SBC 2017 Update:

A resolution submitted by Black racist
Rev. Dwight McKissic, was, thankfully, not allowed by the Resolutions Committee at this year's Southern Baptist Convention meeting.  Yet another since 1995, condemning white supremacy, prejudice, (and how many times can a religious body do this, "Ad nauseam"?)  (For information about McKissic as a racist, see the webpage: "SBC Annual Convention a Tribute to Social Justice and Political Correctness.")
 
Unfortunately,  someone introduced a substitute motion with the same theme...albeit watered down.  McKissic "tweeted" to his friends and Moore spoke from the floor; and now we have yet another resolution from the same playbook: same words, different tune. 

He's the individual who was in Russell Moore's hip-pocket in the last 2016 SBC meeting. He was a key player in stirring up controversy among the messengers in attendance over the Confederate Flag, discussed on another webpage.


Now, in 2017, after this latest drama created by McKissic, we need to look at this man a little closer, because we find he has created a lot more problems in our denomination than you may be aware of, which will be detailed below....he has a history of doing this.  Some have opinied that he may have personal problems that surface thru these dramas.  He is a confirmed race-baiter, and he knows how to play the race card to perfection.

(What can we expect from these two individuals in SBC 2018)?

Does the Southern Baptist Convention Still Have a Stain On It?

Guest Post by Ed Dingess


Published in Pulpit&Pen, June 23, 2017 · Updated June 24, 2017


In 1995, leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) apologized for, repented of, and issued a statement repudiating racism in all forms. Twenty-two years later, instigated by William McKissic, the SBC leaders once again had to apologize and issue not just another statement affirming its belief that racism in all its forms is sinful, but a resolution that decries racism in every form. Apparently, repentance and repudiation of racism by SBC leaders are not enough. Apologizing for someone else’s sin isn’t enough either. And this demand is coming, not from the non-Christian world, but from a Christian pastor nonetheless.


I think racism in all its forms ought to be repudiated and treated as a form of hatred, a practice that no true child of God with genuine faith can actually perform (1 John 2:9, 11). Here is a serious question for you: can you repent for a sin that you didn’t actually commit? If Bill offends you, wrongs you, treats you unjustly, how is it possible for me to repent and apologize for Bill’s behavior? I find it all very confusing and I am very curious to know what is really going on here. I suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. There almost always is.

The original resolution presented at the 2017

SBC Convention in Phoenix can be found at bottom of this article.  The resolution that ultimately passed can be found at the bottom of this article.


Now that the SBC has passed a resolution, I suppose that settles it. This is what “done” looks like. There, we killed racism with one document, one resolution. It’s over. Next issue, please! Yes, I am annoyed. I am already wondering how the next apology for racism will take shape at next year’s convention, or the one after that. I am not annoyed that the church preaches that racism is a sin and is inconsistent with true faith and life in Christ. That should be part of our preaching and teaching the same as any other sin we preach and teach about, like, you know, adultery, or fornication, or lying, or drunkenness. Right? I am going to go out on a limb here and risk it all: I bet you that adultery, fornication, drunkenness, and lying are far bigger problems for people in SBC churches than racism. I bet if you add the numbers up, it would be embarrassing. So what are we to do?


I know, let’s pass a resolution condemning these things. That will fix it!

What exactly are the SBC leaders doing? What exactly is William McKissic doing? Are we to think that unless the SBC adopts a resolution condemning something as obviously sinful as white supremacy that our members and churches may be deceived into adopting it? I find even the hint of such a suggestion outrageous.

I hate politics. I hate even the smell of politics. The church entered into a long, dark period when it embraced Constantinianism. This commingling of politics and Christianity was devastating from beginning to end. And I cannot help but wonder if what I am seeing now is simply political pandering. We want to be “seen” as condemning racism. So we issue this resolution for the appearance it gives. What other reason could there be? We don’t have a problem with white supremacy. If there are those in the SBC who have embraced it (if you can actually define what this alt-right-white supremacy thing actually is), issuing a resolution isn’t going to produce repentance. Scripture already condemns it. If Scripture won’t convince them, what chance does a resolution have? So, what are the leaders doing? What is William McKissic doing?


Does McKissic think that it is the mission of the church to end racism? Should we actively work to eradicate the sin of racism from our culture? Why? Why that sin? Why not adultery? There are a lot more adulterers than there are racists! Go ahead, bet me! Why pick this one? Is it someone’s pet? Is it someone’s cause? It isn’t the mission of the church to eradicate sin. The only sin we are called to eradicate is our own as we grow in sanctification!


We have real problems in our churches…big ones. We have a biblically ignorant membership who would rather spend a thousand years in purgatory (if there were such a place) than to expend an ounce of REAL energy attempting to understand Scripture, to study doctrine, and to be absorbed in these things. And this problem is on such a massive scale that it is immeasurable. Fix that problem, and you won’t have to bother with another resolution at the SBC convention…I promise!


Just stop it, SBC leaders. Stop talking about the past. Stop talking about sins of other people who have been dead for years now. They are not us and they never were us. If they were racists, as racism is defined, then they never knew Christ. And God has extended just recompense upon them. Preach the word! Thunder divine truth. When you condemn racism, don’t forget to condemn all of it – black, white, yellow, brown. In case you didn’t realize it, white people are not the only racists on the planet.

Jay Fayza uses facts and statistics to show that whites and western nations are the least racist and bigoted people on earth contrary to lies told by liberal media and academia:

‘Black Supremacy and Extortion on Display at SBC17,’ says Vanderbilt University

Professor of Law

by Jeff Maples, Pulpit&Pen, June 16, 2017

Pulpit & Pen has long been critical of the Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) social justice activism and trajectory away from a gospel mission. At the recent SBC 2017 meeting in Phoenix, as a last ditch late night effort to condemn the “alt-right” movement as “racist,” and “anti-gospel,” a resolution was passed doing just so.

Professor Carol M. Swain, Ph. D


But many are suspicious about the purpose of this resolution, likening it to political pandering and calling it “evil and mean spirited.” Dr. Carol M. Swain, Professor of Political Science and Professor of Law, Vanderbilt University, and a conservative Christian had the following to say about this in a recent post on her Facebook page:

The SBC has apologized for slavery two or three times. How many black Baptists have accepted the SBC’s apologies? In the current controversy, SBC leaders who accepted the politically-inspired resolution became the peacemakers. There is nothing righteous or holy about extortion. Black pastors should leave their partisan politics at home. It would be far more important for them to focus on teaching their congregants about how to live biblical lifestyles. Phoenix was about politics. Jesus and the Gospel had nothing to do with the extortion and demand for the organization to denounce white supremacy. Black supremacy and extortion was what was on display. The SBC leaders who accepted the political resolution become the peacemakers. I am glad these leaders modeled godly behavior by turning the other cheek.. Those who fanned the flames of discord and those who acted as enablers should be ashamed of themselves. What happened at the convention was wrong, evil, and mean-spirited, It was designed to feed the media’s taste for drama. It hurt Christians and it created more ill-feelings in the nation. #SBC #Baptistconvention

The Fight over Russell Moore and the Southern Baptist Convention

#SBC17: Campaign to Un-Cuck the Southern Baptist Church

by Silas Reynolds, Occidental Dissent

The South, like the rest of the Western world has been subjected to large influxes of foreigners, to say nothing of the revolution of mass and scale and its attendant propagandization via media and education, as well as a neo-Reconstructionist attitude popular among many in the professional classes located in urban areas.


Furthermore, in an effort to more effectively “engineer consent,” religion, like many other social and cultural institutions, has been subjected to a program of “infiltration,” “control,” and “consolidation.” Various interests have attempted to play this game, though few have been as successful as those who developed and popularized Christian Zionism. Now, what had once been a fringe movement has become so entrenched that many Southerners think nothing of ferociously supporting the interests and ethno-state of  “the Chosen” while denying any sense of peoplehood or sovereignty for themselves.


Protestant churches – specifically the Southern Baptist Church – have also been used as a vehicle to attack Southern identity in recent years. Whether “repenting” for slavery and “racism” or the consideration of a ban on the Confederate flag, the Southern Baptist Church has proven to be a soft mark for the exploitation of cuckservative* tendencies by entryists.* (see below for definitions of these 2 words).


Enter Russell Moore.


The average pew-sitting Southern Baptist knows next to nothing, if anything at all, about Russell Moore. Moore, the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC) is a relatively obscure figure among rank-and-file evangelicals. He and his organization operate quietly in the background of greater evangelicalism while big-name megapastors such as David Jeremiah and Robert Jeffress take center stage among the laity. Yet, among convention-minded academics, Moore is something of a minor celebrity, a maven even…


…Moore still matters if only for one thing: his substantial funding. In an economy where Southern Baptist International Mission Board (IMB) missionaries are being called home from the field for lack of funding, Moore’s ERLC is expected to pull in $3,568,395 in funding during its 2016 fiscal year. Over 80% of that money will come from the offering plate gifts of generous laypeople people who have little idea of who he is, what he does, or his progressive social agenda. Russell Moore, a professional influencer of politics, makes a six-figure income while disagreeing with and all but disdaining the political views of the constituency which provides that income.


In a 2015, Moore garnered attention in opposing Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and “44 of 67 Alabama probate judges who have refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples,” arguing that justices who for reasons of conscience, “could not discharge the duties of his office required by law...would need to resign and protest it as a citizen."


From receiving significant portions of church funds, to his position on same-sex marriages and the judiciary, to supporting the construction of a mosque in New Jersey, for over a decade he has shown himself to have little in common with Southerners, let alone Baptists (from Pulpit and Pen):


·       In 2006, Moore wrote an article in which he referred to Democratic congressman Gene Taylor as “the greatest public servant I have ever known.” Moore worked a staff person for the Democratic congressman early in his career.  In 2010, Moore donated $4,800 to Taylor’s reelection campaign.  Taylor twice voted for Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house and voted his Pelosi 82% of the time.  Is it a Southern Baptist value to support a partisan of Nancy Pelosi?


·       In 2011, Moore referred to Jesus as a so-called “illegal immigrant” in an article where he advocated for a “realistic means of providing a way to legal status for the millions of immigrants already here.” Is it a Southern Baptist value to reward or incentivize breaking the law?


·       In June of 2013 Conservative Pundit Eric Metaxas dissociated himself from the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT). Upon his disassociation, Metaxas tweeted, “Did you know George Soros was behind the Immigration thing I signed but then had my name taken off? Yikes…Anything Soros is behind is worth quitting. So glad I’ve had my name removed from this.”  Russell Moore has associated the ERLC (and the Southern Baptist Convention along with it) with the EIT.  Russell Moore is one of the heads of the EIT.  Is it a Southern Baptist value to associate oneself with an ecumenical organization linked to liberal political activist George Soros?


·       In October 2014, Russell Moore advised attending the reception of a “gay wedding” as a way of expressing love for a homosexual friend or relative. Is it a Southern Baptist value to attend a part which celebrates a homosexual union?


·       In November 2014, Russell Moore and controversial pastor Rick Warren attended and spoke at a conference held at the Vatican intended to bolster the defense of traditional marriage. Is it a Southern Baptist value to partner with the Pope of Rome?

·       In November of 2014, when a grand jury failed to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, Moore took to Twitter and the blogosphere with stats about how the criminal-justice system disproportionately penalizes black men. Is it a Southern Baptist value to fan the flames of racial tension?


·       In December 2014, Russell Moore commented on the death of Eric Garner by stating, “I’m stunned speechless by this news. We hear a lot about the rule of law—and rightly so. But a government that can choke a man to death on video for selling cigarettes is not a government living up to a biblical definition of justice or any recognizable definition of justice. We may not agree in this country on every particular case and situation, but it’s high time we start listening to our African American brothers and sisters in this country when they tell us they are experiencing a problem.” A grand jury declined to indict the police officer involved in the arrest-related death of Eric Garner.  Riots ensued.  Police officers were ambushed and killed on the streets.  Is it a Southern Baptist value to pass judgement on police procedure before the justice system has reviewed the evidence?


·       In 2015, Russell Moore appointed Karen Swallow Prior as a Fellow of the ERLC. Of prior, Moore stated, “I wish we had 1,000 more Karen Swallow Priors in evangelicalism today. She models convictional kindness. She doesn’t give any ground, but she also doesn’t see people who disagree with her as her enemy.”  Prior is a contributor to Jim Wallis’ pro-homosexual environmentalist magazine Sojourners.  Prior once told New York Magazine that, “The LGBT movement is much like the Christian community in that it draws from diverse backgrounds and moral beliefs.”  Prior, (who does hold that homosexual activity is sinful) was also a featured speaker at the “gay Christian” Level Ground festival.  Prior once remarked that “calling abortion murder is unChristlike”. Is it a Southern Baptist value to want 1,000 more Karen Swallow Priors?


·       During the 2016 election, Russell Moore arguably turned the ERLC into a Marco Rubio PAC. Is it a Southern Baptist value for convention lobbyists to take partisan positions in elections? (and, at that, for a moderate candidate).


Moore also led the charge against the Confederate Flag:


It’s not often that I find myself wiping away tears in a denominational meeting, but I just did. The Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly to repudiate the display of the Confederate Battle Flag. This conservative evangelical denomination gathered together just miles from Ferguson, Missouri, to stand together against one lingering divisive symbol…


As I’ve said before, the Cross and the Confederate flag cannot co-exist without one setting the other on fire.


However, with his opposition to President Trump, it appears though that there are factions within the Southern Baptist Church who are moving against him:


Concern is mounting among evangelicals that Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s policy arm, could lose his job following months of backlash over his critiques of President Trump and religious leaders who publicly supported the Republican candidate. Any such move could be explosive for the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, which has been divided over politics, theology and, perhaps most starkly, race.


The significance of Moore hasn’t been lost on mainstream media. Outlets such as National Review and The Atlantic have repeatedly rallied to his defense as rumors circulate that the patience of the Southern Baptists with him are nearing an end.


According to Dave Miller, pastor of Southern Hills Baptist Church of Sioux City, Iowa and editor of SBC Voices, “The SBC is in the middle of a huge identity crisis. We don’t know who we are.”


Now is the time to remind them.

The Southern Baptist Church will be conducting its annual convention next week on the 13th and 14th.



*Definitions:

cuckservative

A cuckservative is a self-styled "conservative" who will cravenly sell out and undermine his home country's people, culture, and national interest in order to win approval with parties hostile or indifferent to them.

 

Example: This cuckservative just spent 20 minutes trying to convince a group of communists that he really isn't as racist, sexist, homophobic or transphobic as they said he was for supporting the free market. They didn't care.


Entryism (also referred to as entrism or enterism, or as infiltration) is a political strategy in which an organisation or state encourages its members or supporters to join another, usually larger, organisation in an attempt to expand influence and expand their ideas and program.

Southern Baptist Convention Condemns The Alt-Right

 

By Hunter Wallace, June 15, 2017, Occidental Dissent

A Resolution Condemning White Supremacy Causes Chaos at the Southern Baptist Convention: and the leadership let a known racist get away with it....again.
Who is Dwight McKissic?
McKissic is the Texas Baptist pastor who likes to bring politics into the pulpit.  Instead of preaching a sermon on what the Bible believes about homosexuality, he makes the public statement that "Obama's stance on gay marriage is like an al-Qaeda attack."

He is the Southwestern Baptist Seminary Trustee who resigned in a huff in 2007, because he wanted to practice "speaking in tongues," which is heresy not practiced by Southern Baptists. He is a known "race-baiter."  Let's look closer at this man who brought discord to last year's Southern Baptist Convention meeting and also to this year's meeting.

In 2012, he condemned Mormons as being racist.

