Nothing he said therein would lead anyone to believe he is trying to joke around for the sake of April Fool’s Day. Unfortunately, Mohler is being very, very serious.

Al Mohler wants to make it clear that the pro-life movement has never, ever called for the criminalization of abortion when it comes to the mother.

“From Transcript: The big background of [the Trump] story is the fact that the pro-life movement has never, ever called for the criminalization of abortion when it comes to the woman. The pro-life movement actually emerged out of the early feminist movement, something that many people in modern America do not remember. The early feminists argued among other things that abortion was something that was inflicted upon women by men at their own convenience and women, argued the early feminists such as Susan B. Anthony, were the victims of abortion along with the unborn children who were aborted.”

Basing his rhetoric on solidarity with historical feminist pro-life figures such as Susan B Anthony, Mohler asserts that men inflict abortion on women for the man’s convenience. He then approvingly cites pro-life luminaries for backup. Let’s check on what they said.
First, Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life. Mohler cites her comments approvingly:

No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment.

More on that in a moment, but let’s consider the source for a moment.

Jeanne holds an undergraduate degree in psychology from James Madison University and a Masters degree in the theology of marriage and family from the Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family… Previously Jeanne worked with the Family Research Council (FRC), where she focused on issues related to the inherent dignity of the human person, including abortion, women’s health… Before working in public policy, Jeanne worked for the Catholic Church in a variety of positions involving educating on life issues, human sexuality, marriage, and family.

Judging by her Twitter feed, which is littered with papist RTs and oh-so-sad “We’ll miss you”s directed toward the recently-deceased Mother Angelica, Mancini is Roman Catholic. What, was Mohler unable to find a juicy enough quote from Russell Moore or Joe Carter, that he had to resort to quoting outspoken enemies of the Gospel?

At least Mohler lands on the right side of the Tiber in his quote of Peggy Nance of Concerned Women for America: “Trump doesn’t understand pro-life people or the life issue,” in that his initial comment that caused all this in the first place indicated he thought abortive women should be legally punished for murdering their offspring.

The position being forwarded here by Mohler and others is this: Women are brought to abortion by men. Abortion is inflicted on the woman, usually by a man. Trump’s statement misunderstands the pro-life position. Only the abortician and his staff should be held criminally responsible for killing the child. The guilty party is the person who brings about the death of the child, and the woman is not the one bringing about the death of the child.

Let’s step back, take a deep breath, and expose this inane insanity for what it is – insane inanity.

First, I suspect nobody has any reasonable doubt that Donald Trump has a profound understanding of much of anything, except possibly manipulation of the media specifically and people in general. So let me just get that out of the way – Trump’s initial statement, even before he later backpedaled, was nothing close to the right thing. Here’s the right thing.

Second, absolutely aborticians and their staff should be prosecuted in a court of law on the charge of first-degree murder.

Third, absolutely any man with any involvement in an abortive woman’s decision to murder her child bears a very real responsibility and guilt for that baby’s death, especially the father of the child or the father of the complicit woman.
But this position, which reduces women to passive agents, mere puppets in the hands of men who are able to ply and bend their women so easily into murdering their own offspring, must be opposed. It is ironic that the feminists and the pro-lifers (and the feminist pro-lifers) join with the pro-abort crazies in crying so loud for “women’s rights” that they actually end up implicitly affirming that which they deny out loud.

Women are in fact moral agents, just as men are. Women are capable of making choices, even of momentous import, just as men are. Women can understand things, especially such things as basic biology like “Babies grow inside mommy’s tummy” and “If someone jams a suction hose inside a pregnant woman, especially if they have a lot of experience doing so, they can suck out whatever is in that woman’s tummy. Like a baby. While very possibly sterilizing that woman or causing a fatal hæmorrhage.”

