‘Beth Moore has announced she has left the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) although she is “still a Baptist.” Not sure if that means she now identifies with the churches of the New Testament that were totally independent—self-propagating, self-governing, and self-supporting.
Moore was shocked that so many SBC pastors supported Donald Trump and was highly critical of him (as was I) and saw only his grossness, not his greatness. She was seriously offended at the Billy Bush recording (as I was) where Trump boasted about grabbing women sexually.
Moore could not see the good that resulted from Trump’s policies—numerous babies saved from abortion, Blacks and Hispanics lifted out of poverty, religious freedoms protected, a strong economy that helped everyone, massive tax cuts, oppressive regulations removed, a wall built to keep out undesirable illegal aliens, etc.
Maybe Beth is blind in one eye and has a thick cataract on the other. Whatever, she does not see clearly.
Moore was also rightly concerned about 400 sex abuse charges in more than 20 years against SBC pastors. Of course, Moore knows that the convention does not license or ordain men; only a local church has that authority, so just a local church can pull credentials. While that is true, nothing keeps SBC leaders from putting accused pastors on probation until their churches look into the charges and resolve the issue. If not resolved, the SBC can remove offending churches from membership.
Moreover, a charge against a pastor does not equal guilt, contrary to mainline feminist leaders. We are told that we must believe any accusation made by a woman. Of course, that is insane. While every charge must be taken seriously, the allegation must be admitted or proved to be true. If a pastor is found guilty, he should be jailed. If a woman is proved to be a false accuser, she should be jailed. While sexual assault seriously impacts a woman’s life, personality, health, and the rest of her life, so does an assault on a man’s reputation affect his job, finances, his relationship with his wife and children, and his future.
I demand Equal Rights and Equal Responsibility, and Equal Accountability.
While I don’t ever want to be considered soft on pastoral sexual assault, it must be remembered that there are 47,000 SBC churches in the U.S. While one case of sexual assault is too many, 400 cases in 20 years out of 47,000 pastors (and almost that many associates) is comparable to the ratios in other denominations and non-church groups.
SBC critics speak of offending pastors (accused pastors) being moved to other locations when charges are made public; however, the SBC cannot move pastors to other places. To move to another church is a decision made by a local church and a potential pastor. That charge against the SBC is not legitimate.
One of Moore’s major supporters (who wanted to nominate her to be President of the SBC), Pastor Dwight McKissic recently left his state convention declaring, “We Are Getting Off the Bus,” meaning he has pulled his church out of the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. Moreover, he will pull his church out of the national SBC if he does not like how things go at their national convention.
He has a right to choose with whom to associate as a person and as a pastor.
The President of the SBC, J.D. Greear, said in a statement that he hoped the news of Moore’s departure would cause the denomination to “lament,” pray and “rededicate itself to its core values.” But the SBC, as an entity, left SBC “core values” a long time ago. It is now concerned with critical race theory, feminism, and all progressive issues that makes vice president what’s-her-name Harris stand up and cheer.
The SBC, if not dead, is dying; and the vultures flying over their corporate headquarters in Nashville are indicative of that. (For the metaphor-deficient readers, that is a symbolic comment since Nashville doesn’t have vultures—that fly.) Frankly, it is not a natural death, since the SBC is committing suicide.
I have dealt elsewhere with the convention’s divisive issues in which the denominational leaders have almost always made the progressive but wrong decision. The trend toward an extreme Calvinist position, education at the expense of evangelism, promoting social justice warriors, progressivism over tradition, and female leadership are the reasons crepe will hang on their corporate doors. They are doing it to themselves.
Those are the reasons Beth and others should have left the SBC convention. She made the right decision for the wrong reason.
While all the above hot issues are taking their toll, one of the most divisive is the role of women in the group and in local churches, of which Beth Moore is their main spokeswoman. Of course, that is a decision for a local church to make.
Leftist pastors in the SBC have promoted the possibility of Beth Moore being elected to be President of the SBC! Dwight McKissic, the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, said, “If I thought Beth Moore would accept the nomination or be agreeable to being nominated,… I would nominate her for SBC president.”
He went on to say there was no Scripture to prohibit a female leader of the SBC since it is not a local church; however, there is the problem of having authority over men. He mentioned females who prophesied in the Bible, but that is not having authority over men. Moreover, to deny Beth or any woman a leadership position would be “sinful and shameful,” according to the good reverend.
Nevertheless, refusing Moore as president of the SBC would be Scriptural in my opinion.
Will the SBC make a break with its longstanding position of male leadership and thereby split the denomination? Probably so, and very soon. The SBC is complementarian. That is defined as “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.” In opposition is egalitarianism, the unbiblical position that “men and women are equal in authority and responsibilities, including as pastors.”
A train wreck is about to happen.