“The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.'” —Saul Alinsky


This perfectly describes McKissic.  Now we will see how he does this.


First, we will consider his known history of histronics as when he resigned from the Trustee Board of the Southwestern Baptist Seminary because he couldn't get his way there.  Here's the article describing the situation:



McKissic Resigns as Southwestern Seminary Trustee

Texas pastor cites conflict over private prayer languages at the Southern Baptist seminary.

Elizabeth Lawson| June 25, 2007

Dwight McKissic resigned from the board of trustees at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on June 20. The announcement follows a series of conflicts—mostly about private prayer languages—between McKissic, seminary president Paige Patterson, and the other Southwestern board members.

 

 

"My involvement as a trustee has been a huge distraction from my ministry priorities for the past nine months," McKissic explained in his letter of resignation. "I've devoted too much mental, physical, emotional, and even spiritual energy to matters resulting from the aftermath of my [August chapel] sermon … I simply want to return to the place I was prior to being a trustee."

 

While the Baptist Faith and Message does not contain any policy on speaking in tongues, McKissic caused a stir in August 2006 when, during a seminary chapel sermon, he discussed his personal use of private prayer languages. According to The Dallas Morning News, Patterson did not have the sermon posted on the school website because he did not want to imply that Southwestern approved of McKissic's views on the issue.

 

In his resignation letter, McKissic continued to express surprise at the reaction to his sermon. He referred to a Lifeway poll that indicated most Southern Baptists accept the practice of private prayer languages. Many Southern Baptists have traditionally refrained from speaking in tongues, a belief reflected in the SBC mission board's policy of not accepting candidates who use 'ecstatic utterance as a prayer language.'

 

In response to McKissic's sermon, the board of trustees adopted a statement at their October 2006 meeting to ensure that the seminary would not "endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including 'private prayer language.'" McKissic offered the sole dissenting vote.

 

Tensions continued to mount as board chairman Van McClain sought McKissic's removal from the board. In a statement on his church's website, McKissic responded to the threat by saying his removal would be "nothing but a twenty-first century lynching of an independent thinking black man … Because I will not join the 'good old boys club,' I'm subjected to removal as a trustee."

 

McClain later withdrew his motion to remove McKissic from the board. "I accepted our mutual words of grace and 'putting the past behind' as genuine," McKissic wrote in his resignation letter. According to Associated Baptist Press, McKissic also apologized for his lynching statement.

 

Following their truce, McKissic spoke out at the SBC meeting in San Antonio in support of a motion that some said would limit trustee hiring and firing according to the contents of the Baptist Faith and Message.

 

The motion states that "The Baptist Faith and Message is neither a creed nor a complete statement of our faith nor final or infallible. Nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention."

 

McKissic said, "It's really a simple matter. Are we going to let the parents make rules for the house, or our we going to let the children rule the house? The agencies and entities should be subordinate to the Southern Baptist Convention."

 

The controversy has not stopped with the motion's passing vote of 2,137 to 1,565. Much confusion has surfaced on what the motion actually means for SBC entities.

 

McKissic said he did not intend to sever his ties with Southwestern, its staff, or the SBC.

 

He wrote, "My love, respect and appreciation for Dr. Patterson remains … my love for SWBTS will also remain. I remain committed to the SBC."

McKissic can't get his way, so he "picks up his toys" and goes home, so-to-speak.  He should know that "speaking in tongues" is NOT Biblical and that Southern Baptist's have NEVER endorsed this heresy.  But, he must be one who believes and practices this heresy and wants others to accept his skewed views.

The Color of Money in the Southern Baptist Convention: Dwight McKissic and the Economics of Race-Baiting

By Seth Dunn, Published June 26, 2017 · Updated June 26, 2017


If you take a look around a typical Southern Baptist church you will notice that almost everyone filling the pews is white.  You will also notice that a disproportionate number of those white people are part of the fifty and older crowd.  Members of the younger generation, it seems, just don’t attend church like their parents and grandparents did.  As of 2015, 23% of US adults identified as having no religion.  This group is called “the nones”…and it is growing.  In 2007, only 16% percent of US adults identified as nones.  The rising disinterest in religious life surely makes church demographers, as well as church accountants, nervous.


Statistics indicate that young people are fleeing churches in droves.  This is a foreboding trend for those tasked with the responsibility of perpetuating churches and the Southern Baptist Convention.  As the older generation of Southern Baptists dies out, there is an ever-shrinking pool of individuals to provide funding for the everyday expenses of local churches.  As local churches take in less money, so does the Southern Baptist Convention.  The denomination is down to its lowest baptisms since 1946, lowest membership since 1990, and lowest worship attendance since 1996.


Millennials, it would seem to the casual Southern Baptist observer, just don’t care about coming to church anymore…but that observer would be wrong.  In May of 2014 Christian journalist Bob Smietana published the following statement: “almost everyday, it seems, there’s a new story about how ‘Millennials are leaving the church.’ But there’s a problem with these trend pieces: They aren’t true. American Christianity still has plenty of Millennials — they’re just not necessarily in white churches.”  Here in lies the economic incentive for the Southern Baptist Convention to increase its appeal to (predominately) black churches. 


Such churches have two things the Southern Baptist Convention needs to stem the tide of regression – young people and money.

The activities of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) are largely funded by its Cooperative Program giving system.  Local churches give a dedicated portion of their revenues to SBC-affiliated state conventions.  Those state conventions then pass a portion of that money (typically half) to the Southern Baptist Convention. 


This cooperative giving amounts to billions of dollars per year.  For decades, almost all of it has come from predominately white churches.  This comes as no surprise given that the SBC was birthed out of Southern support for American chattel slavery.  Antebellum Baptists in the South formed the SBC in 1845 after potential missionaries were rejected by their Northern brethren because of their status of slaveholders.  For nearly a hundred years after the War Between the States, segregation permeated the American South.  Sunday morning remains the most segregated hour in American Christianity.  Until recently, this has not been a problem for the funding needs of the Southern Baptist Convention.


But demographics have shifted.  According to Smietana, “About a third of young (18-29 year old) Americans — and more than half of younger Christians — are people of color, according to data from the Public Religion Research Institute. White Christians, on the other hand, make up only a quarter of younger Americans. In fact, there are more Nones — those with no religion — than white Christians in this age group.”  Interestingly enough, as demographics have shifted, the politics of racial reconciliation have begun to come to the forefront of Southern Baptist life. 


At the 2016 Southern Baptist Convention, a resolution was passed condemning the Confederate Battle Flag.  At the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention, a resolution was passed condemning the racism of the ill-defined “alt-right.”  Both resolutions were proposed by the Rev. Dwight McKissic, a popular black pastor from Texas. 


These resolutions are non-binding which means that they are, at best, political statements.  Given that SBC officially apologized for its role in the defense of American slavery in 1995 and that its official confession of faith already condemns racism, further condemnations of racism appear superfluous. How many times does the SBC need to say “sorry, racism is wrong”?


Such political posturing seems out of place for a missions organization.  Furthermore, it seems out of step with the Southern Baptist base.  Rank-and-file Southern Baptists pew-sitters aren’t generally concerned with “social justice” or “social gospel” matters.  In response to McKissic’s 2016 resolution, Southern Baptist deacon Ben Thompson (of Rowland Springs Baptist Church) submitted an op-ed in the Georgia Baptist Index which stated, ” I have long considered our denomination to be socially conservative, prudent, and wise to stay out of issues that do not directly impact the mission of our church.” 


What Thompson may be missing is that these issues may directly impact the future funding of the SBC.  Placating pastors like Dwight McKissic may lead to a financial boon.  McKissic’s Texas church averages 1,800 in Sunday attendance.  Attracting other large black churches may fill the coffers of the flagging SBC.  In a sense, the SBC is like a company that is looking to survive by opening new stores in new neighborhoods. 


That it needs to change its products to do so can be chalked up to the cost of doing business.  By and large, predominately black churches do not exactly present a picture of doctrinal health.  They often exalt the pastor to an unhealthy level and lean towards charismatic tendencies.  Most black pastors have long been aligned with the (pro-abortion) Democratic party.  Black churches are fairly considered as political as they are religious.

Dwight McKissic is no exception.  He announced his plan to vote for pro-abortion candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential stating, “Given the offensive comments Donald Trump has made regarding Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans, and women, I’m thoroughly convinced, the quality of life for all persons will be better under Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump. I’m voting for the highest quality of life for all Americans.” 


McKissic is a “Bapticostal” who speaks in private prayer languages.  He saw fit to attend prosperity preacher TD Jakes’ Megafest conference.  During the Presidential election, McKissic, in support of embattled (and progressive) ERLC President Russell Moore used the language of a race-baiter: “Russell Moore really feels our pain. In many ways, he is being treated as a racial minority by the Convention in this situation.


So to fire Russell Moore is to say to minorities, you are only welcome in the SBC if you remain silent regarding your political views. Seriously? Is that what you really want?”

The “us” to whom McKissic refers is clear.  It’s not Christians, it’s black people.  This is no way for a pastor of Christ’s Church to speak.  Christ’s people are a Holy nation of all earthly ethnicities. It should go without saying that color does not play a part in the Kingdom of God.  All human beings have been made in the image of God. 


That McKissic is out of touch with the base of the SBC (a base which wants nothing to do with progressive politics) is quite clear…but it’s equally clear that many in that base will soon be dead.  McKissic’s antics put the SBC in the news.  Publicity follows him.  If the base doesn’t like it, who cares?  They’ll be dead soon and their money will dry up. 


Conversations about race in the SBC, then, will persist, led by men like McKissic.  It seems that Southern Baptist Convention is willing to endure endless political posturing about race because of a certain color, the color green, the color of money.

[Contributed by Seth Dunn]

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

Now, let's re-examine McKissic's relationship to Russell Moore, a known former Democrat political operative.

Race-Baiting and the ERLC: Dwight McKissic Defends Russell Moore and Demonstrates Why Eliminating the ERLC is the Best Course of Action

by Seth Dunn, December 27, 2016



Yesterday, Texas pastor Dwight McKissic published an article entitled “If Russell Moore is fired, ‘Unto Us’ A Trump Baptist Convention Is Born” at Southern Baptist interest blog SBC Voices. McKissic is not a regular contributor at Voices but is often called upon (apparently because of his race) to opine on social issues. In his most recent article, McKissic defended the continued employment of embattled Ethics and Religious Commission (ERLC) President Russell Moore. Moore, who has come under fire from conservative evangelical pundits, is a darling in progressive evangelical circles. Accordingly, McKissic does his best Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton impression to make a race-baiting defense of Moore. Hoisting himself by his own petard, McKissic defeats his own cause by putting forth arguments that actually show why it would be a good idea to eliminate the ERLC altogether. Below is a point-by-point refutation of McKissic’s defense of Moore and the ERLC.

McKissic: (Russell Moore) is the most compelling and effective spokesman ever to hold (the) office (of ERLC President) in the history of the SBC.

Response: The ERLC was founded in 1988 (at that time, it was known as “The Christian Life Commission”). Since that time, it has been led by only two men: Richard Land and Russell Moore. So, McKissic is just saying that Moore is a “more compelling and effective spokesman” than one other guy. Even if it’s true, it’s not much of an accomplishment. Additionally, Moore is demonstrably ineffective when it comes to influencing Southern Baptists. Moore vociferously opposed the presidential candidacy of Donald J. Trump. Trump received 80% of the white evangelical vote. Exactly who was Moore “effecting” and “compelling” on his months long anti-Trump campaign? Apparently very few evangelical voters.

McKissic: The lynch mob in SBC life who is going after Moore are taking their cues from Donald Trump

Response: McKissic’s language is just plain offense. To call Moore detractors a “lynch mob” is to employ the language of race-baiting in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Are men like Mike Huckabee, Bill Harrell, Jack Graham, and Robert Jeffress truly “a lynch mob”? To label these men as such trivializes the very real offenses of actual racists who actually murdered people through lynching during the Jim Crow era. Furthermore, Southern Baptists who are tired of Moore’s high and mighty progressivism are hardly taking their cues from Donald Trump. Many Southern Baptists, right or wrong, voted for Donald Trump simply out of concern for Supreme Court appointments and fear of Hillary Clinton. Russell Moore, like Hillary Clinton, began his career as a moderate Democrat. Arguably, he feared her political policies less than his more conservative brethren did (Dwight McKissic actually voted for Hilary Clinton).  Surely no Southern Baptist approves of the many moral offenses of Donald Trump. To suggest otherwise and to suggest that Russell Moore detractors are “taking their cues” from Donald Trump is absurd. Mike Huckabee, who ran against Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primary, simply and frankly addressed the problem with Russell Moore by stating, “I am utterly stunned that Russell Moore is being paid by Southern Baptists to insult them.” Those aren’t the words of the leader of a lynch mob, they are the words of a man who is tired of being talked down to. McKissic’s rhetoric does nothing but gin up anger.

McKissic: What has Russell Moore done to generate such vitriol and hatred from Trump and his supporters and sycophants in SBC life?

Response: This is more cheap and offensive rhetoric from McKissic. In keeping with radical Saul-Alinksy-style polemics, McKissic identifies his opponents as “hateful” and “vitriolic”. While not conceding that Moore detractors are either, McKissic’s question is easy to answer. Here are twenty disagreeable things (weblink-accessible for each) Russell Moore did that have almost nothing to do with voting for Trump:

McKissic: When the majority of the SBC embraced the diabolical institution of slavery, we needed a Russell Moore, even if he was being paid by the SBC. When the majority of the SBC denied women the right to vote as messengers within the SBC annual meetings and supported laws forbidding women the right to vote in the secular realm, we needed a Russell Moore. When the majority of the SBC voted to support Jim Crow laws and would not support Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, we needed a Russell Moore. When the majority of the messengers in the ‘mid ’70’s voted in an SBC annual meeting to support abortion, we needed a Russell Moore.

Response: McKissic’s short history of the SBC’s abysmal ethical record demonstrates the very reason why the ERLC should be eliminated. If there was an ERLC in 1845, it almost certainly would have lobbied the government to tolerate or expand slavery. If there was an ERLC in suffrage era, it almost certainly would have lobbied the government to suppress female voting (it’s up to the reader to decide if that would have been good or bad). If there was an ERLC in the 1970s, it almost certainly would have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to support Debbie Roe. The ERLC is the ethical arm of the SBC and the SBC’s political machinations are often detrimental to the advancement of the Kingdom. Even in the conservative era, the ERLC failed to influence governmental abortion and “gay rights” policies. Roe v. Wade is over four decades old and abortion on demand is still legal in the United States. “Gay Marriage” became the law of the land right under the ERLC’s nose (but not under Ricard Land’s nose). The ERLC seems to constantly be on the losing side of effecting change in the public realm. To make matters worse, The New Yorker reported in November that the legacy of liberal, pro-abortion activist Foy Valentine “informs everything that the ERLC. does today.” A portrait of Valentine is hanging outside of Russell Moore’s office. Southern Baptists have a terrible political record, they should get out of the politics business altogether. The first step would be to hand pink slips to Russell Moore and the ERLC altogether.

McKissic: When the IMB created unbiblical landmark baptismal policies and unbiblical policies restricting missionaries’ private worship in 2005, God raised up a Wade Burleson to prophetically address these matters; and he was publicly maligned and marginalized, and now the same attempt is being made toward Russell Moore. In 2015, everything Wade Burleson was asking the IMB to do, they did: Return to the pre-2005 private prayer policies, and the prior baptismal policies. Now that they have done so, Wade Burleson is owed an apology, because their actions now prove he was right from the beginning.