Women are capable of comprehending at least some of the consequences of their actions. They can understand the words comprising a message of repentance, like “Please don’t kill your baby. There is help for you free of charge. God hates the hands that shed innocent blood. Turn back now.” Mohler and the other pro-life elements with the loudest voices in America today would have us think that it’s the man in the woman’s life who is the main driver behind the sacrifice of the child, up to the man who actually wields the weapon to commit the murder.
Perhaps Mohler and these others ought to open their eyes and spend some time at their local abortion mill. I know some men who’d be thrilled to have Mohler join them on Saturdays at the one in Louisville. I’d be happy to arrange their acquaintance. When one goes to the murder mill, yes, one sees men accompanying women inside. One occasionally sees a man in a pretty apparent dominating position over the woman. One often sees mothers (who are not men) bringing their daughters to murder their grandbaby. One often sees women accompanied by “supportive” friends, usually female friends. One occasionally sees women in distraught emotional states. More often, one sees women in stony silence. Often, the women salute the sidewalk counselors with upraised middle fingers and shouted obscenities. One also is frequently told that the woman’s pastor said it was OK and that God forgave the murder ahead of time.
So yes, in many cases, women are brought by men to abortion mills. How does that absolve them of guilt? Those that are pressured to do so still bear responsibility not to murder a baby.

If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her. –Deuteronomy 22:23-27

If the woman is being literally forced to go in, she should cry out! She should alert the sidewalk counselors, the death mill staff, the other murderous women and men inside the abortuary. She should struggle with all the vigor with which she would struggle if someone were seeking to stab her beloved three year old child! That she doesn’t do that shows that she has murdered her preborn child in her heart already.

That Mohler and other pro-lifers don’t speak the same way about preborn children that they do about born humans shows that they too are guilty of dehumanising the preborn child.

It is still murder even when someone pressures you to pull the trigger. Women are responsible moral agents, not robots and not silly putty. Are Mohler, the pro-lifers, and the pro-aborts ready to reap the whirlwind when they sow these powerful seeds that indicate that women are inferior to men?

The claim is that the guilty party is the person who brings about the death of the child. The mother is not the one actually bringing about the death. Oh really? She didn’t go to the mill? She had nothing to do with getting pregnant? She didn’t express every confidence that this baby is her flesh and blood and that she will love her neighbor as herself? She didn’t contribute anything to the payment of the fee? The abortician worked for free? She didn’t walk in under her own power? She didn’t compliantly lie down and expose her private parts to this man she’d met maybe one time before?

Please. In reality, the difference between the abortician and the mother (and participating father) is the difference between the hit man and the one who hires the hit man. There is no real moral difference. The culpability cannot rest solely on the “provider” of the service; it must also rest on the “provider” of the fetus.
Perhaps next Mohler will propose that only the Nazi who pulls the switch that releases the toxic gas should be punished, but not the citizen who turned them in or the official who ordered the death or the workers who knowingly and willingly constructed the camp in which the murder would happen.
Being this kind of “pro-life” is worse than being pro-abortion. At least those who are pro-abortion don’t claim to champion the rights of the unborn and don’t, in the process of making excuses for women, sow the seeds of male supremacy. Seriously, you should just be pro-abortion if this is how you’re going to talk.

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth.” –Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as cited in Revelation 3:15-16

But far better to be an abolitionist.

Southern Baptist deacon builds abortion clinic with pastor's approval

*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.

“This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” —John 3:19-21

“For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light.” —Mark 4:22

“For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.” —Luke 8:17

Those who are in sin hate exposure. When you take up the responsibility to fulfill the commands of Jesus to expose sin and darkness, bringing the Word of God into conflict with hidden sin, you follow in the footsteps of the prophets. You dash the cries of “Peace, peace!” into pieces. You are a living, breathing, talking reminder that the only right and good path is that of repentance, and yet repentance is the farthest thing from the mind of him who would obstinately hide his sin.

God in His providence has brought us all a perfect example of this very thing, to weep over, pray about, and learn from – the sad case of the Christian business owner Darren Yarbrough of Yarbrough & Sons Heat and Air, of Blanchard, OK. Mr. Yarbrough is a deacon at First Baptist Church of Blanchard, OK, and his wife helps lead a ladies’ Bible study group.

Mr. Yarbrough’s company accepted a contract to renovate the HVAC system at a medical facility in Oklahoma City some time ago. Whether he knew the planned-for nature of that facility is impossible to know (and he ain’t telling), though a modicum of research would have given him all the information he would have needed to know he should at least dig further into the matter. I mean, what else do you think the “Trust Women Foundation” might do? Take a wild guess.