As the late pastor Adrian Rogers wisely said, “As the West goes, so goes the world. As America goes, so goes the West. As Christianity goes, so goes America. As evangelicals go, so goes Christianity. As Southern Baptists go, so go evangelicals.”
If the SBC follows the path they are on and nominates any female, there will be a bloody battle on the convention floor resulting in the split heard around the world.
Many years ago after attending schools that leaned toward the NIV and other versions based on the Critical text of Westcott and Hort I came to the personal conviction that the Authorized Bible based on the Received Greek Text and the Masoretic Hebrew Text was God’s Word in the English language. Here is the testimony of Alex Bowler https://www.alexbowlerevangelism.com/why-i-use-the-king-james-bible.html as to why he uses only the Authorized Bible, the King James Bible.
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6 & 7
‘A Personal Testimony
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: Matthew 7:7
As a new Christian I decided to read three Bibles: the New International Version, the Good News Bible and the King James Bible. I thought that the NIV and GNB, written in modern English, would help me to understand the King James Bible better. During my Bible studies however, I began to notice great differences between the King James Bible and the other two versions. I saw that passages about the deity of Christ, the blood of Jesus, the Trinity and other important doctrines had been changed, watered down or even deleted in the NIV and GNB and I grew increasingly uneasy about this. I knew in my heart that God must have preserved His true word for us to read so one day I prayed: “Lord, please show me which Bible you want me to use, which Bible is your true word.” Later that same day I decided to go for a walk in a nearby park, and saw in the distance a Christian friend, who attended a local Anglican Church, walking towards me. As she approached me I could see that she was carrying a Bible under her arm. We greeted each other and then she said, “Hi! Guess what? The Lord spoke to me today and told me to bring this King James Bible to your parents’ house and to give it to you!”
From that day I have only read and preached from the King James Bible – God’s pure preserved words in English.
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. Jude:4
Brooke Foss Westcott (1825 – 1901) Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828 – 1892)
‘ …. ye have perverted the words of the living God, …’ Jeremiah 23:36
The 4th Century Roman emperor Constantine wanted to bring unity between Christians and pagans. He therefore commissioned the creation of fifty Alexandrian ‘bibles’. It is speculated that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which underlie modern versions, are part of this fifty but if so, why are there so many differences between them?
In 1844 Lobegott Friedrich Constantin (von) Tischendorf claimed to have found 86 sheets of vellum, in a wastepaper bin which were to be burned, in the Roman Catholic St Catherine’s Monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai in Egypt. He later claimed that by 1859 he obtained what they came from: a huge codex he called Sinaiticus. This included parts of the Old Testament, all of the New Testament, as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. A Greek palaeographer, Constantine Simonides, really threw the cat amongst the pidgeons and infuriated Von Tischendorf, who was glorying in his ‘discovery’ and his publication of Sinaiticus in 1862, when he claimed that same year to have produced Sinaiticus himself twenty years earlier!
Two 19th Century liberal Anglican churchmen, Westcott and Hort, studied Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and liked what they saw! They set out to create a NEW bible and saw their inclusion on the committee formed to undertake a modest revision of the King James Bible as a golden opportunity to introduce their radical and heretical changes, even insisting on the inclusion in that committee of the Unitarian scholar Dr. Vance Smith! (This revision of the King James Bible was sanctioned by the Southern Convocation of the Church of England.) Using Vaticanus and Sinaiticus they changed the historical Greek New Testament text to conform to those corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts! The result was the notorious English Revised Version of 1881, which horrified evangelical Christians on its publication and caused an outcry! This was the start of the counter-Reformation in earnest! The rot truly set in in 1881. (NB The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885)
A wicked plan was put in place to flood Bible colleges, churches and bookshops with fake ‘bibles’ produced from these corrupt manuscripts and to attack by all means the pure preserved words of the Lord in English – the King James Bible. This plan continues to this day with a vengeance!
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7:18-20
Statements of Westcott and Hort
The following quotes are taken from the diaries and letters of Westcott and Hort.
1846 Oct. 25th – Westcott: “Is there not that in the principles of the “Evangelical” school which must lead to the exaltation of the individual minister, and does not that help to prove their unsoundness? If preaching is the chief means of grace, it must emanate not from the church, but from the preacher, and besides placing him in a false position, it places him in a fearfully dangerous one.” (Life, Vol.I, pp.44,45).
Oct., 22nd after Trinity Sunday – Westcott: “Do you not understand the meaning of Theological ‘Development’? It is briefly this, that in an early time some doctrine is proposed in a simple or obscure form, or even but darkly hinted at, which in succeeding ages,as the wants of men’s minds grow, grows with them – in fact, that Christianity is always progressive in its principles and doctrines” (Life, Vol.I, p.78).