Response: Wade Burleson has provided valuable commentary on SBC life for many years. Unfortunately, he’s also a progressive. Wade Burleson is an egalitarian who has said, “I would put money on the table that 50 years from now, Southern Baptists will look at women and the role of women the way we now look at slavery”. The idea that “God raised up” a progressive like Wade Burleson to prophetically address the SBC is laughable. Burleson is a good example of the type of man Dwight McKissic views as a hero. Wade Burleson and Russell Moore (and apparently Pentecostal missionaries who babble incoherent gibberish during their private prayer time), these are “prophetic” men according to McKissic.

McKissic: Minorities tend not to be Republican because they view Democrats as being more sensitive to social and economic justice, equality and fairness issues. They also view these matters as life issues and equally as important as abortion and gay marriage issues. Russell Moore is one of the few Southern Baptists that really have a heartfelt identification and understanding of social justice issues from a minority perspective.

Response: If Russell Moore has such an appreciation of affirmative action and social justice, then perhaps he can go to work at one of the progressive baptist conventions that support these notions. What Dwight McKissic is essentially saying here is, “If Southern Baptists want black churches to join, then the SBC needs to adopt the social justice agenda of many in black Christendom.” That would be a disaster. If the moral majority is the right wing example of the folly of Christian politics then the social progressivism of the black church (which is rife with female leadership) is the left wing example of such folly. Are minorities truly as concerned with central economic planning and affirmative action as they are with murdering babies in the womb and institutionalized sodomy? What a disaster! Martin Luther King was a Southerner. Martin Luther King was a baptist. Martin Luther King denied the historicity of the resurrection. Theology matters, Southern Baptists. When the social gospel takes the front seat, the real gospel is relegated to the back of the bus.

McKissic: Russell Moore really feels our pain. In many ways, he is being treated as a racial minority by the Convention in this situation. So to fire Russell Moore is to say to minorities, you are only welcome in the SBC if you remain silent regarding your political views. Seriously? Is that what you really want?

Response: If McKissic’s assessment of minority political views is accurate, then the answer to this questions must be “yes.” Leave and take Russell Moore with you. Russell Moore and the ERLC, as they stand, are actually attracting progressives like McKissic to the SBC!

McKissic: During this yuletide season, let’s practice our faith and seek peace on earth and in the SBC and good will toward all men. Brethren, let’s drop our swords and be The Southern Baptist Great Commission Convention and not the Trump Baptist Convention.

Response: Ummmm…so says the man who just compared Moore detractors to a racist Lynch Mob.

*Please note that the preceding is my personal opinion. It is not necessarily the opinion of any entity by which I am employed, any church at which I am a member, any church which I attend, or the educational institution at which I am enrolled. Any copyrighted material displayed or referenced is done under the doctrine of fair use.

 

Why Russell Moore’s Race Fixation

Sits Uneasy With Us

by ·Pulpit&Pen, December 6, 2014

There are more than a few evangelicals who are uneasy with Russell Moore’s fixation on “racial reconciliation” in recent weeks. To be fair, that number includes many of us who are disenchanted with what we have surmised to be – by all discernible standards – social progressivism. Whether calling Jesus an “illegal immigrant” in his push for immigration amnesty, his advocacy of environmentalist “creation care,” his ecumenical worship with adherents of other religions like at the Becket Fund’s “multi-faith” gathering, or his ethical compromise to attend gay wedding celebrations but not the wedding itself, Moore clearly has more in common with Sojourner’s Jim Wallis than his predecessor, Richard Land. And his distance from Land, combined with his commendable attempt to lace his progressivism with Scriptural reasoning (however flawed it might be) is what makes Moore immune to criticism from so many Southern Baptists who were happy to see Land go.


In fact, there are a few basic facts surrounding Moore that make him immune to most criticism. First, as stated, he’s not Richard Land. Land out-stayed his welcome at the ERLC and caused much angst in his latter years of tenure. That there would be a long, happy honeymoon with any replacement of Land and Moore is no exception. Secondly, Moore is perceived as theologically Reformed (although a strict “five-pointer” he is not) and is perceived as a protege’ of Dr. Albert Mohler. The sheer influence of Dr. Mohler and their connection has provided enough incentive for most of the “usual critics” to keep their mouths shut altogether. Third, Moore is a stalwart on the issue of abortion (although not so much when he was a Democratic staffer) and believes in the inerrancy of Scripture; in the current climate of the Southern Baptist Convention, those two things are enough to qualify you as a conservative.


However, as demonstrated in the links provided above and by the first year of his service to the ERLC, Moore is not a classical conservative by any means. “Changing tone” has been the repeated description provided by numerous secular press outlets. Many Southern Baptists would prefer to think that the secularists’ perception of a new tone is just a result of Moore’s exemplary handling of the press; Moore has arguably turned the ERLC into the public relations firm of the SBC. Doing so seems to be working. The press often gives glowing reviews of who they call “the SBC’s chief ethicist.” What Southern Baptists need to understand is that Moore isn’t just adding a dose of sugar to our collective Southern Baptist worldview. He’s not just building bridges of understanding by avoiding Land’s habit of firmly inserting a foot in his mouth at every juncture. Southern Baptists need to grasp what the secular media already knows – heck, what the media already is celebrating…Russell Moore is a social liberal.


We saw the moral neutrality in Moore’s post on Ferguson, posted minutes after the grand jury verdict and obviously written before the verdict was given (This is standard fair for public relations professionals but rather bizarre for thoughtful theologians). So neutral, in fact, that the verdict itself and the jury’s findings were irrelevant to the view he was intent on crafting for Southern Baptists. Moore pointed out that whites have a tendency to view a case like Ferguson in its particulars: the facts involved within the individual circumstance. Blacks, Moore asserted, look at situations like Ferguson through a wider spectrum forged through broader historic themes. Moore clearly took the “black” (his argument, not mine) worldview in publishing thoughts that were absolutely detached from the facts of the case but sure to please a secular press predicting a Richard Land-like response. Dwight McKisssic. a black (and charismatic) Southern Baptist pastor who protested in Ferguson (one who refused to show empathy for Officer Wilson and stated “the day he pulled the trigger on an unarmed man is the day the day [Officer Wilson] made choices about his own future”) said that Russell Moore’s post makes “his chest puffed out” to be a Southern Baptist. Among those protesting in Ferguson, Moore’s moral obfuscation earned rave reviews.


And although Moore was not alone in his mad dash to the racial sensitivity finish line, he received some honest criticism from Randy White and others. He angrily lashed out at White’s thoughtful criticism in his December 3 podcast, Questions and Ethics. His tone was harsh, berating, and unyielding. He spoke of blocking “white supremacists” on Twitter, and I have to wonder how many well-meaning and non-racist Southern Baptists he blocked for criticizing what they perceive to be an unhealthy race-baiting for the sake of popular appeal. Would Moore call Randy White or me, possibly, one of those “white supremacists”?


The case of Eric Garner gave Russell Moore a second-wind in his pursuit of the racial sensitivity award. He was going to win this fight, and that’s all there was to it. Moore had not yet won the accolades and applause for which he was destined – the press was championing him, but not the people. Ferguson was too messy, you see. The facts were too hard to ignore (although he somehow managed to ignore them). The public wasn’t quite on his side, what with the image of Michael Brown man-handling a store clerk in a strong-armed robbery fresh in our minds. The Brown family pathologist, whose autopsy findings suggested Brown was shot in the back with his hands in the air, turned out to be a fraud. Eye witness testimony seemed firm. There was nothing in the Brown case, except for the race of Brown,  to suggest a race-based killing.  Then, the Garner case provided Moore the opportunity to get firmly behind public consensus and bravely lead from behind. In the Garner case, Moore had an incident which would allow him to make a point without all the facts getting in the way.

Read the transcript of Moore’s December 3 podcast. This is clearly a man who feels strongly about racism, isn’t afraid to call a spade a spade, and is willing to speak clearly on why racism is sinful and just plain wrong. Good for him. Racism is wrong. Racism is detestable. Racism is wicked. Racism is sin.


While Moore should be applauded for speaking clearly on the issue of sin, he shouldn’t be applauded for reacting and responding to social issues in presumptive and irresponsible ways.

Moore has made the Garner tragedy about race. To Moore, this is a race talking point. Why? Is it because this is out of a page of the social-progressive handbook? Must it always be about race?


The Garner case angers me as well. It angers me, as a classical liberal, that selling single cigarettes arouses the attention of the police. It angers me as a libertarian to see the term “police force” turn into a verb rather than a noun; it angers me to see the militarization of our nation’s police forces and their willingness to employ force to resolve conflict as a precursor to violence and not as a response to violence. Frankly, the “police are always right” attitude I’ve seen from some in this discussion is annoying. Why was a man choked to death for resisting arrest? That’s just plain awful. Stun-gun that sucker, hog tie him and let’s go home. But at 350 pounds and with heart failure and asthma (as the coroner said), maybe that would have killed him, too. So, frankly, it’s complicated. It’s so complicated, a grand jury of mixed ethnicity might need to see 50 witnesses and 60 exhibits to sort it all out.


But what has this to do with race? Does Russell Moore have some evidence to suggest this was a story about race? Does he have evidence to suggest that because a white police officer choked a black man to death that it was because the man was black? To jump on a bandwagon in absolute and abject ignorance is wrong-headed, but it reaps great rewards in the media. Through these tragedies-turned-opportunities, Russell Moore is quickly becoming the darling of the left-wing media, even receiving accolades in the uber-liberal Huffington Post. Was the grand jury decision equally as race-based as Garner’s death supposedly was? With nearly 40% of the grand jury being comprised by minorities, hearing testimonies from 50 witnesses and seeing 60 exhibits of evidence, does Russell Moore really want to boil this down to race?


Yes. He does. That fits his agenda. That earns him accolades. Calling for reason, calling for caution, calling for discernment, that doesn’t make a 24-hour press cycle revolve around you. It’s not sensational.

When you listen to Russell Moore talk racism he is clear, direct, resolute, solid, unwavering and unyielding. It is sin and he hates it. You can hear that in his voice. Again, good for him.


Why is it when Russell Moore discusses homosexuality all the press can talk about is his “new and softening tone”? It’s hardly a “softening tone” toward racism that Moore is demonstrating. So, why on homosexuality? Do you think that Russell Moore will soon invite racists to an ERLC event to develop a dialogue with them? Do you think that David Duke would be as welcome at his table as Matthew Vines recently was? Would he break bread with white supremacists like he recently did with homosexuals?


No. Racists are dead to him. You hear that in his voice. He’s downright angry at them. That’s a popular bandwagon to be on. That’s a popular stance and not at all a brave one. On homosexuality, though, well…he would attend the reception, after all. Do you think that Russell Moore would refuse to attend a Ku Klux Klan rally, but might attend the reception afterward to share refreshments? I can guarantee you he would not.


It seems that the degree of outrage Russell Moore has for a particular sin directly correlates to the degree of praise he receives in the secular press for making a stand on that particular sin. Racism? He will scream the loudest! Homosexuality? He’ll soften the tone.

Indeed, this is a new tone we are experiencing. Brace yourself, SBC. This is just the beginning of what you can expect from the ERLC.

Counterpoint:  From a Black website/perspective:

Is This Your Pastor?  

                   

 Rev. Dwight McKissic

Cornerstone Baptist Church

5415 Matlock

Arlington, TX 76018

817.468.0083           

 

(Source: operationrebirth.org, which gives this disclaimer):

 

         Disclaimer: Operation Rebirth is not making personal attacks on the Christian leaders of the African-American community. The individuals who are being spotlighted are not seen as enemies. However, Ignorance, Fear, Prejudice, Discrimination, and Abuse ARE enemies to the health and well being of all people and are being attacked accordingly.

 

Rev. William Dwight McKissic is the senior pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas, and founder of the “Not on My Watch” Coalition (he stole that from George Bush). It didn’t surprise me to know that this church is under the Southern Baptist Church umbrella. All I have to say is when a black man joins and lines his church up with an old wealthy organization with a rich and deep history of racism and sexism speaks VOLUMES. Just a little note, ALL black preachers in Texas (my home state) don’t “perform fuh Massah” like good house niggers and then cry “racism“ when they don‘t get their just rewards. To further prove his ignorance, he tries desperately to use Romans 1 as a means of supporting his views. If you want the truth on Romans 1, peep “Taking A Closer Look” and you’ll be enlightened.

 

During this pathetic speech…ummm “sermon”, Pastor McKissic spends most of his time arguing the fact that Civil Rights isn’t the same as Gay Rights. And we could waste valuable time and energy dissecting every argument he presents. But to do so, we’d have to condescend to his juvenile mental level and degrade ourselves. But there ARE a few things he said that I’d like to address…

 

“To equate civil rights with gay rights is to compare my skin with their sin.”

 

Okay, THAT was cute. It even rhymed! I’ll be sure to nominate him when the Vibe Awards asks for Best Rhyme nominees next year. I’ve had to do this before. But I suppose it didn’t catch, so I have to do it again and again until people finally get it. The word “civil” is not a synonym for “black or African-American”. The word “civil” is an adjective (a word that describes a noun) that is defined as “of, relating to, or befitting a citizen or citizens”. So, by definition, the Civil Rights Movement was not an issue of race, but an issue of CITIZENSHIP! Yes, the ancestors were discriminated against, lynched, and denied their rightful place in society because of their race. But what they were saying in essence was “I may be black, but I’m a CITIZEN of the United States. So I deserve to be treated as equal to everyone else and be protected under the law.” Contrary to Rev. McKissic’s opinion, there ARE similarities…people are trying to use one facet of a person’s HUMANITY as a reason to deny them rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to all CITIZENS. No matter how you color it, Discrimination IS Discrimination!

 

“I’ve heard that homosexuals say that they discovered they were gay at 18 or 25 or 33 years of age. I don’t know any black people who didn’t discover their blackness until they were 25 years old.... I’ve met ‘former homosexuals.’ But I’ve never met a ‘former black person,’ other than perhaps Michael Jackson.”

I wonder what same gender loving people he’s been listening to. Most likely NONE! The truth is, the majority of all SGL people KNOW that there’s something different about them between the ages of 4 and 7 years old. They can’t articulate it, but they know the difference. They EXPRESS it at the ages of 18, 25 or 33. Most sane people don’t even see or acknowledge color until their parents point it out to them. See, people are born innocent, knowing how to love. Love is natural, you don’t have to teach anyone to do that. It’s a characteristic of God Himself. Hatred on the other hand is TAUGHT. And as we grow into adults we learn how to focus on our differences and use them as dividers instead of celebrating our humanity in spite of them. It’s nice to know that Pastor McKissic is doing his part in teaching the world how to hate. Furthermore, in spite of Michael Jackson’s skin tone, he is STILL very much a black man! So not only does the good Reverend spew hate, but insults! What God is he representing here?

 

“When Christians open their Bibles, God opens His mouth,” McKissic said in reference to Romans 1:32.

 

OH REALLY NOW? This man is obviously not as educated as somebody told him he is. Let’s take a look at what “their Bibles” say…

 

Child curses a parent; KILL THEM - (Exodus 21.15, 17)

Discriminate against the disabled - (Leviticus 22.16-22)

Torture of women if she was ‘thought’ to be cheating - (Numbers Chapter 5)

Don’t eat bad meat, but sell it to foreigners - (Deuteronomy 14.21)

Women are 2nd Class - (I Corinthians 11.7-9; 14.34-35)

 

….there are countless objectionable things that “their Bibles” say are of God, but we do not practice them today because they are morally wrong and socially unacceptable. So if “God opens his mouth” when “Christians open their Bibles” then most Christians are serving a MONSTER! Anybody who truly studies the Bible understands that the Bible cannot be taken literally, but must be discerned spiritually to grasp and understand it’s spiritual truth. “Open Bible=God’s open mouth“…Again, VERY cute, but not true.