But let’s say he didn’t know. His company proceeded to perform their doubtless quality work as per usual. And then one day they received a phone call from a concerned local Christian, informing them that they were building a child sacrifice center. The receptionist told this Christian that the owners were on vacation and unavailable, and proceeded to treat him rudely. This Christian asked his friend, a Southern Baptist pastor from a nearby town, to stop by and politely reiterate the gravity of the matter. When he arrived, he found that the owner was not in fact on vacation. Rather, both he and his wife were at the building.

The conversation that ensued was not only revealing of the heart of the man – that he loves money more than righteousness – but also that his wife is nearly incapable of self-control, given the way he had to snap his fingers at her and tell her to pipe down, twice.

The obvious and clear correct thing to do, once you have discovered you’ve been constructing a modern Auschwitz, is to leave the job behind. You sustain whatever temporal damage you must. You eat whatever penalty. You get sued if you can’t avoid it. You do what you can to impede the progress of the construction of the killing facility.

Above all, you do not continue making sure this death camp’s HVAC system functions well. There is no excuse for this. It is a no-brainer. That is the bare minimum.

Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. —Psalm 82:4

A consistent theme throughout Scripture is the mile-wide gap between godly reasoning and wisdom, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and worldly reasoning and wisdom, led by the pulsing of the glands, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Yet because nobody wants to just come right out and say “I am doing this because I love money and status” or things like that, people cover up their sin with excuses and “reasoning”. Often this takes the form of shaming and slandering the one(s) exposing the sin and calling out for repentance.

“Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” —Matthew 5:11-12

They do that because it’s one of the biggest weapons in the devil’s arsenal. Old Reliable. Cloud the issue, cast aspersions, invoke Political Correctness, and redefine love, grace, and harassment such that they become as biblically unrecognisable as they are appealing and comforting to others who wouldn’t want their own sin to be exposed. The one who is trained in the truth is able to distinguish between truth and error.

But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil. —Hebrews 5:14

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! —Isaiah 5:20

Some easy ways to understand when someone is reasoning in a worldly, sinful fashion are: hypocrisy and inconsistency, twisting words to redefine them, and asking loaded questions so as to cast one’s opponent in a bad light and try to trap him in a false trap. There is a reason why the Pharisees and other enemies of truth talked this way throughout biblical history.

When servants of Jesus responded to the request to call Yarbrough & Sons to repentance by telephone and social media (for example on their Facebook reviews page) (also on their Facebook wall, which has since been scrubbed clean), did Yarbough & Sons repent? Sadly, no. Rather, it would seem that the owner’s son, a student at Oklahoma Baptist University (of which 1st Baptist Blanchard’s pastor Andy Finch is a Trustee), got the green light to prepare and then spam a “First and Final Statement” from the company to all the reviewers who called out their very public sin and asked them to repent.

Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.’ And all the people shall say, “Amen.” —Deuteronomy 27:25

Then, when the author of the previous article about this situation contacted Mr. Yarbrough by telephone, asking to meet face to face to discuss like Christian brothers ought, Mr. Yarbrough referred him to the aforementioned Facebook statement and that his pastor had reviewed and approved. Mr. Yarbrough also told the author to talk to his attorney and that his name and phone number had been given to local police.

Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. —1 Corinthians 6:1-8

Despairing of a righteous response from Mr. Yarbrough or anyone else at the company, the author contacted the pastor of First Baptist Church, Dr. Andy Finch.

What else is there to do, especially when the pastor can’t give any more time or attention to this matter because he has to go to an Easter egg hunt?

Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house to put his nest on high, to be delivered from the hand of calamity… Woe to him who builds a city with bloodshed and founds a town with violence! —Habakkuk 2:9, 13

He does not put out his money at interest, nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken. —Psalm 15:5

“In you they have taken bribes to shed blood; you have taken interest and profits, and you have injured your neighbors for gain by oppression, and you have forgotten Me,” declares the Lord GOD. —Ezekiel 22:12

Cry loudly, do not hold back; raise your voice like a trumpet, and declare to My people their transgression and to the house of Jacob their sins. —Isaiah 58:1

He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” —Luke 17:1-4

What value have “honesty” and “integrity” when your interpretation of those principles leads you to build a place where people can pay to rip their baby’s face off? Why wouldn’t honesty and integrity be communicated by walking off such a project and trusting Almighty God to sustain you through whatever negative repercussions may come?

What do “compassion” and “empathy” mean when you turn your face away from those most in need of compassion and empathy – preborn children?