Dec. 23rd – Westcott: “My faith is still wavering. I cannot determine how much we must believe; how much, in fact, is necessarily required of a member of the Church.” (Life, Vol.I, p.46).
1847 Jan., 2nd Sunday after Epiphany – Westcott: “After leaving the monastery we shaped our course to a little oratory…It is very small, with one kneeling-place; and behind a screen was a ‘Pieta’ the size of life (i.e. a Virgin and dead Christ)…I could not help thinking on the grandeur of the Romish Church, on her zeal even in error, on her earnestness and self-devotion, which we might, with nobler views and a purer end, strive to imitate. Had I been alone I could have knelt there for hours.” (Life, Vol.I, p.81).
1848 July 6th – Hort: “One of the things, I think, which shows the falsity of the Evangelical notion of this subject (baptism), is that it is so trim and precise…no deep spiritual truths of the Reason are thus logically harmonious and systematic…the pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical…the fanaticism of the bibliolaters, among whom reading so many ‘chapters’ seems exactly to correspond to the Romish superstition of telling so many dozen beads on a rosary…still we dare not forsake the Sacraments, or God will forsake us…I am inclined to think that no such state as ‘Eden’ (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam’s fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants” (Life, Vol.I, pp.76-78).
Aug. 11th – Westcott: “I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it.” (Life, Vol.I, p.52).
Nov., Advent Sunday – Westcott: “All stigmatise him (a Dr. Hampden) as a ‘heretic,’…I thought myself that he was grievously in error, but yesterday I read over the selections from his writings which his adversaries make, and in them I found systematically expressed the very strains of thought which I have been endeavouring to trace out for the last two or three years. If he be condemned, what will become of me?” (Life, Vol.I,p.94).
1850 May 12th – Hort: “You ask me about the liberty to be allowed to clergymen in their views of Baptism. For my own part, I would gladly admit to the ministry such as hold Gorham’s view, much more such as hold the ordinary confused Evangelical notions” (Life, Vol.I, p.148).
July 31st – Hort: “I spoke of the gloomy prospect, should the Evangelicals carry on their present victory so as to alter the Services.” (Life, Vol.I, p.160).
1851 Feb. 7th – Hort: “Westcott is just coming out with his Norrisian on ‘The Elements of the Gospel Harmony.’ I have seen the first sheet on Inspiration, which is a wonderful step in advance of common orthodox heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.181).
1851 Dec. 29,30th – Hort: “I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones” (Life, Vol.I, p.211).
1858 Oct. 21st – Further I agree with them in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology as, to say the least, containing much superstition and immorality of a very pernmicious kind…The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue…There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible” (Life, Vol.I, p.400).
1860 Apr. 3rd – Hort: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.” (Life, Vol.I, p.416).
Oct. 15th – Hort: “I entirely agree – correcting one word – with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that “the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself” is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).
1864 Sept. 23rd – Hort: “I believe Coleridge was quite right in saying that Christianity without a substantial Church is vanity and dissolution; and I remember shocking you and Lightfoot not so very long ago by expressing a belief that ‘Protestantism’ is only parenthetical and temporary. In short, the Irvingite creed (minus the belief in the superior claims of the Irvingite communion) seems to me unassailable in things ecclesiastical.” (Life, Vol.II, p.30,31).
1865 Sept. 27th – Westcott: “I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette (a marian shrine). I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of the miracles”.
Nov. 17th – Westcott: “As far as I could judge, the ‘idea’ of La Salette was that of God revealing Himself now, and not in one form but in many.” (Life, Vol.I. pp.251,252).
Oct. 17th – Hort: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results.” (Life, Vol.II, p.50).
1867 Oct. 17th – Hort: “I wish we were more agreed on the doctrinal part; but you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist, and there is not much profit in arguing about first principles.” (Life, Vol.II, p.86).
1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”
The True Manuscripts
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: II Timothy 3:16
The King James Bible is translated from the traditional Greek text (Textus Receptus). It has been proven through recent collation of the very earliest papyri that the King James readings are early and not late as some supposed. There are 5500 Greek New Testament manuscripts in existence today. From these existing manuscripts over 99% agree with each other – the text which underlies the King James Bible.
Dr Kenyon, curator of the British Museum said, ” This is the text found in the great majority of manuscripts.” “Until 1881 it held the field as the text in practically universal use.”
In 1881 Westcott and Hort changed this traditional Greek text in 8413 places!
Dr Hort said the following words about the changes they made: ” I do not think the significance is generally understood. It is quite impossible to judge the value of what appears to be trifling alterations merely by reading them one after another. Taken together, they have often important bearings which few would think of at first …… The difference between a picture say of a Raffaelle and a feeble copy of it is made up of a number of trivial differences …. It is, one can hardly doubt, the beginning of a new period in Church history. So far the angry objectors have reason for their astonishment.”