“If we vote for a politician not knowing where he stands,” he said, “we could find ourselves approving of what God disapproves.”

 

Now we know why black people supported camouflaged discrimination by voting for George W. Bush (oops, did I say that?).

 

In answering the question of why he is so passionate about this particular issue, McKissic quoted Martin Luther: “My conscience is captive to the Word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand. I can do no other.”

 

Alright pseudo-Martin Luther, I have one question. If we live in a country where people have the RIGHT to believe what they want, and live their lives AS they want as long as they aren’t breaking the law…and if Rev. McKessic is really secure as a man…what’s the REAL reason he’s so “passionate” about this issue? I think maybe there are some internal issues goin’ on here (like with most of the closet cases who are ministers in the black church) and they protest so much as a way to deal with or keep their own issues on the down low. See, so many of these insecure and confused men get married in an attempt to hide. Hoping privately that their being married will help them “change”. Marriage is their shield while on their quest for “deliverance”. But while they are chasing this deliverance, they still fulfill their true desires in secret, on the side. Maybe he (and the men like him) are so “passionate” about this because if the same gender loving community ever has the same rights, it will be more of a struggle for them to hide. So it’s like, “I have to fight and protest against this thing because if it’s ever ‘acceptable’ for me to be with someone of the same gender, I’ll slip up and EVERYONE I know will find out about my dirty little secret. My whole sham of a life will be exposed and EVERYONE will know that I‘ve been living a lie. Too many people (including myself) will be hurt and humiliated”. And NOBODY wants to be known as a liar and a cheat. I’m not saying this is the case with Rev. McKissic, but…it IS something to think about.

 

My daddy taught me that men who are truly secure in themselves are not threatened by someone who is different from, yet equal to them. My parents taught me that REAL Christianity is not about obeying a bunch of rules, but about treating EVERYONE with love, respect and dignity like Jesus did. It’s about helping people and showing them the unconditional love of God regardless of perceived differences. Real Christianity is about loving everyone because we are all God’s children. We’re all created equal. And in spite of what makes us different, God loves us all just the same. I don’t know WHAT the good Rev. McKissic is talking about. Evidently, he doesn’t either.

Ferguson and the Soft Bigotry of America’s Leading Evangelicals

By J.D. Hall,  Pulpit&Pen, November 24, 2014

Michael Gerson, an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post and former speech-writer for President George W Bush is credited with coining the phrase, “The soft bigotry of low expectations.” Gerson, who also is a member of the “evangelical intelligentsia” – an elitist group of evangelical Christians who excel in various fields of academia – designed the phrase to articulate a widely-understood but rarely asserted reality; racism is not always overt, but rather is often displayed in a politically-correct, yet patronizing acceptance of bad behavior or lowered standards.


As Ferguson erupts in riotous violence, America’s leading evangelicals – like Southern Baptists Russell Moore and Ed Stetzer – are falling over themselves to prove who is the most thoughtful, compassionate, and sympathetic to the racial tension and tragedy that the community has come to typify. In their race to win the racial sensitivity award, what they’re demonstrating is the soft bigotry of low expectations.


A twelve-member grand jury – after looking at all relevant evidence, some of which has yet to made available to the public – chose not to indict officer Darren Wilson for using lethal force after being assaulted by Michael Brown. It seems that the jury determined what most reasonable people have known for some time; an officer with an exemplary record and quality personal character was in fear that his life was in jeopardy from someone who, by all reasonable accounts, has a lengthy criminal record and troubled personal character, and the officer exercised necessary force to eliminate that threat.


A mob has become predictably upset over the ruling, after being predictably upset before the ruling, after being predictably upset after the incident. In general, this mob has been upset since the August 9 confrontation. This is not a hurting community (albeit a hurting community no doubt exists in Ferguson). The mob, simply put, is not a community at all. Communities are built around shared values. This group, it seems, is built around a lack of values and the intended desire of watching the world burn. Adding an equally predictable and obligatory qualification, this mob of questionably-sincere outrage-professionals should not taint our perception of the entire Ferguson community, which is no doubt filled with hard-working, tax-paying responsible citizens of a myriad of colors and ethnicities who are embarrassed at the attention the mob is bringing upon their community.


This particular segment of the population in Ferguson and the surrounding areas, within just a few hours of the grand jury’s findings, has fired rounds, thrown molotov cocktails, assaulted fellow (white) protesters and burned police cars. By the time most read this post on the morning of November 25th, this list will no doubt be longer.


Much attention has been given to the “black churches” of the Ferguson area who have done little but fan the flames of bad behavior, whether lending the pulpit to Communist community organizers raising an army of anarchy or offering their facilities as “sanctuaries” for rioters. More attention needs to be given to leading American evangelicals, however, who are doing anything but making the situation better by their misplaced sympathy and pandering, patronizing betrayals of their own innate soft bigotry.


We break in heartache for black evangelicals like Thabiti Anyabwile, who apparently feel torn in many ways.

Anyabwile has made headlines in the last few months for making repeated overtures in support of the outraged mob, and little to none for the officer and his family or the citizens of Ferguson who suffer the collateral damage in this war of contrition upon law and order.


Tonight, while his sentimentality is certainly not out of place,  it seems that again Anyabwile’s thoughts of sympathy are one-directional.

What’s perhaps less understandable are white evangelical leaders likewise being utterly calloused toward the victim in this sad exchange, the officer who has lost his career and reputation because he was ruthlessly attacked by a criminal.


As Doug Wilson recently wrote, being nice really is the besetting sin of American evangelicalism. We want the secular press to feign over our thoughtfulness and open-mindedness. Being characterized as racist or bigoted – even in veiled innuendo – is to be avoided at all costs. We want Christianity Today to give us a congratulatory back-slap as we distance ourselves from the real and actual bigotry of our institutional past. We want to distance ourselves as far as possible from Richard Land’s insensitive remarks regarding Trayvon Martin. We want to be in the Evangelical Intelligentsia, and frankly, you don’t get invited to that club if you’re seen as insensitive or too loose-lipped with obvious (but inconvenient) truths.

John Piper used his vast social media platform to argue for empathy (for who, the criminal antagonist?), affirmative action and a fairy-tale program that will do little more than put officer’s lives in jeopardy (frankly, I don’t want law enforcement turning to theologians for advice regarding their own personal defense). Piper calls for what seems tantamount to sensitivity training.


Again, it shouldn’t surprise us that President Obama used his speech tonight to discuss the “deep distrust” issues between the mob (who he described as “people of color”) and the law enforcement paid by the community to protect them from the mob. It shouldn’t surprise us that Obama’s concern wasn’t directed toward the victimized community or officer whose life was traumatized by a criminal running from a store robbery. It shouldn’t surprise us that there wasn’t an ounce of moral clarity in the entire speech, no direct rebuke of the mob or preemptive repudiation of the mob’s addiction to outrage and attitude hell-bent on burning their own community to the ground, but rather called law enforcement to restraint. It shouldn’t surprise us that Obama portrayed the culprits as oppressed victims. We shouldn’t be surprised that Obama made this a race thing rather than a crime and consequences thing.


But shouldn’t it surprise us that Russell Moore, President of the SBC’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commision (ERLC) – gave Obama’s speech a glowing review?

Once a Democratic staffer, always a Democratic staffer, I suppose.

And then, there’s Ed Stetzer’s epic display of white evangelical guilt in Christianity Today. Within the first sentence, Stetzer points his deriding finger to white evangelicals and admonishes us to “talk a little less and listen a little more.”


We shouldn’t be saying that the mob shouldn’t be upset, and we should rather figure out why they’re upset, Stetzer argues. In truth, it sounds reminiscent of certain Ivy League professors in the days following 9-11, telling us our first priority was to figure out why the terrorists hated us so much (and that we probably had it coming, anyway). And even though Stetzer admits he doesn’t have the evidence the grand jury was privy to, he then says that “we must acknowledge that injustice really exists.”


Well, of course injustice really exists. Injustice exists in a million different ways. But given that Stetzer doesn’t know why the grand jury would find this officer innocent (apparently he doesn’t watch the same news the rest of us do), why would he argue that this event in particular must cause us to reflect upon injustice?


Stetzer’s article feeds into the very frenzy that has overtaken Ferguson, repeating the question, “Will white people ever acknowledge injustice exists?” The answer, for Stetzer, is that we (white evangelicals) confess our sins, repent and seek reconciliation with those we hurt.


You’ll never hear or read the Pulpit & Pen contributors complain about a call for repentance or a confession of sin. Praise God, indeed. But why, I would ask, are evangelicals like Stetzer using this opportunity to call white evangelicals to repentance? Sure, we need it. All we need to prove our need for repentance is to look at what the shelves are stocked with at Stetzer’s Lifeway. But why are riots in the street of Ferguson a call for us to repent?


Here’s the truth; a mob is rioting in Ferguson who are not being called to repentance by the churches they attend. They’re not being portrayed as the law-and-order-hating sub-citizens that they really are, by the media. They’re not being called terrible examples for the children they haven’t aborted by the community organizers. They’re not being called down by the President as being antithetical to a nation based upon laws and a legal system that – whether they like it or not, worked. No, the mob is being coddled by nearly everyone, including America’s leading evangelicals. The message they’re receiving is that the worse their behavior, the more we will consider their long list of demands and grievances.


And no doubt, there are grievances. No doubt, there are innocent men and women profiled for the color of their skin and treated as guilty until a background check can be run. No doubt, there are financial challenges for children of that community that leave someone working harder to get ahead. And on occasion, there are real miscarriages of justice. Even more than that, there’s the systematic attempt by one political ideology to enslave a permanent underclass through government entitlement in order to solidify a voting block. There are definitely real, tangible grievances.


How incredibly unproductive is it to consider these grievances while the mob is rioting? How foolish is it to use bad behavior as the precipitating reason to discuss their plight (real or imagined)? I don’t let my children get their way when they’re throwing a tantrum, lest I get more and more tantrums. Our culture seems determined to reward bad behavior. It seems that America’s leading evangelicals are capitalizing on that societal trend in yet another failed attempt at cultural relevance and secular pats on the back.


The evangelical message needs to be, “We understand you have grievances. We understand you feel you’ve been wronged. Let’s discuss that, but first go home, tuck your kids in, and go to bed early so you can get up in the morning and be a productive citizen. Then, let’s talk.”


More importantly than that, we can stop exalting the culture of victimization, because a conviction for sin is hard to find when even the religious authorities make excuses for your sin and insist on pointing their finger elsewhere.

Is Truth Racist? A Response to Dwight McKissic

By J.D. Halll, Pulpit&Pen, November 29, 2014

Dwight McKissic, a Southern Baptist pastor (and African-American) from Arlington, Texas has an article posted at SBC Voices that accuses me of racism for my views presented in the post entitled Fergson and the Soft Bigotry of America’s Leading Evangelicals. Taking exception with my views – and the views of Southern Baptist Pastor Randy White (from the other side of the soteriological spectrum) – McKissic makes a number of allegations, including:

  • My characterization of Michael Brown as “a criminal” is unfair and an indication of racism (of course, Voddie Baucham has no trouble referring the man as a criminal, soooo….).
  • Other evangelicals don’t like the term “evangelical” because they would be afraid of being guilty by association with me (believe me, it’s mutual).
He claims that I’ve stated “racial reconciliation” is not a Gospel issue, which I’ve never said and which – to be technical – Randy White did not say either (I’ve publicly stated – numerous times – that racism is a repudiation of the Gospel).
  • I make him uncomfortable as a black Southern Baptist pastor.
  • He clearly feels that evangelical leaders should not be arguing about the problems in Ferguson (unless it’s an analysis of the historic root of race issues going back several hundred years), but we should be presenting “solutions” to the problem – like officers being mandated by law to wear body-cams. You know, real Gospel-centered solutions like that.

I have little desire to defend myself against charges of racism, charges that I’m part unicorn, or any other preposterous accusation. Frankly, McKissic’s accusations of racism are the very reason why people refuse to speak the painful truth on important issues. So, instead of making a big deal out of this, I’ll let the original post speak for itself and provide the comment I posted on the article at SBC Voices, which I believe addresses most of the article’s fallacies. Before that, though, I’ll leave you with one thought.

I think how McKissic ended his article is telling. Those who aren’t afraid to recognize the real problems in Ferguson are talking about the Gospel. Those who refuse to recognize the real problems in Ferguson are talking about body-cameras.

I appreciate the discussion. I think it’s helpful. In the mean time, if I could be allowed to provide some thoughts.

1. I am a Calvinist. I am not a “neo-Calvinist” as Brother Randy says in his own rejoinder on his website (I’m a 1689 Baptist and about as far from YRR as you can get). However, I’m not entirely sure how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. If somebody could enlighten me on that, that would be great.

2. I do stand by my characterization of Brown as a criminal who was shot in the act of committing a crime. While Brown was not convicted in a court of law for the robbery (because he is dead) it would be hard to imagine he wouldn’t be. At a certain point, we need to be able to make judgment calls as citizens intent of developing an informed opinion without having courts make these decisions for us. He’s on video. To rebuke someone for stating the obvious it kind of silly. In fact, it’s the type of moral neutrality on display by the evangelical elite that’s the reason for me writing the post in the first place. Furthermore…

3. Feel free to call this the “JD Hall Worldview.” But in real truth, this is the viewpoint – I believe – shared by the majority of Southern Baptists and other Americans not blinded by the same type of political correctness that has clearly plagued Stetzer and Moore. At nearly a thousand shares on Facebook, clearly people are agreeing with the infamous JD Hall (which, of course, does not validate my opinion in and of itself). And, frankly, the rest of us are tired of being lectured by highly-political evangelicals who are intent on winning the sensitivity award. To say that I “demonized” Brown for articulating what the rest of – and apparently, the Grand Jury – know, is hardly fair and indicates a bias of your own.

4. The charge of racism because I’m stating – again, what most reasonable people have ascertained from, well…reality – that many of the rioters are not productive members of society (I could argue that by DEFAULT rioters are counterproductive members of society) is over the top. The charge of “paternalism,” on the other hand, is one taken from the social progressivism handbook. Virtually all calls for repentance to some within a given ethnic community can be called “paternalistic.” Chip on your shoulder much?

5. Communist organizers like Larry Everest, for example, have been using Ferguson-area churches as staging grounds for building unrest. That IS true. And although I’d stop short of calling Sharpton a communist, I’m not sure that’s an argument you’d want to have. Furthermore, concerning churches serving as sanctuaries for rioters, churches – like St. Mark’s Family Church, led by Pastor Tommy Pierson and the Liberation Christian Church, led by Pastor Dietra Wise-Baker – have done just that.

6. I’m terribly sorry if I’m made it “uncomfortable” for you to be a Southern Baptist pastor. The moral neutrality, social progressivism and ecumenism that comes from ERLC, the books sold at Lifeway and Ronnie Floyd’s confetti cannon make ME uncomfortable to be a Southern Baptist pastor. We have something in common. I guess we’ll both have to figure out a way to get over being uncomfortable.

7. I agree ENTIRELY that Stetzer, Moore and Anyabwile represent the other side of the evangelical coin. Two of the three represent a side that is intellectually condescending, saying much without saying anything, and have provided commentaries that are altogether unhelpful to anyone except themselves to avoid the same charge of racism that you are giving the rest of us. The other of those three so clearly prejudged the situation, without having the facts laid out, stuck to his judgment, and judge wrongly once the facts were in.