How are perseverance in a job once begun or lack of bias commendable when you serve as an accomplice to murderers?

How are progressive business practices righteous when you assist in the sacrifice of children? Would an Israelite stonemason receive praise from God for knowingly giving a fair price and faithfully finishing an altar to Molech?

How do exposure of sin and wholehearted calls to repentance constitute harassment, defamation, or lack of empathy? How is publicly shaming someone who is in unrepentant, public, grave sin anything other than the proper biblical action?

How is it unloving to obey the words of Scripture and try to restore a brother who is sinning?

How can someone claim that Jesus did not try to inspire fear, properly understood? Why do Yarbrough & Sons puff out their chests on social media (all the while refusing to meet with individual abolitionists on their own turf and referring all inquiries to their attorney) and boast they do not fear us? And why don’t they fear God?

The story is not finished, sadly. Yarbrough & Sons has doubled down. Now we Christians who have cared enough for the souls of these folks and the babies, part of whose blood will soon be on their hands, are a “pro-life cult” who have engaged in “harassment” and “cyberbullying”. They characterise our intent as a desire to “harm (their) reputation and get people to boycott” them. They choose to complete the contract to build this child sacrifice center because a breach of contract is illegal, rather than trust in God. Their pastor approves. They think this is “liv(ing) the gospel”. They do not discriminate. They’ll “provide HVAC to all people unconditionally”.

You hear that? Brothels, casinos, crack houses, meth labs, sex traffickers, and Nazi gas chambers alike – Yarbrough & Sons will be sure that you fulfill your desires in air-conditioned comfort. Because hey, you can’t just go around turning down good business.

May God have mercy on them.

Pro-Lifers Cooperating With Abortion

*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 Wichita, KS child sacrifice center whose halls George Tiller once stalked, weapons in hand, is once again open for its bloody and awful business. Not content with murdering children in Kansas, however, the South Wind Women’s Center is crossing state lines to open a branch in south Oklahoma City, right in the middle of a (surprise, surprise) majority-minority area. The better to cull the undesirables from the human race, my dear.

The pro-aborts clearly don’t fear pro-life legislation. Oklahoma is widely appreciated as the most pro-life state in the Union. There are many pro-life laws on the books, restricting abortion activity, setting requirements for abortion mills and their personnel to meet. And still they build. Senate Bill 1552 (the bill supported by the Republican Christian pro-lifers of Oklahoma over and against SB 1118, which would have labeled abortion as legal homicide) has good momentum and appears on the road to being signed into law. And still they build. Still they invest in child sacrifice in Oklahoma. They don’t fear because they are actually on the same team as the leaders of the pro-life movement.

And how’s this for a trick? They hire pro-life people to do their work for them! You see, the building chosen to house this new altar to Molech is the former home of an eye clinic. The place is shut down now, under renovation. The inside is gutted, steel joists exposed without any sheetrock, basic infrastructure construction underway. South Wind’s general contractor has done his job well, having hired pro-life Christians to build a modern death camp in the middle of a major American Midwestern city.

Rick, a worship leader from an evangelical church in Noble, OK, headed up Butler Plumbing, Inc’s effort to install the plumbing and pipes down which the blood of children will wash into city sewers.

Yarbrough & Sons Heat and Air of Blanchard, OK is headed up by good Christian men. They were informed of the nature of their project and chose not to lose $30,000 rather than walk off the job that would keep the abortionist in air-conditioned comfort as she rips babies’ faces off.

Crown Electric of Yukon, OK and Trek Electric of Edmond, OK just plain don’t care that their electrical wiring will power the weapons that will cut through flesh, bone, and cranial matter to reduce beautiful creations of God to gore and blood-red sludge in exchange for cash.

Matthew 16:24-27 – Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.”

2 Corinthians 6:14-16 – Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Proverbs 31:8-9 – 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.

If you are reading this, please contact these companies and call them to repentance. Please leave a review on Facebook, calling them to repentance. Please leave a review on other business and review websites like Yelp or Angie’s List, exposing their evil deeds for all to see.

Butler Plumbing, Inc – 405-635-8942 – Facebook page
Yarbrough & Sons Heat and Air – 405-485-3470 – Facebook page
Crown Electric – 405-324-9555 – Facebook page
Trek Electric – 405-748-6330 – Facebook page

Ephesians 5:11 – Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.