Hort also said: ” At present many orthodox (but rational) men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if the process is allowed to go on quietly.”
The testimony of Dr. Franklin Logsdon
Dr Frank Logsdon was the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB). He has since renounced any connection to it as well as to the Amplified Version.
“I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I’m afraid I’m in trouble with the Lord … We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface … I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong, terribly wrong … The deletions are absolutely frightening … there are so many … Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr Lockman, (The benefactor through which the NASB was published) explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV (NASB). You can say that the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct …
Dr Franklin Logsdon also said, “As a member of the editorial committee in production of the Amplified New Testament, we honestly and conscientiously felt it was a mark of intelligence to follow Westcott and Hort. Now, what you have in these books (Which Bible? and True or False? , by Dr. D.O. Fuller) strikes terror to my heart. It proves, alarmingly, that being conscientiously wrong is a most dangerous state of believing. God help us to be more cautious, lest we fall into the snares of the arch deceiver.”
‘Imagine you are watching a movie with a car chase scene. The driver of one car rolls out just before his automobile plunges headlong over a cliff, and the car smashes against rocks as it tumbles down, breaking into pieces and finally exploding.
Now, if you run the film backwards, you will see an explosion producing a dented automobile with broken pieces jumping back into place. Then the dents become smooth as the car backs its way up the cliff. As we celebrate the passage of time with God’s gift of a brand new year, let us stop to consider what time really is. And let us praise God once again that the Bible is amazingly true and accurate!
From my description above, you can know the film is now being run backwards because such behavior is never observed in real life. We do not see an explosion produce a car, and we never see a shattered car flying up the face of a cliff. Yet, this is what evolutionists say happened somehow – explosions and time somehow made things much more complicated than a car!
Indeed, as physicists point out, “time” is actually defined as the “direction” in which entropy or disorder/decay increases. Modern scientists observe this law of incessant decay as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and it proves itself over and over as thoroughly as the law of gravity. And all by itself, this law sends evolution over the cliff.
This truth is also in the Bible. When Adam rebelled against his Creator by eating the forbidden fruit, God told Adam he would decay. “For dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return” (Genesis 3:19b). It was part of the curse on creation because of sin. The Bible restates this principle of the creation’s decay with time in many texts of scripture. For example, Romans 8:21 says that the present creation is in “bondage of corruption (decay to a disordered state)”. Time is heavily correlated to the creation itself – to the laws that govern matter.
The Bible also describes God as Creator of time itself, along with matter and space. This is inherent in the language of the Bible’s first verse: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” And Hebrews 1:2 says the following: “(God) hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made [the ages].” The Greek word “aionas” is translated either “worlds” or “ages”; yet, it is the word from which we get our English word “eons”. It means a period of time.
So the Bible lumps the creation together with time in prophetic foreknowledge of what only came to be understood by scientific men in the 20th century as the space-time continuum – or more completely, the space-matter-time continuum. Consider Psalm 90:2, “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” As theologians would say, our Creator exists in “the eternal now”. Though He transcends time, He can participate in it. This is why the Bible says “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” and can talk in terms of “the fullness of time” in relation to the fulfillment of prophecy.
So science once again can be said to be catching up with what was already in the Bible. Scientists came to realize that time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space. Space-time is a mathematical model that joins space and time into a single idea, calling it a continuum – in four dimensions (the three dimensions of space plus the one dimension of time). In the time-space continuum, as we move through space, time is “dilated” like the pupil of your eye (time-dilation). The faster we travel through space, the slower we travel through time (i.e., the more time slows down). This is referred to as time-warping.
Difficult as this is to grasp, it has been shown to be true through experiment. For example, in 1971, four incredibly accurate cesium atomic clocks (which measure the vibrational frequency of the oscillating atoms of the element cesium) were synchronized and flown on commercial planes that circled the earth twice. Then the clocks were compared to the reference clock at the U.S. naval observatory. Sure enough, the moving clocks differed from the reference clock by exactly the amount predicted mathematically for the time-space continuum principle.
Extending the mathematics, if we traveled at the speed of light (186,000 miles per second), time would stand still. Furthermore, according to the principle, if we were able to travel faster than the speed of light, we could actually go backwards in time! This is the basis for science fiction stories, even though the speed presently of manned spacecraft is only 6.9 miles per second. But can you imagine in our glorified bodies being able to travel about and arrive at far flung places instantly if we wanted to?!
Amazingly, at the end of the Bible in John’s visions, these truths are made clear:
The first heaven and earth will have passed away.
There would be a new heaven and a new earth.
There would no longer be any death.
There would no longer be any curse.