8. I apologize for my verbiage, if it was hostile, unnecessarily offensive, or could have been seasoned with more salt. I would add, however, that in a world that lacks much truth, perhaps we shouldn’t be so sensitive as to how that truth is expressed. And even if what I’ve said you don’t consider truth, at least someone is making an effort. It doesn’t strike me that Stetzer or Moore were going out of their way to express truth.

9. You again level the charge of racism in saying that if Russ had given the same statement as I did, that it would be “racist.” My black nieces and nephews might disagree. My black congregants (yes, even in Montana) might beg to differ with you. My faithful repudiation of racism in my sermons and radio program might stand as a witness against you. We’ve got to get beyond the “You said something negative about rioting African Americans so you are racist” mentality. It’s simply not helpful. It’s also slanderous and wrong.

10. You applaud Stetzer, Moore and Barber for not making judgments (although they easily could, as any reasonable soul knows). You applaud Anyabwile for presenting solutions. One solution presented are body-cameras for officers. While I read the suggestion earlier today and thought it was a great idea (the law probably shouldn’t be named after a man who assaulted a police officer, though), I think this demonstrates the error of presenting solutions without providing realistic and reasonable judgments regarding the problem. The problem is not a lack of video evidence. The problem is sin and – in part – Christians who are too afraid of being called racist to point that out.

11. I’d agree completely that NAMB should focus on planting multi-ethnic churches in those communities that are racially diverse. Praise God to that! That means NAMB should stop planting affinity based churches that tend to attract one particular ethnicity. I know NAMB funded “cowboy churches” and “Indian Churches” in the same community. Something tells me that cowboys and Indians should be worshiping together.

12. My friend, no one wants to “fight over Ferguson.” An opposing opinion is not fighting, I hope we could all agree. But we can’t present solutions unless we’re able to clearly define the problem without the fear of, well…the accusations you leveled in this article.

"It’s not Dixie’s fault"

by Thomas J. Sugrue, July 17, 2015,

The Washington Post

Many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. (AP Photo/Dave Martin, File) (Dave Martin/AP)

The tragic Charleston, S.C., church shooting, in which nine black worshipers were killed, allegedly by a Confederate-flag-supporting white supremacist, has unleashed a new battle over Southern culture. Confederate monuments have been defaced; leaders have demanded that emblems of the Confederacy be erased from license plates and public parks; schools in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama are struggling to defend their “rebel” mascots. Most predictably, pundits have renewed their characterization of Southern states as the ball and chain of America. If all those backward rednecks weren’t pulling us down, the story goes, the United States would be a progressive utopia, a bastion of economic and racial equality. “Much of what sets the United States apart from other countries today is actually Southern exceptionalism,” Politico contributor Michael Lind wrote this month in an essay called “How the South Skews America.” “I don’t mean this in a good way.”


This argument recapitulates an old, tired motif in American journalism that the South is the source of our nation’s social ills. It has been blamed for our obesity problem (“Why Are Southerners So Fat? ” Time asked in 2009), persistent poverty (“The South Is Essentially A Solid, Grim Block Of Poverty,” the Huffington Post asserted in 2014) and general stupidity (“What’s Wrong with the South?” the Atlantic scoffed in 2009). This time, in the wake of the church shooting, the states of the old Confederacy have become a national scapegoat for the racism that underpinned the massacre. If only they would secede again, Lind and others suggest, the nation would largely be free from endemic prejudice, zealotry and racist violence.


Not even close. These crude regional stereotypes ignore the deep roots such social ills have in our shared national history and culture. If, somehow, the South became its own country, the Northeast would still be a hub of racially segregated housing and schooling, the West would still be a bastion of prejudicial laws that put immigrants and black residents behind bars at higher rates than their white neighbors and the Midwest would still be full of urban neighborhoods devastated by unemployment, poverty and crime. How our social problems manifest regionally is a matter of degree, not kind — they infect every region of the country.


In fact, many of the racial injustices we associate with the South are actually worse in the North. Housing segregation between black and white residents, for instance, is most pervasive above the Mason-Dixon line. Of America’s 25 most racially segregated metropolitan areas, just five are in the South; Northern cities — Detroit, Milwaukee and New York — top the list. Segregation in Northern metro areas has declined a bit since 1990, but an analysis of 2010 census data found that Detroit’s level of segregation, for instance, is nearly twice as high as Charleston’s.

 

The division between black and white neighborhoods in the North is a result of a poisonous mix of racist public policies and real estate practices that reigned unchecked for decades. Until the mid-20th century, federal homeownership programs made it difficult for black Americans to get mortgages and fueled the massive growth of whites-only suburbs. Real estate agents openly discriminated against black aspiring homeowners, refusing to show them houses in predominately white communities.


When all else failed, white Northerners attacked blacks who attempted to cross the color line, using tactics we typically associate with the Jim Crow South. They threw bricks through the windows of their black neighbors’ homes, firebombed an integrated apartment building and beat black residents in the streets. In Detroit, to name one example, whites launched more than 200 attacks on black homeowners between 1945 and 1965. In Levittown, Pa., hundreds of angry whites gathered in front of the home of the first black family to move there and threw rocks through the windows. Racists burned crosses in the yards of the few white neighbors who welcomed the new family. That violence occurred in 1957, the same year whites in Little Rock attacked black students integrating Central High School, yet it’s that story — of racial bias in the South — that dominates our narrative of America’s civil rights struggle.


Passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968 didn’t eliminate racist real estate practices. A recent National Fair Housing Alliance investigation found that in 87 percent of test cases, agents steered customers to neighborhoods where existing homeowners were predominantly of the customers’ own race. And while Southern states are home to a larger portion of the nation’s minority residents, nearly half of all fair-housing complaints during the 2012-2013 fiscal year were filed in the Northeast and the Midwest.


Economic segregation is most severe in America’s Northern metropolitan areas, as well, with Milwaukee; Hartford, Conn.; Philadelphia; and Detroit leading large cities nationwide, according to an analysis of 2010 census data by the Atlantic. White suburbanites across the North — even in Bill and Hillary Clinton’s adopted home town, Chappaqua, N.Y. — have fought the construction of affordable housing in their neighborhoods, trying to keep out “undesirables” who might threaten their children and undermine their property values. The effects of that segregation are devastating. Where you live in modern America determines your access to high-quality jobs (which are mostly in suburban places), healthy food (many urban areas are food deserts) and, perhaps most important, educational opportunities.

Education remains separate and unequal nearly everywhere in the United States, but Confederate-flag-waving Southerners aren’t responsible for the most racially divided schools. That title goes to New York, where 64 percent of black students attend schools with few, if any, white students, according to a recent report by the Civil Rights Project. In fact, the Northeast is the only region where the percentage of black students in extremely segregated schools — those where at least 90 percent of students are minorities — is higher than it was in the 1960s. Schools in the South, on the other hand, saw the segregation of black students drop 56 percent between 1968 and 2011.


White Southerners fought tooth and nail to prevent desegregation, using protests and violence to keep black children out of all-white schools. But federal courts came down hard on districts that had a history of mandated segregation, and federal troops and law enforcement officers escorted Little Rock and New Orleans students through angry white mobs in front of their new schools.


White parents in the North also fought desegregated schools but used weapons that seemed race-neutral. Black and white students above the Mason-Dixon line attended different schools not by law but simply by nature of where they lived. This de facto school segregation appeared untainted by racist intent, but, as noted earlier, housing practices in the North were fraught with conscious racial injustice. Further, metropolitan areas like Philadelphia and Detroit contained dozens of suburban school districts, making it easy for white families to jump across district boundaries when black neighbors moved in. (Often, Southern districts, as in Charlotte, encompassed the inner city, outlying suburbs and even some rural areas, making it more difficult to flee desegregation. As a result, Charlotte became one of the most racially integrated school districts in country.) Unlike in the South, it was nearly impossible for civil rights litigators to prove that all-white schools in the North were a result of intentional discriminatory policies.


None of this denies that the South is, in many ways, shaped by its unique history. It broke from the union over slavery, and its economy was indelibly shaped by that peculiar institution. After emancipation, it took a century of grass-roots activism and public policy to break down the legal barriers that limited Southern blacks’ economic opportunities. But the South is not timeless and unchanging. The region’s per capita income began to converge with the rest of the nation’s during World War II and accelerated in the decades after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, according to Stanford economist Gavin Wright. The South is still at the bottom economically, but the regional gaps have narrowed considerably, especially for African Americans. By the 1990s, Southern black men earned as much as their counterparts in other regions. Now, Northern blacks are migrating South in search of better economic opportunities, reversing historic trends.


The South has become an increasingly heterogeneous place, home to the fastest-growing immigrant populations in the country, led by North Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas and Tennessee. Immigration has remade Southern big cities and small towns alike: North Carolina chicken-processing centers have attracted Guatemalan immigrants. Suburban Atlanta is dotted with panaderias and taco shops catering to the rapidly growing Mexican population. And Vietnamese-born shrimpers are working the Gulf of Mexico’s shores in Texas and Louisiana. In the past decade, immigrants have accounted for half of the growth of country-music capital Nashville, with large numbers of Latinos as well as Kurds, Bosnians and Somalis.


It’s reassuring for Northerners to think that the country’s problems are rooted down South. But pointing our fingers at Dixie — and, by implication, reinforcing the myth of Northern innocence — comes at a cost. As federal troops and Supreme Court decisions forced social change in the states of the old Confederacy during the 20th century, injustices in the North were allowed to fester. That trend continues, as Northerners seek to absolve themselves of responsibility for their own sins by holding aloft an outdated and inaccurate caricature of a socially stunted South. In 1960, Martin Luther King Jr. said: “Another group with a vital role to play in the struggle for racial justice and equality is the white northern liberals. The racial issue that we confront in America is not a sectional but a national problem.” That holds true for most of America’s troubles today. Enough finger-wagging at Dixie. Change begins at home.


 

What do you really know about
Russell Moore?

Russell Moore partnering with New Apostolic Reformation to advance the "Social Gospel."

by Jeff Maples,  June 12, 2015

The concept of “social justice” is not new, it’s been around for ages. It’s the antithesis to personal responsibility. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “social justice” as “The objective of creating a fair and equal society in which each individual matters, their rights are recognized and protected, and decisions are made in ways that are fair and honest.” On the surface this sounds like a noble cause, but in reality, it doesn’t work that way. In practice, social justice removes the notion of personal responsibility, and places the burden of individuals on the backs of society. A society devoid of personal responsibility will naturally result in laziness, crime, and a complete lack of motivation for advancement, and eventually total collapse of the society. The social justice system comes in the form of a wolf in sheep’s clothing, disguised as something good, yet it is opposed to the will of God, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.


But this doesn’t stop the social progressives from infiltrating the Church to promote their agenda. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), has been at this for quite some time. He is known for using his high ranking positions in the Church to promote his social justice causes. He has used the ERLC for the advancement of his “racial reconciliation” cause, in which he supports the idea of “white privilege,” and clearly wants to place criminal responsibility of blacks on the shoulders of society. He also promotes what he terms as “Creation Care” environmentalism. And recently, he formed a coalition with other liberal groups in order to fight against “predatory pay-day lending.” All of these causes diminish the importance of personal responsibility for one’s actions–personal responsibility, of which is a prerequisite to salvation in the Gospel.

Now, in the latest show of his positional authority, and intent to advance and propagate his cause through the Church, he has teamed up with social justice advocate and political activist, president of The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), Samuel Rodriguez. Moore has partnered with the NHCLC on a number of occasions in the past, and is now officially yoking together with them by becoming a member of their board. According the the NHCLC website, Rodriguez is a very prominent person, not only in the Latino Evangelical community, but in the world.


CNN  and Fox News named Rodriguez, “The leader of the Hispanic Evangelical movement”. NBC/Telemundo called him “America’s most influential Latino Evangelical leader”. Rev. Samuel Rodriguez was nominated by TIME magazine for their “100 Most Influential People in The World” list in 2013 and his description of the Latino faith community emerged as their April 15, 2013 cover story, The Latino Reformation.


This is quite a significant partnership, as the Southern Baptist Convention, and the ERLC are among the most influential evangelical organizations in the world. Rodriguez, and the NHCLC also have strong ties with the New Apostolic Reformation and Cindy Jacobs, a highly controversial and well known false teacher within American evangelicalism. Any true God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian should be running from this camp at full speed. So what does Rodriguez actually stand for? According to NHCLC website, their mission statement reads:

Joining the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. and Billy Graham.  The Lamb’s Agenda reveals the crucial connection between biblical social justice and spiritual righteousness.


Rodriguez says he grew up in a “very Christian” home, and apparently received a prophetic utterance from the Lord to become a preacher while watching a well known false teacher, Jimmy Swaggart, on television as a child. In an interview with PBS he says:


… when I was 14 years old, I had my epiphany, my Damascus moment, which was simple: I was viewing a very well-known televangelist [Swaggart] around 10:00 in the evening, back in the early ’80s, and it resonated with me. Something in my spirit, something in my heart said, “Samuel, you’re going to do that one day; you’re going to preach.”

Samuel Rodriguez was keynote speaker at the Martin Luther King National Service in 2013. During his speech he threw many red flags. The first red flag was early in his speech, when he introduced King’s daughter, Bernice King, as “prophet,” “elder,” and his “sister [in Christ].” The “prophet/pastor” has been well associated with C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation, in which Dominionism is one of it’s main tenets. Throughout this speech, he proclaims that his mixing of politics with Christianity is a “prophetic movement of God.” He then quotes John 1:29 and Revelation 5:13, and makes the following comment in it’s application:


Now how do we live out Dr. King’s dream in our 21st century reality? How do we advance the cause of justice in a very unjust world? How do we build a firewall against intolerance, abuse, inequality and hatred? Permit me to title this brief word that God has deposited in my heart today; Dr. King’s dream fulfilled the Lamb’s agenda. Behold the Lamb.


This is a completely blasphemous claim that God told him that Dr. King’s social justice dream fulfilled the will of God. This is a total misuse of the Word of God, and this man is not speaking truth, but lies. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not come to make the world a better place, and provide justice and equality to all people. He came to save people from their own sin, through repentance and trust in Him alone. Rodriguez then goes on to say that it’s the “spirit of the Lamb that fulfills dreams,” and later, “The agenda of the Lamb performs freedom of the dream by the message of the cross,” and then says “Life is a cross.” He completely distorts the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and diminishes Jesus’ shed blood on the cross. Folks, Samuel Rodriguez is preaching a false Gospel, and a false Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:4 says:

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.


Rodriguez is also a supporter of President Obama’s executive action to provide amnesty to 5 million illegal aliens living in the borders of the United States. Of these law-breaking illegal residents, Rodriguez claims:

Their children are born here, they share our values when it comes to life … the primary model for marriage and family [and] on religious liberty, These are not individuals who are married to a political ideology. They love faith, they love family and they love freedom.

Rodriguez also seems to have a hard time understanding who our “brothers and sisters” in Christ are. Most Latino immigrants, legal or illegal, are Roman Catholic. These are not brothers and sisters in Christ. In May of 2015, Rodriguez issued the following statement in response to the U.S. State Department’s denial of a visa to Catholic nun, Sister Diana Momeka of the Dominican Sisters of St. Catherine of Siena in Iraq:

Our Christian faith must be preached, proclaimed, and protected … Having invested her life in Iraq, Sister Momeka has preached, proclaimed and served, and now she needs to be protected. We cannot be complacent when our brothers and sisters in Christ are being persecuted around the world.


We must not forget, that regardless of how bad a situation is for people, telling the world that someone is a Christian, when they are not, is not being faithful to Jesus Christ. Simply because Muslims do not differentiate between true and false Christians does not mean that Christians should not. Roman Catholicism is a counterfeit Christianity, and Catholics need to be evangelized as much as any other false religion. Russell Moore, in his partnering with Rodriguez refers to this nun as “Iraq’s Mother Theresa.”


As a staunch promoter of social justice in the Church, and a New Apostolic “prophet,” Rodriguez recently wrote an article for Charisma Mag, in summary, claiming that the “real reason” the Holy Spirit came down was to empower us to change the world–to “be the answer to someone else’s prayer.” “In conclusion,” he writes:


stand up and cast out demons! Stand up and heal the sick! Stand up and speak in other tongues. Stand up and fulfill the great commission. Stand up and make disciples. Stand up and preach the Word in and out of season. Stand up and be fruitful. Stand up and be faithful. Stand up and be holy. Stand up and be light!


Be filled! Stand up! Raise your voice! And change the world!

This intertwining of social justice and Christianity is a total abuse of the Holy Spirit and God’s Word. As if it isn’t enough to take the Gospel to the lost, calling them to repentance and salvation, and teaching them personal responsibility; Rodriguez believes it is the commission of the church to solve the social problems of the world. The root of the social problems in the world is sin (Galatians 5:19-21, Romans 3:23, Jeremiah 17:9, etc.). And that problem has already been solved, on the sacrificial death, burial and resurrection of Jesus (1 Peter 3:21). And the solution is the Gospel–the Great Commission.


Russell Moore continues to repeatedly align himself with false teachers, false prophets, and political activists in order to promote his agenda. Russell Moore is not being held accountable for his actions, yet he is revered as one of the greatest influences in Christianity. Why is this so? Why can’t people see what is going on, and the destruction that the social justice agenda is doing to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Why do our Southern Baptist leaders continue to support those who align themselves with this false gospel? Social justice, and the social gospel is a FALSE GOSPEL–it’s an enemy of the Gospel and true Christians should not tolerate it. Jesus’ own words regarding the social gospel in John 4:13-14 are:


… Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.

Russell Moore raises "Animal Stewardship" to the level of a "Gospel" and "Spiritual" issue.

Spurgeon-Twisting: Why the Prince of Preachers Would Not Embrace Animal Rights Activism

by Pulpit&Pen, November 24, 2015


This is an article I never thought I would have to write. And yet, my love for Spurgeon compels me to save our bearded hero from being kidnapped by a Shakespeare-quoting self-pronounced feminist and her legion of gay fans, shoving him gagged and bound into an animal rights pigeon hole.


In an article originally entitled, Spurgeon on Animal Cruelty: Our Treatment of Animals is a Gospel Issue and with a later subtitle change from Gospel Issue to Spiritual Issue, Karen Swallow Prior used an article from The Sword and the Trowel in which Spurgeon laments real and needless animal cruelty to assert the famed preacher of the London Metropolitan Tabernacle would be one of her comrades in her fight against modern meat production.

The nearly unanimous eye-rolling from all segments in regard to the assertion that animal stewardship rises to the level of a gospel issue was no doubt the reason the title subtly changed after several days to spiritual issue.

After nearly four days, the Spurgeon-Twisting post and all traces of it have been deleted by the ERLC. I have to wonder if perhaps someone with the new Spurgeon Library at the SBC-owned MidWestern Seminary might have put in a call to the ERLC expressing what the collective theological world was thinking…Karen Swallow Prior might want to stick to Shakespeare. But for whatever reason, the ERLC came to its senses and Canerized the atrocious post.


Thankfully, though, Google Cache grabbed it from the memory hole. The ERLC research fellow, Liberty University professor and Human Society council member, Karen Swallow Prior (KSP), suggested that Charles Spurgeon would have endorsed an Evangelical Statement on the Responsible Care for Animals, which was sponsored by the radical Humane Society and naively signed by Russell Moore and certain other socially progressive (or lesser discerning) evangelicals.


Keep in mind, this document was created at the host-site of Every Living Thing, which asserts that animals have souls and animals are our siblings (source link). Keep in mind that Karen Swallow Prior was written about as far back as 2007 by animal rights activists – in fact, even by supreme kook-fringe, the Animal Liberation Front – as someone would could merge herself into evangelical churches and begin to indoctrinate believers with their animal-first worldview (source link).


Keep in mind we’ve provided audio of KSP being asked whether or not human suffering caused by ending modern farming methods would be worth ending supposed animal suffering and she gave a very, very troubling answer (source link). Keep in mind that KSP, when advocating an end to the “cruelty” of modern meat production said “the economy of our country be damned” (source link).


With all of those things in mind, consider this quotation from the recently trashed article…

As tempting as it is to credit Dr. Moore and the other signatories with being pioneering visionaries, the fact is that the statement is not adding to Baptist legacy, but rather, reclaiming it. And perhaps no voice in Baptist history has weighed in more boldly or more passionately on the issue of animal welfare than the “Prince of Preachers” himself, the nineteenth century Reformed Baptist, Charles Spurgeon.


Spurgeon’s “passionate and bold” approach to the issue of “animal welfare” (as KSP prefers to call it) amounts to an article from The Sword and The Trowel entitled, “Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.” Spurgeon, as many know, was a civilized gentleman with a compassionate spirit and he gave several examples of what he meant by “cruelty to animals” within his article. Chiefly, Spurgeon spoke of a horse ridden in spite of having bloody and broken feet, a man who blinded the eyes of song-birds so they’d sing better, cockfighting and bull-baiting (a sport which pitted bulls against dogs, which had already been illegal in England since 1835), and killing baby rabbits for the sheer fun of it. Indeed, Spurgeon seemed to hate the wanton and unnecessary violence done toward animals – and even the unnecessary disruption of their daily affairs when done for mere entertainment, saying that he could sympathize with one gentleman who argued against needlessly stepping on worms or treating “even the meanest insect with wanton cruelty.”


Using these examples of Spurgeon’s disdain for things considered (and rightly so) “animal cruelty,” Prior then turns back again to that document sponsored by the radical Humane Society, which demands an end to mass meat production. In fact, the Wall Street Journal pointed out this very fact…

“[That evangelicals would sign the statement] would be forgivable if it weren’t covered in the paw prints of HSUS, which fancies itself a more sensible version of PETA, the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, known for not-so-ethical treatment of humans. (As for religious outreach, PETA PresidentIngrid Newkirk once said: “Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”)


Yet consider what the Humane Society means by “cruelty.” In a 2003 speech to United Poultry Concerns, Paul Shapiro, a future-vice president at HSUS, said: “Eating meat causes animal cruelty.” He added: “There is a direct causal connection between the foods that we eat and how much misery we inflict on those around us.” Another vice president, Miyun Park, said at a 2006 Animals and Society Institute event: “We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed,” later adding that “we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry.”


What Karen Swallow Prior has done to the legacy of Charles Spurgeon is greater violence than what will be done to my turkey this coming Thursday. More than that, it’s a dishonest bait-and-switch and is illustrative the ERLC’s entire engagement with Every Living Thing. What Karen Swallow Prior means by “animal cruelty” and what the Humane Society means by “animal cruelty” is not at all what normal, level-headed people who understand we live in a Genesis 1:28 world mean by “animal cruelty.” They mean an end to all mass-production of meat utilizing modern animal husbandry, the artificial imposition of rules regarding the “humane” square footage that should be allotted to chicken, and how much exposure to direct sunlight qualifies as “free range.” They want the total abolition of factory farming, as Karen Swallow Prior said last April, even if “the economy of our country be damned.” In other words, even if humans suffer.


That Spurgeon, given the level of starvation and hunger among the urban poor in his day, would not see factory farming methods as a blessing enabling the feeding of impoverished masses is dubious. In everything Spurgeon wrote, we see a detestation of unnecessary, senseless and wanton acts of cruelty perpetrated on animals. And yet, we do not see someone advocating eating only wild game or animals raised under arbitrary and economically unsustainable rules, as has Karen Swallow Prior. We do not see, in any of Spurgeon’s writings, anything resembling the philosophy of the Animal Liberation Front, PETA, the Humane Society or the theology of Karen Swallow Prior.

But beyond what Spurgeon would think about Tyson Chicken and GMOs, there’s another misappropriation of his name. Spurgeon, in no uncertain terms, would detest partnership with godless atheists and wicked organizations with unbiblical worldviews. This is certain. You would not have found Spurgeon partnering with those who deny a Genesis 1:26 or Genesis 1:28 view of creation (not to mention Level Ground or other of Prior’s troubling partners). Just as the Wall Street Journal demonstrated that conjuring Wilberforce and others in her animal rights scheming should get her a “cease and desist letter from the great beyond” and misuses their legacy, it greatly abuses Spurgeon’s legacy to insinuate he would have anything to do with Every Living Thing or partnering with the Humane Society or others who operate from an entirely Darwinian worldview.


Karen Swallow Prior strongly opposes, for example, the “animal cruelty” of the circus (she mentions dancing bears wearing dresses as an example of such cruelty). This is what constitutes “cruelty” for KSP, and this is what she means as an author of the Evangelical Statement on the Responsible Care for Animals. What would, then, Spurgeon think about the circus? Would he list animal cruelty as a reason to detest the circus?


PT Barnum of Barnum and Bailey Circus once asked Spurgeon to tour with them and preach. It was quite an offer. How many could be reached? No doubt thousands. On top of the “gospel opportunity,” Spurgeon was offered one thousand dollars per lecture – an enormous sum for the day. Spurgeon’s response to Barnum was as follows:

Dear Mr. Barnum:

Thank you for your kind invitation to lecture in your circus tents in America. You will find my answer in Acts 13:10.

Very sincerely yours,

Charles H. Spurgeon

If Mr. Barnum looked up Acts 13:10, he found these words: “O full of all subtility and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” (source)


What Spurgeon found offensive about the circus was not the “animal cruelty” (for nothing there resembled bull-baiting or cock-fighting), but that Barnum was lost. Barnum’s goal and Spurgeon’s goal were no doubt similar on some level; get the preacher to crowds for people to hear. But Spurgeon was motivated by gospel and Barnum’s goal was motivated by money. Their motivations were entirely different, and a partnership between the two was offensive to Spurgeon.


Karen Swallow Prior, this self-pronounced feminist, has conjured the wrong soul to defend evangelical partnership with the Humane Society and other radicals behind Every Living Thing. Her use of Spurgeon has been as twisted as her worldview.

 

[Contributed by JD Hall]

[Editor’s Note at time of publishing: We very much believe that when this article becomes public, the ERLC may put the article back up in response. At the time of this publishing, it is nowhere to be found]

Russell Moore is Senior Editor for Catholic/Protestant Ecumenical Magazine

By Jeff Maples, June 2, 2015

Touchstone, A Journal of Mere Christianity, is an ecumenical publication put out by the Fellowship of St. James. According to Wikipedia, the subtitle, A Journal of Mere Christianity replaced the older subtitle, A Journal of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. According to the FSJ website,

The Fellowship of St. James was founded in 1976 to promote fidelity to Jesus Christ, encourage greater Christian unity, and defend traditional Christian doctrines and moral teachings. The Fellowship and its publications serve Protestant, Evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians who come together on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church.


and similarly, Touchstone Magazine’s page says:

Touchstone is a Christian journal, conservative in doctrine and eclectic in content, with editors and readers from each of the three great divisions of Christendom —Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox.

The mission of the journal and its publisher, The Fellowship of St. James, is to provide a place where Christians of various backgrounds can speak with one another on the basis of shared belief in the fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture and summarized in the ancient creeds of the Church.


Any true Bible-believing Christian who knows anything at all about the doctrines of Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodox “christianity” knows that Biblical Christianity shares absolutely nothing with these two counterfeit religions in the most fundamental doctrine of the faith–salvation. In fact, these two religions consistently deny many of the “fundamental doctrines of the faith as revealed in Holy Scripture” in preference of their traditions. Many of their doctrines, such as sacramental, or works-based salvation, idolatrous forms of Mary and Saint veneration, Purgatory, Papal infallibility, and transubstantiation of the Eucharist, just to name a few, are extremely dangerous doctrines that turn people away from the truth of the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly and consistently tell us to have nothing at all to do with these false doctrines, rather expose them (Eph 5:11). These false religions are the works of darkness. They are designed by the ultimate deceiver to counterfeit the true Christian faith, and they lead people to Hell. True Christians are to have no fellowship with darkness, as it is written:

Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? – 2 Cor 6:14-15


Yet once again, who do we find meddling around in these dark corners, not as salt and light, calling unbelievers to repentance, but as a messenger of unity, watering down the divisions between the truth and error? You may have guessed, none other than the Ethics and Religious Liberties Commission President, Russell Moore. Russell Moore is a Senior Editor of the ecumenical magazine, Touchstone, and his writing fit right in with his agenda.


Dr. Moore has written many articles over the years for Touchstone, and most of them are cultural in nature, and focus upon what he believes to be a “shared interest” between Evangelicals, and apostate forms of Christianity. But why is he so caught up in Ecumenism? Clearly he can articulate the Biblical Gospel as well as any believer can, but how seriously does he take it?  One can only speculate as to why he doesn’t see the importance of drawing clear, distinct doctrinal boundaries between Biblical Christianity and apostate forms. Yet he continues to cross these lines in the name of culture building. I do, however, wish he would just answer these questions, and face his criticism, yet, he just decides to block me instead, and only engage with those who are on board with him.

I'm not surprised to read the following report on the loss of members in the SBC.  Why? 

Just consider the aforementioned wrangling at the SBC meetings over the dead horse issues that have been repeatedly beaten.

Just consider the unbibilical nonsense that SBC leadership like Russell Moore have been pandering and pushing, as aforementioned.

Just consider the "Seeker Sensitive" and "Social Gospel" nonsense that some of these pastors foist off on their members.

Just consider the heretical venues Russell Moore and Ronnie Floyd have visited and given credence to.

Just consider the heretical trash that LifeWay (formerly called the Baptist Book Store; which is run by the Southern Baptist Convention) has been allowing on their shelves.

Just consider the theologically-tissue-thin 'worship services' that are predicated on feel-good sermonettes accompanied by "7-11 Hymns" backed up by spotlighted 'praise singers' and their rock bands.

Just consider the heretical books, philosophies, and other trash, many pastors have been teaching/preaching in their churches.

Now....you understand why I'm not the least surprised at the figures you will see in the studies just released and quoted below:

Epic Report: SBC Loses Nearly A Million Members

Pulpit and Pen, June 7, 2016

 Contributed by Bud Ahlheim

 

The Baptist Press just released the Annual Church Profile report for 2015. The article opens with the decidedly Scripture-oblivious words, “Southern Baptists may find cause for hope in the latest Annual Profile Report.   The Southern Baptist Convention added more churches in 2015, due mostly to church planting efforts.”

Really?

Look. I love the Southern Baptist Convention, but I can assure you that the very last thing I have any concern about is finding “cause for hope” in anything the SBC does these days. My hope, my assurance, lies in quite a different place. The SBC would be wise to start placing their own hope – and obedience – in the same place.


Here’s the news.  Inclusive of this latest statistical data, since 2002 the SBC has lost nearly one million members (952,972). Some of those lost were, of course, already “lost” before they temporarily planted themselves in an SBC pew. Some of them were given false absolution, granted full church membership, and promised “Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” because they repeated some prayer or walked some aisle. That message apparently didn’t work out and they walked.


Others, no doubt truly regenerate, were driven to find more (authentic) Gospel-friendly shores where Scripture isn’t merely given the lip service of sufficiency but is actually believed, preached and taught.


(Here’s a thought.  Why don’t we charge LifeWay Research with the task of tracking down every departing soul from our midst and find out why they left?   Perhaps, like the real Gospel is to a fallen world, that truth might just be too divisive for the SBC intelligentsia.)