This outcome must be the case if we are to have eternal life. In eternity, we shall be immortal, which means death and its process are removed. And our experience of time with its current constrictions will, therefore, change. In fact, in Revelation 10:6b, the Greek word chronos (chronological time) is said to disappear: “…there should be time no longer.” This may very well be more than just an end to the delay of history, delay of the present created age (aion), because it is an end of the present created age as we know it!
There is a form of Christianity today that loves everybody and seeks not to offend anyone! Nevertheless, ‘Prominent secular conservative voices repudiated British singer-songwriter Harry Styles for appearing on the cover in Vogue magazine in a dress. Both Candace Owens (also here and here) and Ben Shapiro confronted his masculinity.MSNBC defended Styles with the exact or identical argument used by evangelicals and fundamentalists for unisex apparel: “Jesus wore dresses.” That I have seen, only secularists have renounced this fashion. Zero of what we call the Christian public intellectuals say anything about it. I don’t hear any public Christian voices. A very low percentage of professing Christians mount any defense of designed gender distinction. Very little makes evangelicals and even most fundamentalists more angry than a Christian who stands for unique female and unique male items of clothing. On the other hand, the world is very serious about what Harry Styles did. That I know of, only Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro have said or written anything, and that you can tell by what’s being written from the left. The world has come to Styles’s defense with great ferocity (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). This is big to the world. It means a lot to the world system. It means almost nothing to Christians. Why? Christians stopped teaching and standing on biblical teaching on this matter a long time ago. This is in a major way because professing Christians themselves will attack fellow Christians for talking about what the Bible says on this subject. They will not defend the Christian who says what the Bible teaches. They attack. And then many, many just stay silent. They might be thinking what I’m writing, but they will not stand with me for what I’m writing. Among the leftist values bromides, denouncing Styles is breaking the law, “kindness is everything.” Only positive affirmation must be given. If not positive affirmation, then smiling silence at least should be offered to be kind, according to the platitude. Meanwhile, God Almighty seethes in heaven at this abomination. He designed men and women. He requires support of His design. This is an attack on God as Creator, violating both written and natural law of God. God is not happy.
Harry Styles is not the first contemporary male to wear a dress. We’ve seen a rise in this trend. However, women long ago started wearing pants, the distinguishing male item. A majority of Christianity long ago capitulated on the biblical teaching of gender designed distinctions in dress. Very few Christians will tell you with certainty what is male and female. I contend that women wearing pants is as serious as men wearing dresses. If someone is judging these matters based upon biblical or divine authority, it must be. On various occasions and for various reasons, including preaching there, I traveled through the vicinity of the San Francisco gay pride parade as I pastored a church in the Bay Area. They had several booths or tents for the purchase of the male skirt or dress. I think that you all know that when a “transgender” makes his statement about being a woman, he wears a dress or a skirt. He’s not wearing pants. Why do you think that is? Hmmmm. Jaden Smith, son of actor and rapper Will Smith, drew attention by wearing dresses in public a few years ago. I’ve thought that it was only a matter of time that men will start wearing dresses on a regular basis. Most Christian men will still say that it’s wrong for a man to wear a dress, but they don’t mount a biblical explanation. It’s just a preference. They’ve actually been defending men in dresses for awhile. They say something like, everyone wore robes in Bible times, to justify their wives and daughters wearing pants. That’s their argument. It’s not one that you can draw from scripture, but it has the purpose of defending a woman wearing a male item. So now when a man wears the woman’s item, it’s that goose and the gander thing. What can they say? They’ve taken away their own biblical argument against male dresses or skirts. Where have true believers argued against pants on women and skirts and dresses on men throughout history? They go to Deuteronomy 22:5, 1 Corinthians 11:3-16, and Job 38:3 and 40:7. I call pants the male item because of the language of Deuteronomy 22:5. A good understanding of the Hebrew of the King James Version English, “that which pertaineth unto a man,” is “male item.” It is more than just clothing. Women should not wear what is a distinctly male item. Men should not put on a woman’s garment. All who do so are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. When I write on this, it isn’t unusual that I get mocked by professing Christian men for writing on it. They want to make sure that they stand up and take a strong stand for “women’s pants.” This is very important to them. I think that a dress or a skirt on men is still a bridge too far for most men, let alone Christian men, but the defense of that position comes from the Bible. We need men to repent of their capitulation on this issue and to join churches outside the camp to stand upon the Word of God. This is not just a matter of a gag reflex or a personal turn-off. This is about creation order. This is about the preservation of divinely originated roles. This is to preserve the family, which is to guard the truth. Before men starting wearing dresses, women began wearing pants. Why do you think this is? It isn’t rocket science. You know that. You even know why? Pants are a male item, so they symbolize authority. I think this might be an insult to your intelligence, but when women