From 2014 to 2015, the SBC lost over 200,000 members. (204,409) Well yeah, but, here’s the great news! We planted another 294 new churches! Yippee! Give Kevin Ezell a raise! (Ezell is the President of the North American Mission Board.)  Proving Christ right, but not knowing it, the SBC is perhaps the leader in building more churches while simultaneously losing more members than any other “We will build the church” denomination on the planet.


Read in a different, far less than self-aggrandizing light, here’s what the latest ACP report reflects. In 2015, for each new church planted by the SBC, 695 members were LOST from the membership rolls. That ratio is worse even than 2014 over 2013, when nearly 632 left the ranks per new church plant. But it’s only in the bureaucratic aristocracy of upper echelon SBC-dom that any “cause for hope” might be proclaimed.


(Build one church = Lose 695 members!!!  Whoever cast this vision of lunacy … can we puh-lease lose him from our leadership?  Make a note, please.  I am not opposed to church planting.  Not at all.  I’m opposed to churches that do not preach and teach the actual Truth of Scripture.  Clearly those are the majority in the SBC.)


It is disobedience to the Word that produces the epic unbuilding of the church that the church planting wizards and faux gospel pastors of the SBC are able to accomplish in massive annual numbers.   It takes a decided effort and an intentional disregard of the problem – viewed in a purely Biblical light – to tolerate the fact that vision-casting, seeker sensitive, felt needs, purpose-driven drivel is a failure. It’s a failure precisely because it is all unbiblical.


Eventually, folks realize what’s being sold from the pulpit is nothing less that Christianized charlatanry, aimed at keeping pew sitters happy, engaged, and, of course, giving. But what’s being hurled from the dais, from the big screens behind it, or via “worship” tunes wailing from stage speakers, is a doctrine-free, Bible-lean course that will not feed authentic sheep.  And the entertainment of the goats from it isn’t working too well either.


The Bible is actually pretty clear.  (Perspicuity … it’s part of the doctrine of Scripture, FYI)  The church exists to edify the sheep. The real sheep, authentically regenerated by the Spirit of God and not by the incantation of a nonsensical, non-Scriptural prayer, must be fed the Word. In turn, those sheep share the Gospel.


Yet, in the Baptist Press article, Thom Rainer, President of LifeWay, says “While a decrease in baptisms is very disappointing, we don’t take for granted 295,000 baptisms. We should rejoice with each of those individuals who chose to follow Christ.”


(Umm, last time I read the Bible, it says salvation belongs to the Lord.  I can’t “choose” it, regardless of how hip, slick, and emotionally-manipulative the worship “experience” is. Regardless, far more are choosing to leave than choosing to stay.  Somebody must be getting the words wrong to that salvation-inducing sinner’s prayer, I guess.)

Since the goats that have been ushered into pews don’t actually eat sheep food, SBC churches have changed the menu. (Warning: Eating this diet of disobedience will result in massive bloodletting … of members from the ranks!)


The SBC has taken upon itself the task Christ reserved for Himself. “I will build my church.” He didn’t mention light shows, monotonously-lyric-ed praise music, and “its-all-about-you” sermons as tools He would employ. He said “the gospel is the power of God for salvation” and then charged His sheep to go proclaim it.

If the cooperating member churches of the SBC would jettison tolerance for “other” gospels, stand firmly against false teaching, preach and teach actual Scripture, a funny thing will happen. Christ will, indeed, build His church.


The mission we’ve been given in Scripture is only capable of being accomplished by the method we’ve been given in Scripture. Scripture is sufficient because our God is sufficient. He has decreed the mission and the method. Too bad the SBC doesn’t believe it will work.


Like I said, I love the SBC. But it in no way resembles anything close to the “true” church that Christ is building. I just pray that we’d be obedient to the sufficiency of Scripture so that our image might just change to look a little bit more Christ-like.  Who knows?  Souls might actually be saved along the way.  After all, Jesus promised that very thing.


As it stands, though, the frustrated flock of genuine sheep sitting in SBC pews best be on the lookout for further tourniquet-tightening methodologies from the ivory towers of the SBC to stem the hemorrhaging. Apparently, they just don’t have a copy of the Scriptures.


The purpose-driven downgrade continues …


(The downgrade, by the way, is not the loss of members.  The downgrade is the loss of Scripture. The epic membership decline is the evidence of it.)

The State of Membership Growth, Sunday School, and Evangelism in the Southern Baptist Convention 1900-2002
SBC 2017 Annual Convention:
moving Left toward Charismatic Pentecostalism
I received my issue of "SBC Life" magazine this week, which gives the schedule and program for the 2017 SBC Convention in Phoenix, Arizona.  It was on page 5, that I found that the convention had invited a man who's theology is very much suspect, and certainly raised my eyebrows: Greg Laurie.  They plan to give him a prime-time slot from 7:00-8:30 PM, billed as: "Celebration Service---Greg Laurie, pastor, Harvest Christian Fellowship, Riverside, California."


These eyebrow-raising concerns have not gone unnoticed by news outlets and other Christian groups. In particular:

 

--Greg Laurie’s endorsements of the "Azusa" anniversary and teaming up with NAR’s (New Apostolic Reformation) Lou Engle, Catholic mystic Roma Downey; introducing "Contemplative" Advocates Gungor and David Crowder, and leading a Joint worship with a Catholic Priest.

 

--Laurie’s endorsement of Calvary Chapel pastor Steve Berger’s book “Have Heart” containing false teaching about necromancy which the Bible prohibits.

Necromancy is the practice of magic involving communication with the deceased – either by summoning their spirit as an apparition or raising them bodily – for the purpose of divination, imparting the means to foretell future events or discover hidden knowledge, to bring someone back from the dead, or to use the deceased as a weapon, as the term may sometimes be used in a more general sense to refer to black magic or witchcraft.


Greg Laurie’s Continuing Slide Into Apostasy

 

by Jeff Maples · September 1, 2016

 

Greg Laurie has been a prominent figure in Christendom for quite some time. He is the senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, CA, one of the largest churches in America. Many have touted him as being the next Billy Graham. In the likeness of Billy Graham’s crusades, Laurie has invested endless efforts in his Harvest Crusades since the early 1990’s, reaching audiences in the hundreds of thousands at every event. Laurie’s popular style of watered-down preaching and making the adulterated Word of God more palatable to the world has helped his empire grow tremendously, and transform Laurie into a celebrity.

 

As with nearly all celebrity Christian luminaries, there comes a time when the message they deliver has become so devoid of any convicting biblical substance that nearly anyone, whether they profess Christ or not, will be lured in by their seductive charisma. Their following essentially becomes a cult of personality, and their notoriety gains them indiscriminate immunity from nearly all criticism.

 

Follow-up statistics from Greg Laurie’s crusades reveal that among the thousands of people touted to “make decisions” for Jesus at these gatherings, only 3 to 6 percent of them show any fruits of salvation one year later. Why could this be? Phil Johnson from "Grace to You" says that Greg Laurie’s current associations are representative of his theological drift, and that his “doctrinal boundaries are so hazy that there’s hardly any variety of popular religion or spiritual chicanery that he won’t align himself with, as long as it calls itself ‘Christian,’ and gains a large following.”

 

This statement couldn’t be more accurate. Perhaps one of the most spiritually dangerous assemblages of professing Christians this year will be “The Gathering.”  “The Gathering 2016” is described as a “National Solemn Assembly to unite the Body of Christ in America — all believers, regardless of race, age, or denomination — in prayer for forgiveness, wisdom, and provision for our nation.”

 

But see, here’s the problem, and what makes this event especially dangerous. The Gathering is filled with many popular names that are accepted in mainstream evangelical circles. Most of these compromised celebrities will speak a little bit of truth mixed with error. They are the bridge between true Christianity and blatantly false Christianity. They are the seducers, who deceive even the elect if that were possible (Matthew 24:24). They are the ones that many sincere but undiscerning followers of Christ will be drawn away by because their books and materials are promoted in their churches.

 

Many popular names like former Southern Baptist President, Ronnie Floyd, Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham, former ERLC president, Richard Land, the wildly popular Benham Brothers, NAR Apostle Samuel Rodriguez, Word of Faith pastor of Gateway Church, Robert Morris, and other compromisers such as Jack Graham, James Robison, Kay Arthur and Priscilla Shirer….and Greg Laurie.

 

There are two possibilities here. Either Greg Laurie is so undiscerning that he has no idea that this event is filled with false teachers, Gospel-compromisers, and self-promoting charlatans or he is well aware of their works and sees nothing wrong with them.

 

The latter is more plausible.

 

Of course, being praised as “one of the greatest evangelists alive,” by one of the greatest con artists alive, Steven Furtick, is quite telling. Of course, Laurie returns the favor, promoting the arch-heretic, Steven Furtick’s Scripture-denying book, “Crash the Chatterbox,” on Twitter.

 

Laurie is an ecumenist–that is, he wants to tear down doctrinal divides between professing Christians and see them join hands under a superficial unity. Laurie took it upon himself to pronounce former presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, saved, even though Rubio unashamedly made it clear that he was fully theologically and doctrinally aligned with the Roman Catholic church. And one of Laurie’s associate pastors, Jeff Lasseigne, claims he has asked Christianity’s greatest enemy of all time, the pope, to pray the upcoming Crusades, while jokingly tapping a bobble-head statue of the pope that he has on display in his office.

 

Greg Laurie has admitted to involving Roman Catholic churches in his crusades. He recently gave the stage to sedevacantist Roman Catholic, Mel Gibson, to promote his upcoming movie. Laurie and his associates at Harvest do not see the damning doctrinal error that the false church of Rome adheres to. With Greg Laurie, it isn’t about sound doctrine and a solid Gospel message that saves–it’s about “filling the stadiums with youth” to “bring about revival.” It’s a numbers game. It’s about “uniting denominations” into a single, watered-down, inoffensive, ear-tickling, man-pleasing entertaining religion of harmonious solidarity.

 

It’s this doctrinal shift and slide into apostasy that has caused John MacArthur to withdraw his endorsement from the Harvest Crusades. Laurie has stopped preaching the full counsel of God. He does not distinguish himself from other false teachers or distance his message from other false gospels. He has accumulated for himself teachers to suit his own passions (2 Tim 4:3). He is building the false kingdom, and preparing the way for the harlot church to flourish. His gate is very wide, and wide is the gate that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The charismatic persona of this man is very seductive and enticing–having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power (2 Tim 3:5). Those who follow him down his path, be warned, it’s not a safe path.

 

For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. – Jude 1:4.

Laurie is an author, crusade evangelist, and charismatic pastor of the eighth largest church in America, the Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California. (The church also has three administrative pastors and eleven assistant pastors, and averages a weekly attendance of 15,000.) The church was started in 1972 as Calvary Chapel Riverside -- a Bible study of about 30 people. Laurie was just 19 years of age at the time. The name was changed to Harvest Christian Fellowship in 1982. Laurie's ministry began at Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa, the largest church in the state of California, under the tutelage of charismatic, psychologizer Chuck Smith. Laurie is a product of the "Jesus People Movement" of the 1960s and 1970s pioneered by Smith, a counter-cultural, hippie movement which focused heavily on subjective religious experience. In 1989, Chuck Smith asked Greg Laurie to resume teaching a Monday night Bible study at Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa. Soon, some 2,500 people were attending this weekly gathering.


Laurie is probably best known for his Harvest Crusades, which are frequently broadcast on the blasphemous Trinity Broadcasting Network. Laurie conducts 5-6 evangelistic, three-day crusades every year that draw on average about 50,000 people each. Since the first Harvest Crusade at Costa Mesa's Pacific Amphitheater in 1990, where more than 90,000 people attended, 2.56 million people have heard Laurie speak at crusades across the country (through October 2000). (Each crusade event is typically 1-1/2 hours of entertainment and announcements, and 1/2 hour of preaching.) Always keeping score, Laurie claims that through these crusades, nearly 210,000 people have indicated that they have "made a decision to commit their lives to Jesus Christ."

 

Laurie's gospel is a man-centered psychological gospel -- his message is one of finding a "deeper meaning in life," with Jesus as the One who came to "fill the void".  Despite this Arminian, man-centered gospel, Laurie claims that the "results" of his crusades prove that his ministry has "undeniably been blessed and used by God in a unique way." Read in Laurie's own words what he has to say about his "success":

"The trademark of a Greg Laurie program, whether it be a Sunday morning church service or a stadium crusade, is the contemporary, yet straightforward, style and format. All programs feature contemporary music, concise messages from the Bible, and an informal atmosphere. All of this contributes to an entertaining and non-threatening environment that attracts people of all ages, but particularly young people."

Laurie-led church services (a) are primarily attended by young people dressed in shorts and T-shirts, (b) are heavy in entertaining "Christian" rock music, and (c) are light in Biblical message. Should we be surprised, then, that a "non-threatening environment," with entertainment and a 15-30 minute sermon, would attract a large crowd?


Rock music is a main staple of Laurie-led crusades. ReligionToday.com, an Internet religious news service, reported after a 1998 crusade that 12,000 youth "registered decisions to commit their lives to following Jesus Christ," and that Laurie "peppers his talks with illustrations from culture and current events, quoting lyrics from [secular rock groups] Smashing Pumpkins or Nine Inch Nails" in order to answer young people's questions in a more "relevant" way. Crusade director John Collins told Religion Today, "We bring in fairly raucous music" but added that the crowd does not get out of control. Rock groups Audio Adrenaline, the Super Tones, Big Tent Revival and The Kry generated the interest of 88,000 young people during two evenings. Laurie is also a frequent speaker at other Christian Rock music festivals (one of which in 1997 [Creation '97] featured the group Jars of Clay, which at the time had recently recorded for a new R-rated film that had nudity and 83 obscenities).


Laurie's Harvest Crusade is a perfect example of how New Evangelicals today are attempting to use the tools and amusements of the world to reach people for Christ. God's Word, however, commands believers to act and live in a way that is different from that of the world.  The idea that the truth of the Gospel message itself is not enough to reach people for Christ completely undermines the power of the message and of the convicting work of the Holy Spirit. God never commands the church to use the world to make His Gospel message more "palatable." No, the church is commanded to boldly sow the seed of God's Word, whether or not it is attractive to the listener. (Source: Sept-Oct 1998, Foundation.)

The Apostle Paul in Galatians takes a very serious stand against someone who perverts the gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).

 

In Greg Laurie's man-centered gospel, he also appears to preach that it is hard to go to hell. Contrary to the teaching of Jesus, recorded in Matthew 7:13-14, Laurie says (on the tape, God's Message To The Young (Part 1):

"But I want to tell you something. I think it's kind of hard to go to hell. I think it's hard because you have got to resist the calling of the Spirit on your life over and over and over again. You have to really be determined, and you have to resist Him; and ignore Him; and run from Him; and disobey Him. If you get hell, pat yourself on the back, it took hard work."

Azusa & Apostates: A Serpent Among The SBC

UPDATE:  On June 12, 2017, prior to his speaking at the SBC, Greg Laurie announced that his "Harvest" church is joining the SBC; but will retain membership in the Calvary Chapels movement.

But, (and with some there is always a 'but') Laurie stated, "This decision does not change our theology, philosophy of ministry or our history."

"Not change our (his) theology?" perhaps the Southern Baptist Convention should not accept his membership.

Rev. Chris Rosebrough exposes one aspect of

Greg Laurie's

false theology


"Greg Laurie: Why the U.S. is not mentioned in Revelation"

Greg Laurie, a former minister at Calvary Chapel, CA., which slid into the "Emergent Church" heretical movement, has created such controversy with his radical theology, that wherever he goes, there are 'street preachers' who will congregate outside where he is speaking and talk with those who are attending.  Also there are those who disagree with him who will show up inside the hall where he is and heckle him when he starts spouting false doctrine.
Greg Laurie definitely has no qualms about appearing on the same platform/conference as known heretics.  Consider this article from 2013:


The Emergent Church, and the Charismatic Movement has a primary goal in mind and they don't speak it out loud except in the most flowery, deceptive terms. A smattering of discernment and knowledge of the word of God would rob the emergent church of their goats and protect the sheep from the heretical views of these false teachers. However not enough people bother to read God's word any more and wouldn't know a commandment from a cup of coffee.

 

Sometimes it's hard to understand what the Bible is saying and we put our trust in a man that preaches the Word of God in an honest manner, unpolluted by personal agenda and worldly goals. Watching a man who can teach the Bible, who can preach the Gospel, who has shown a devotion to the doctrine of salvation, team up with false teachers like Rick Warren and Mark Driscoll is heartbreaking. Why Greg Laurie, why?

 

This autumn Greg Laurie is hosting a nation wide event called Harvest America, an event whose intent "is to impact a nation desperately in need of hope." Along with "top Christian artists" (I'm assuming he means musical artists, however watching Christian sculptors may be more interesting and more Godly than listening to some of the "Top" Christian musical artists out there) Greg is planning to preach a "Clear Gospel Message". Harvest America is going to be brought to paying churches and living rooms via live streaming over the internet, but I will not be there.

 

A few weeks before Harvest America, Greg Laurie is going to speak at a conference called the 2013 Resurgence Conference. Also appearing at Resurgence are Lecrae, Nick Vujicic, Miles McPherson, James Macdonald, Craig Groeschel, Mark Driscoll, and Rick Warren. To this group only 1 Corinthians 15:33 comes to mind.  He has also appeared with Steven Furtick, Leonard Sweet, Jentezen Franklin, and Perry Noble.


Many people listen to Lacrae's Christian rap but he dabbles in some weird stuff; Lectio Divina. The Roman catholic church came up with Lectio Divinia a long time ago when they found out that they couldn't stop people from reading the bible so they chose to corrupt the experience and turn it into mystical 'contemplative prayer'. It has nothing to do with actually reading the word of God but to empty your brain and allow an outside force to influence you. Some people call this contemplative prayer, others call this 'opening yourself to demonic influence'

 

Miles McPherson is an interesting fellow, he's an old pal of Rick Warren and megapastor of mega-goatpen Rock Church in San Diego. Rather than preaching the gospel, Miles keeps his goats entertained by interviewing unrepentant porn actors. It's one thing to interview a former porn star who has repented and turned his/her life over to Jesus and has been saved like Shelly Luben or Daniel Williams, but Ron Jeremy is still sinning and is proud of the fact.

 

James Macdonald, the Johnny Appleseed of the emergent church, publicly defends and approves of heretic and false teacher T.D. Jakes and invites said heretic to formerly serious Christian forums.

 

Craig Groeschel is the inventor of the term Christian Atheist, and has written a book that claims it's ok to ignore scripture, doubt the existance God, and still call yourself a Christian. His line in his book describes the emergent church to a tee:  “God created me in my image. I returned the favor and created Him in mine”

 

Mark Driscoll, formerly at Mars Hill Church, loudly gushes that Song of Songs 6:13 is his favorite part of the bible. "It’s awesome. It’s awesome. … Now, what do you think the dance of mah haneim is? It’s an ancient strip tease. Stripping is biblical!" He places biblical stripping above the death and resurrection of Jesus. “This is my favorite chapter in the whole Bible!” Driscoll exclaimed during the same 2007 sermon. “I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. It’s great too. But this is an amazing chapter of the Bible!"

 

And of course Rick Warren who has denied the fact that God is going to build his kingdom on earth and has told his goats not to read bible prophesy.

 

Is Greg Laurie going to denounce the heresy of his co-speakers? Probably he won't, but it hurts my heat to know that. Why Greg, why?

A comparison of evangelistic crusades is instructive. D.L. Moody held big crusades in Chicago relative to the era in which he lived, but the music of the day- ragtime music- did not make it into the church or the crusades to attract people. The Harvest Crusades and Greg Laurie employ the music of our day through groups like Skillet, whose bandleader makes Satanic gestures on stage. Ephesians 4:18, says “having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God.”

 

Pop culture is a clear alienation from the life of God. Do we dare to look at the statistics to see where we, as an Evangelical church, stand? The greatest fallacy among Evangelicals in the United States is that combining pop culture and Biblical Christianity, will somehow work. God is not mocked. It doesn’t work. The result is incredible emptiness, which drives people to look for spirituality in other places, because this mix of Christianity and pop culture fails.

Greg Laurie's connection with the now-disgraced Mark Driscoll. (With Internet links left intact so you can check the sources for yourself).

Letter to the Editor: Tens of Thousands Introduced to Contemplative Advocates Gungor and David Crowder at Greg Laurie’s Harvest Crusade. (With Internet Links left so you can check information for yourself).

Baptist Church Cancels Gungor Concert for Rejecting

Genesis as Literal

2009 National Worship Conference Brings Contemplatives,

Greg Laurie, and Leonard Sweet Together

Greg Laurie's Harvest Crusade’s Invite to ‘Crossover’ Band Who Dressed

Like Women Questioned

 

Greg Laurie Connects Purpose Driven to a Move of God –

Gives Financial Support

Evangelical Leaders Continue to Share Platforms with

Emerging/New Spirituality Teachers

Greg Laurie promotes Steven Furtick’s new book filled with heresy:

Greg Laurie, Harvest Crusade, and Lou Engle join to usher in a New Azusa Revival Experience; remove denominational differences and embrace the Roman Catholic Church


Pirate Christian website is reporting that Lou Engle and Greg Laurie (Harvest Crusades) have joined together to unite all denominations along with the Roman Catholic Church (which they consider to be another denomination of Christianity) in experiencing signs and wonders aka the "third awakening."  This is an attempt to recreated the Azusa Revival of 1906 (the beginning of modern Charismaticism). They are calling this rally "Azusa Now" and it's set for Spring of 2016. Engle is part of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), straight out of the Kansas City Prophets, Latter Rain Movement, and the IHOP (International House of Prayer) movements. These men want to invite pastors to come together in preparation for this rally, and additionally there are pre-rallies leading up to the "main event" at the LA Coliseum in the Spring.

 

As evidenced in this email which Amy Spreeman, the author of the article about this over at Pirate Christian, Harvest Crusades is at best committing spiritual harlotry.

Azusa Redux: Lou Engle, Greg Laurie uniting denominations?

"The Call Azusa Now 2016": Imposters, Deceiving and Being Deceived

Greg Laurie shared the same platform with
Lou Engle. Both are in the NAR movement. 

Lou Engle's "The Call": A Vicious Cycle of Pentecostal Revival

Two examples of Lou Engle.....off the wall....

Greg Laurie and Lou Engle claim Visions and Voices From God.


Beth Moore: example of heretical visions and voices from God:
Are Miraculous Spiritual Gifts for Today?
4 Types of False Prophecies:

False Prophet Of New Apostolic Reformation, Lou Engle, Bows Before Roman Catholic Leader, Kisses Foot during one segment of the "AZUSA Now 2016," which Greg Laurie attended.

During one segment at “Azusa Now,” (2016) Roman Catholic leader Calisi told the audience that division between Christians and Catholics is a “diabolical sin,” and that Jesus “doesn’t care” that Christians and Catholics disagree on biblical doctrine.

 

Lou Engle of The Call is again raising concerns after a Roman Catholic leader prostrated at his feet on Saturday in declaring that he wanted to “kiss his feet” in an act of reconciliation between Christians and Catholics, and Engle returned the act by likewise kissing the man’s shoe.

False teacher Lou Engle, seen in blue shirt, bows before Roman priest and begs forgiveness from Rome.

Full discussion of the "New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) heresy," can be found on the webpage of that name.

Azusa & Apostates: A Serpent Among The SBC

by Bud Ahlheim · April 11, 2016

(Internet links preserved so you can check sources).

What happened last year when Laurie was invited to speak at the SBC Pastor's Conference?


Greg Laurie & The SBC – “Surely Becoming Charismatic”

by Bud Ahlheim · March 14, 2016


The Baptist Press features an article highlighting the March 6 Harvest America crusade in Texas (and worldwide via live-streaming) led by megachurch pastor Greg Laurie. The article, entitled Harvest America Event Sees 25,000 Professions of Faith, includes a summary of these “professions”:

Event organizers reported that 6,300 in attendance [at the AT&T Stadium gathering] responded to the Gospel invitation issued by Laurie.   Additionally, more than 18,000 professions of faith were made at host locations and 1,042 more were made through the online webcast, bringing the total number of professions of faith to more than 25,000.

Sounds great, right? Maybe not.


While Southern Baptists of Texas Convention were supportive of Laurie’s crusade, by providing counselors for the event and simulcasting it in churches around the state, there is much about Laurie that is decidedly outside the traditional beliefs of Southern Baptists.


Yet, on the heels of such attention-grabbing headlines, "The Christian Index," the newspaper of the Georgia Baptist Convention, reported on March 9 that Laurie will take his crusade to Atlanta in September 2016 and Arizona as part of the SBC Crossover in 2017.


Baptists are embracing this. But should we?


Professions of faith in our Finney-esque, “all heads bowed, all eyes closed,” “raise that hand,” “repeat this prayer” altar call environment are as easy to elicit as getting Kenneth Copeland to speak in tongues for the promise of a seed faith donation. (Copeland will be joining Ronnie Floyd, current SBC president, at the upcoming “The Gathering”, by the way.)


Matthew Henry, the notable commentator, warns,

We are too apt to rest in a bare profession of faith, and to think that this will save us; it is a cheap and easy religion to say, ‘We believe in the articles of the Christian faith’, but it is a great delusion to imagine that this is enough to bring us to heaven.


It appears that Laurie likewise does not recognize a profession of faith as authentic evidence of possession of faith. But for Laurie, it’s not because the guideline of authentication that Scripture actually implies–evidence of sanctification.


According to the Statement of Faith on Harvest.Org, Laurie rightly includes “water baptism” as a scriptural practice. While confirming that water baptism is not salvific, Laurie’s “What We Believe” page features an element of faith conspicuously missing from the Baptist Faith And Message: “Baptism of the Holy Spirit”.


Folks, we’re now entering TBN fantasy land here. Please fasten the seat belts on your pews.  Usher in the charismatics, please.  Someone queue up the fog machine!   Get ready the tambourines, pew hopping, gibberish utterances, word of faith, the whole shebang!  Come get an anointing!


Laurie affirms the indwelling of the Holy Spirit at the moment a sinner is saved. But like a Sham-Wow infomercial for the Holy Spirit, he declares, “BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!”


To be an authentic Christian, it seems, you must get an extra-special, gift endowing baptism! Laurie may endorse “one Lord and one faith," but he clearly promotes two baptisms.  After water baptism, the real believer still needs the “baptism of the Holy Spirit."


Laurie’s site describes it:

The baptism of the Holy Spirit occurs when the Spirit of God comes upon a believer. The Holy Spirit fills the believer’s mind with a genuine understanding of truth; takes possession of the believer’s abilities, and imparts gifts that qualify the believer for service in the body of Christ.  When a person accepts Jesus Christ as his or her Savior and Lord, the Holy Spirit dwells inside him or her (see John 14:15-17; 1 Corinthians 3:16, 12:13). But believers also need the baptism of the Holy Spirit (see Acts 1:5-8) (Highlights mine).


Baptists have not historically supported such charismatic influences. Nor have we distinguished a separate “baptism of the Holy Spirit”. Rather, Baptists have rightly sided with the Apostle Paul when he declares “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:5).


Other than prescribed church offices, exactly where does Scripture teach the believer must be further qualified for Christian service?   Where is the baptism of the Holy Spirit prescribed?


Acts describes the introduction of the Holy Spirit in a profoundly new way in the embryonic church. As John MacArthur explains,

"To say that you get the Holy Spirit later, after salvation because the apostles did is to misunderstand the redemptive history of God. The Spirit came here (at Pentecost) because this was the time for the Spirit to come. And there had to be a beginning. It is not to say that this is the example of every Christian who then gets the Spirit X number of years after his salvation. Not at all."


The SBC has never officially espoused the notion that “believers also need the baptism of the Holy Spirit”. However, if you’ll be noble and check out almost any Word Faith, Prosperity Gospel heretic, you’ll find that “baptism of the Holy Spirit” is prevalent.  According to Kenneth Copeland’s website, “After you become a new creation, however, it is God’s will that you be baptized in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking with other tongues.”

Hmm.  “Other tongues,” another missing element from the Baptist Faith and Message. (But one that is apparently embraced by the presumptive next President of the Convention, J.D. Greear.  In the Christian Post, he says it’s a “sin to forbid speaking in tongues.”)


It’s incredible when someone, by God’s grace, is authentically saved. Baptism is a wonderful testimony to the continuing truth of Jesus’ mission and the promises of His Word. But to go beyond that Word, and suggest such a clearly false teaching as extra baptisms, is not merely a slight theological difference.   It is violence to God’s Word to proclaim anything other than “one Lord, one faith, one baptism."


There seems to be a battle in the SBC, will its acronym come to mean “Slowly Becoming Catholic”, as Russell Moore might prefer, or will it mean “Surely Becoming Charismatic?” Whichever result wins, it wins at the disregard of Scripture.

When we open the door to altering Scripture or adding to it,  where does it stop?  If “baptism of the Holy Spirit” leads to tongues, as Copeland says, what do “tongues” lead to?  It leads to what is proclaimed in so many Charismatic churches–the Prosperity Gospel.  And where does the prosperity gospel lead?  Umm, HELL.  (Better enjoy your “Best Life Now”, cuz it ain’t getting any better!)


Baptists who should decry this, though, are settling in with Laurie, and his addition to Scripture.  Greg Laurie will be a featured speaker at the 2016 SBC Pastors’ Conference. Next thing you know, we’ll look in the Baptist Press and find the Lottie Moon offering replaced with a collection to buy Creflo a jet!  It’s what happens when you disregard Scripture.  And that’s just what the SBC is doing.


About our acronym?  One thing is evident, “S.B.C.” doesn’t mean “Solidly Biblically-Centered”.

And that … that is a shame.

Whatever happened to inviting Biblically sound pulpiteers to preach good sermons?

Greg Laurie should be dis-invited from appearing at the 2017 Southern Baptist Convention in Phoenix, Arizona. His invitation to appear at the SBC is an invitation to import his false beliefs, with "contemplative and charismatic" overtones. 

Think of the theological harm this will do to the uneducated individuals who will attend.  This lowers the standard for theological soundness.  The last thing the SBC needs is more influx of pentecostalism. 

Hopefully, the 2017 SBC meeting will not be a repeat of the Ronnie Floyd-led "season of prayer" which turned into a "Brownsville revival" lite, or the Confederate flag brouhaha of last year. But with Greg Laurie coming with his charismatic circus and "Word Faith" advocate Steve Gaines at the rostrum, anything could happen.
Further research about Greg Laurie, Word of Faith, and NAR
Exposing the False Doctrines of "Word of Faith" and "New Apostolic Reformation"
(with Dr. Justin Peters) Part 1:
Part 2:

How nuts is the New Apostolic Reformation?

Conservative Christians are losing their kids to the N.A.R. because of “love bombing.”

How the New Apostolic Reformation is Organized


(Notice on the chart where Greg Laurie's Harvest Ministry International {HMI} is located)