started wearing pants, society as a whole opposed it, women too. Pants were masculine. Most people saw pants as rebellious for women. They were bucking male authority. This assumed there was male authority, represented by the terminology, men wear the pants in the family. There is less repulsion and rejection of a dress on a man right now in our culture than there was at one historical juncture with pants on women. Most of you reading this know that. The dress that Harry Styles is wearing for the Vogue article is also frilly. It is not just a dress, but a very feminine dress. It is attempting to make an even greater statement of “gender fluidity.” If the statement was put into words, it might be, “There is no gender distinction.” A corollary to that is, “God didn’t make me; I got here through natural causation.” The postmodernist or critical theorist adds, “It’s a social construct.” Constructed by whom? The Male Patriarchy. Shapiro argues Jordan Peterson style, assuming that the Bible can’t be used in the public square. He tries to go all science, like a classic liberal. He looks at animal life and genetics. You can tell that he doesn’t feel good about his argument, so he uses “moron” and “idiot” to add. We Christians need to come in and just say it. God wants male and female items. We need to stand on them. We shouldn’t mock them. God wants the distinctions, clear ones. God created masculinity. God Himself says, Gird up your loins as a man. Go with what God says. Honor Him. There is, as you know, now such a thing as a dress that is more feminine than other types of dresses. For instance, some women wear “business dresses” that project a kind of authority. It’s still a dress, but it’s also indicating a work that also was once only masculine. Women jumped from the feminine dress to the business dress to the pant suit. Each of these steps were moving away from a God-ordained appearance and role. Secular conservatives should not be the ones, or at least the only ones, saying something about the perversion divine designed distinctions between gender. Ben Shapiro makes an argument, “It’s just stupid!” He’s saying something. It’s stupid. That isn’t a good argument, but he’s saying something. This is an intelligent man. We need to bring the biblical argument to the public square. It is true. It is science. It is necessary. Join in this.’https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/
If you do not agree with the above article fight it out with God and His Word! Thanks for reading.
When the Jerusalem church grew to be what today would be a ‘mega-church’ the Lord dispersed the members far and wide. Well, at the Chicago mega-church ‘Willow Creek Community Church leaders are facing backlash from staff and members at one of its campuses over restructuring plans that include centralization and staff cuts.
Dozens of staff, some who have been serving for over a decade, as well as the campus pastor at North Shore in Glenview, Illinois, have already chosen to leave.
“If you left right now before you experienced the [new] model, that wouldn’t be the most informed decision,” said Willow Creek’s new senior pastor, Dave Dummitt, in a meeting last month with concerned North Shore church members. “I think Satan would be pretty pleased with that.”
The Illinois megachurch, which has eight locations, has been reeling since the 2018 resignation of longtime pastor and founder Bill Hybels, who was accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct. Dummitt, who was named earlier this year to lead the church, recently presented a new vision for the church’s future. Part of that vision includes eliminating some staff positions and restructuring roles, what the church called “right-sizing.”
The church contended that its ratio of staff to congregation was 1:57, “nearly twice as many staff as other similar churches.”
“With a two-year slide in finances across nearly all campuses, this puts a strain on our ability to do ministry. As attendance dropped at almost every campus, these ratios were getting worse, not better,” the church said.
According to The Roys Report, Willow Creek’s central leadership team eliminated 92 positions across the church’s eight campuses. The cuts hit the North Shore campus especially hard, with 13 staff resigning. Of the remaining staff, 14 took a buyout, leaving behind only five staff members to lead the campus of over 2,600. Those who left included North Shore’s popular lead pastor, Amy Mikal, who had been asked to move into a different role.
Willow Creek said of Mikal, “She is passionate about teaching and preaching, and as she has been able to do that more, her passion has grown. Amy does not feel that the new job description fits her passions and strengths.”
A new pastor, Ed Ollie Jr., was hired to lead North Shore, the church announced last week.
North Shore members, who felt their campus was thriving, said they felt concern over the sudden changes and dependence on Willow Creek’s central leadership.
Former Willow Creek staff member Steve Higgins posted a video of a dialogue the church held last month with North Shore members, many of whom said they didn’t trust the church’s central leaders with financial or moral responsibility.
“Unfortunately, I can’t trust you guys,” said Cliff Nelson, a founding member of the North Shore campus. “If you’re in favor of standing in solidarity with our church staff, rejecting this strategy and to begin to pursue withdrawal of this church, I would ask you to stand, turn on your [car] lights.”
North Shore members responded by clapping loudly, flashing car lights and honking their horns.
Many North Shore members are in the middle of 40 days of fasting and prayer to decide whether to split or remain with the church, according to The Roys Report. The 40 days will end on Nov. 22.
Dummitt responded to the rising calls for a North Shore split from Willow Creek by telling a story. While working at a church in Cincinnati, he ran a highly successful ministry that functioned like a church within the church, he said. When his ministry grew faster and brought in more money than the church it was part of, many people considered making it into its own church. He opposed a split.
“I felt called to be a church planter but not a church splitter. I just didn’t think God would bless it. Now, y’all are able to do whatever,” he said. “You vote with your feet and your pocketbook. I don’t have any power over you.”
Dummitt stressed during the dialogue that he wasn’t trying to write off North Shore’s vision or what it has accomplished but rather the new vision is that they can all do better “together.”
As an “outsider,” Dummitt said he felt Willow Creek was a “very divided church.” It’s divided over “how leadership handled the last two years,” over how to respond to racial issues, and all of its campuses have different visions, systems and cultures, he noted.
Addressing concerns about centralization, the church said the executive team it is building will be comprised of 18 people, only one of whom will be a staff member from the South Barrington campus, which has been known as the main campus.
Huntley campus Lead Pastor Todd Katter also noted, “Someone called me last week from North Shore and said, ‘The greatest potential for abuse of power is no longer Willow central because it’s got a lot of eyes on it. It’s Willow campuses.’”
In a statement to The Christian Post, Willow Creek addressed the controversy, stating:
“The model we are moving toward is all about collaboration, support, and unity. Emerging from a season where abuse of power occurred, this aligned model also provides more accountability at every level. It will empower our campus staff to pastor, serve, and shepherd while removing redundant and administrative tasks; it will create bigger tables for brainstorming and conversation by pulling together similar positions from all campuses; and it will allow us to multiply teams and churches more efficiently and effectively.”
The church said “caring for the staff and congregation at North Shore is a top priority for us” and acknowledged the challenges that change brings and how it has impacted staff. But they are “trusting that some of the changes we are making, though hard, will lead to a healthy, sustainable, and growing church.”
“Ultimately, our desire is for people to know Christ, grow deeper in their relationships with Him, and lead others into relationships with Him. We want people to be in a church where they are connected and are growing in their faith—that doesn’t have to be Willow. There’s a beauty in the vastness of churches that exist, but our prayer is that at the end of the day, we can all represent one Body of Christ to our neighbors and world.”
The megachurch, which is not resuming large in-person gatherings beyond 25% seating capacity until 2021, has clarified that it is not currently struggling financially. While giving is “down partially as a result of people leaving the church over the past two years due to the scandal” and due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, costs are also down due to buildings being closed during the pandemic.
“All our campuses will end the year in the black. Today isn’t the problem. It’s the trajectory that is concerning,” the church stated. “Staffing costs are the biggest portion of our budget at each campus, and without some changes, facing similar expenses in 2021 with considerably less revenue would result in significant challenges.”
Bob Jones University was once looked upon as the flagship of fundamentalism. Well, how times change.
On March 7, 2020 the President of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International (FBFI) wrote that ‘Over the past few years changes have been occurring at Bob Jones University rather quickly. The FBFI has had a reputation of being in close kinship with BJU since the early 1970’s. Because of that we have received many questions about the changes at BJU in policy, speakers, and alignment. Those questions should be directed to BJU. We do not believe it would be ethical or edifying for us to try to answer such questions. We have no part in the decisions that are being made and we operate completely independent of BJU. Please be assured that the FBFI is completely committed to function under the same principles and values that we have always maintained as a fundamentalist, separatist, Baptist, dispensational, and Great Commission-focused fellowship. We are a fellowship of individuals and are not governed by any particular individual, church, educational institution, or parachurch organization. We have become convinced that organizing loyalty/fellowship groups around educational institutions is not wise (1 Corinthians 1:12-13). Fellowship should be based upon commonly held theology and practice rather than institutional loyalty.’ https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2020/03/07/a-note-from-the-president/
Perhaps one of the reasons the President of the FBFI wrote the above is due to ‘The Board of Directors of The Master’s University and Seminary in Santa Clarita, California, today voted to name Dr. Sam Horn their 9th president, succeeding Dr. John Stead, effective in May or June 2020. Dr. Horn is the executive vice president for enrollment and ministerial advancement at Bob Jones University.
The Master’s University and Seminary is a non-denominational, conservative Christian liberal arts university and seminary with an enrollment of approximately 2,000, including seminary, graduate, undergraduate and online students.
Prior to joining the BJU administration, Horn served as a faculty member in BJU’s School of Religion and as the director of BJU’s Office of Extended Education. From 1996 to 2002, he served in various academic and administrative positions at Northland International University. In 2004 he became senior pastor of Brookside Baptist Church in Brookfield, Wisconsin, and in 2011 accepted the presidency of Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Plymouth, Minnesota.’ https://today.bju.edu/news/the-masters-university-and-seminary-appoints-dr-sam-horn-president/
People and organizations change but God and His Word do NOT!
In 1974 I graduated from Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, Ankeny, IA. Dr. David Nettleton was President and the school was in its hay day with over 500 students enrolled. Dr. Nettleton wrote a pamphlet in 1955 entitled A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP which is still very applicable for today. He wrote ‘I was brought up as a Presbyterian. I was saved at a college that was interdenominational in student body but was managed by the Church of the Brethren. From there I went to a seminary that was not a denominational school, and from there to another seminary that was United Presbyterian. I entered the Baptist pastorate with no Baptist training except that which came from reading the Scriptures.
A few years later I was drawn into an interdenominational youth movement and was given the leadership of a local Saturday night rally. I cooperated with any who were evangelical, regardless of their associations. I was advised by top leaders in the movement to seek the names of outstanding modernists for my advisory committee. I didn’t do that. But I did follow advice that led me to send all converts back to the churches of their choice, churches I knew to be liberal in some cases. This greatly troubled my conscience, and I prayed and thought about it.
Another problem connected with this work was the failure on my part to instruct any converts on the matter of Christian baptism, which in the Scriptures is the first test of obedience. I felt that I should do this inasmuch as Peter and Paul did it. But how could it be done when on the committee of the work there were close friends who did not believe it? By such an association, I had definitely stripped my message and my ministry of important Bible truths that many called “nonessentials.” In the follow-up work it was not convenient to speak of eternal security in the presence of Christian workers who hated the name of the doctrine. Thus the ministry was pared down to the gospel, just as if there were nothing in the Great Commission about baptizing converts and indoctrinating them. I had found the least common denominator and I was staying by it. But my conscience had no rest. Then it was that Acts 20:27 came to mean something to me.
The great apostle had never allowed himself to be drawn into anything that would limit his message. He could say with a clean conscience, “I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.” Why cannot many say that today? In my case, and in many other cases, it was due to a desire to reach a larger audience and to work with a larger group of Christians. Many have been carried away from full obedience by a noble-sounding motto that has been applied to Christian work: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.” Some things are not essential to salvation but are essential to full obedience, and the Christian has no liberty under God to sort out the Scriptures into essentials and non-essentials! It is our duty to declare the whole counsel of God and to do it wherever we are.
Paul had a wonderfully balanced ministry. In his preaching he would never please men, for he knew he could not be pleasing to God if he tried to please men. Yet in his living he testified, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). “Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved” (1 Corinthians 1:33). What a happy balance this is in the ministry! It is true, humble, and wholesome.
Today we are choosing between two alternatives: A LIMITED MESSAGE OR A LIMITED FELLOWSHIP. If we preach all of the Bible truths, there are many places where we will never be invited. If we join hands with the crowd, there will be the limiting of the message of the Bible. Bear this in mind—it is the Baptist who lays aside the most! It is the Baptist who makes the concessions! Think this through and you will find it to be true. We believe in believer’s baptism. We believe in separation. We preach eternal security. We believe in the imminent coming of Christ. We consider it an act of obedience to reprove unbelief in religious circles. The Sadducee and the Pharisee are to be labeled. But according to a present philosophy, we must lay these things aside for the sake of a larger sphere of service.
Which is more important: full obedience or a larger sphere of service? And yet I do not fully believe these are the only two alternatives. It is our first duty to be fully obedient to God in all things, and then to wait upon Him for the places of service. It may be that we will be limited, and it may be that we will not. Charles Haddon Spurgeon did not travel as widely as some men of his day, but his sermons have traveled as far as the sermons of most men.
I have recently read a religious article by a great evangelist. He deplores the moral conditions in America. He deplores the conditions in our schools. He speaks against the liquor traffic and against juvenile delinquency. But nothing is said against America’s greatest enemy—THE MODERN UNBELIEF THAT GOES FORTH FROM SUPPOSEDLY CHRISTIAN CHURCHES. The strength of the nation lies in its love of God. That love has grown cold in many churches, and Jesus Christ our Lord is called an illegitimate child, a confused young man, and a dead teacher. That kind of thing needs to be rebuked at the cost of reputation and even at the cost of life, if need be. But as soon as it is rebuked, the man who rebukes it will lose the majority of his following, if he is gaining that following through cooperation with modernistic churches.
It is my belief that some of our great evangelists today are thorough Bible-believing Christians. They accept nearly every truth in the Book. It seems they refrain from preaching all the counsel of God for one reason. To them, it is important to reach farther even if we reach with a smaller message.
The breach within so-called Protestantism today is as great as the breach between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. We need to make this fact known. But every time we promote the inclusive type of ministry we are covering up a fact that needs to be known. God has given us a great message to preach. It contains the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but it is not limited to that gospel. He has commissioned us to preach the gospel, baptize our converts, and indoctrinate them (Matthew 28:19, 20).
He has given us the very best system of follow-up work, which is the building of Bible-believing churches and joining converts to them. He is calling us to loyalty and obedience.