Unworthy rebels, redeemed by the King of Kings and made servants fit for His use.

Author: Chris Hohnholz (Page 11 of 38)

VOR Rewind – Christ’s Church is Not a Safe Space

It’s Rewind Time! In this episode, Chris and Rich discussed one Millenial teen’s call for the Church to become a safe space for alternate forms of worship.

Show Link:

USA Today Article

The Passing of Beni Johnson and Bethel Church’s Theology of Healing

This week, Chris and Rich discuss the passing of Beni Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, California. In this episode, we discuss our concern over the nature of Bethel’s theology of healing, how God uses tragedy to bring people to salvation, and that it is our prayer that this time causes deep reflection on God’s true gospel which brings repentance and faith.

Show links:

Christian Post Article

The Messed Up Church – Video

The Theology of Sickness and Healing – Bethel Video

Bethel – Core Values

Ten Reasons Why You Should Run Away From Bethel Redding

What is Bethel Church, Redding, CA? 

Martyn Lloyd-Jones Sermon – Glorious Gospel; Glorious God

Find Forgiveness in Christ

VOR Rewind – Should We Invite People to Church?

This week, we look back at when Rich and Chris discussed what is the church and who is it for? One of the golden calves of the Christian church in our age is inviting people to church to hear the gospel. We discussed this methodology and whether it should be a practice in the church.

Deconstructionism vs. The Reformation

This week, Chris and Rich discuss how professing evangelicals who engage in deconstructionism see themselves as practicing the principles of the Reformation. Is this comparison warranted or should Christians be on guard against destructive false teachings?

Show Links:

STTK Article – Deconstruction is Not Reformation

Just Thinking Episode #117 – Evangelical Deconstructionism

Got Questions – What is Deconstruction?

Desiring God – What Does “Deconstruction” Even Mean?

Find Forgiveness in Christ

Support Voice of Reason Radio

Deconstruction is Not Reformation

On July 4, 2022, Adam Page, a pastor at Amelia Baptist Church made a post on Twitter that read: “I wish I could find my church deacons from the 90s & tell them Daniel Haseltine (Jars of Clay) Derek Webb (Caedmon’s Call) & Kevin Max (DC Talk) no longer hold to sola scriptura and/or have deconstructed, but John Cooper from “devil band” Skillet is persevering strong in doctrine.” This is a great observation from Page as we see numerous Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) artists either loudly leave the faith or advocate for heretical and apostate ideologies. Page’s tweet did not tag any of the artists themselves. He was not seeking to score any points against them. It was simply an observation made to his followers and friends on social media.

Enter then, Derek Webb. It is unclear just how Mr. Webb found Adam Page’s post but find it he did. Webb did not enter into a conversation with Page. He did not ask any questions or seek to make any clarifications. However, what Webb did was share Page’s original post with a comment of his own (known as “quote tweeting”). Webb wrote, “‘deconstructing’ is part of reforming’. i’d like think your church deacons would be comforted knowing that we’re following the reformation’s cry of ‘semper reformanda’ (always reforming), calling out teaching & practices that the church should repent of and leave behind.”

What Derek Webb did in that single quote tweet was to claim that those engaging in deconstruction are just being modern-day Reformers. That is a bold claim. But is it true? Should deconstructionists be seen as acting in concert with the Reformers, seeking to draw themselves closer to Christ while discarding man-made traditions that have been added to His word? An examination of deconstruction as compared to the essence of the Reformation, sola Scriptura, will demonstrate that such an association is not only undeserved but it is a false claim that exposes how apostate is the deconstructionist ideology.

Deconstruction

First, it is recommended readers of this article listen to the 3-hour long podcast episode #117 of “Just Thinking” entitled “Evangelical Deconstructionism.” Yes, it really is 3-hours long and it is worth listening to every minute of the program. Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker take the time to establish what our source of authority truly is (Scripture), where deconstructionism originated from (Marxist philosopher Jacques Derrida), and how the ideology is being employed to tear down the orthodox Christian faith. Listeners will get a seminary-level education on an ideology that is incongruent with Christianity.

Deconstructionism is the practice of taking something apart (language, a text, a system, a practice); looking for what is believed to be inconsistencies or problems; using what is found to proclaim the system is broken, oppressive or destructive; and then rebuilding the matter into the examiner’s own image. Deconstructionists always engage in this practice in a negative sense. This means they enter into the process assuming the system produces brokenness, oppression, inequality, and more. They do not enter with an intent to determine objective truth. Deconstructionism presumes there cannot be any real objective truth. Deconstructionists also distrust all systems and apply a “hermeneutic of suspicion” when engaging in the process of deconstruction (see again “Just Thinking” episode 117).

Therefore, deconstruction is not concerned with determining whether a system or practice is true as it stands. Since objective truth does not exist in the mind of the deconstructionist, the quest is not about determining if the system is valid or in need of reformation. Deconstruction is concerned only with the process of questioning, it does not concern itself with testing or supporting an argument. Therefore, it focuses on simply questioning the system, breaking it down to find where the cracks exist, then reforming it to achieve the deconstructionist’s predetermined goals. In the end, deconstructionism is ultimately about tearing apart a system so that something else can be built in its place.

Once the deconstructionist has introduced sufficient levels of doubt into the process to tear apart the system, reconstruction can begin. However, reconstruction is not about finding objective truth by which the system should be established. Instead, it seeks to add the voices of intersectionally oppressed groups to be included in the new system. The goal is to ensure the new system meets with the approval and inclusion of groups who previously claimed hurt, oppression, inequality, or some other grievance. Reconstruction is about creating a pluralistic system by which all previously grieved or oppressed classes have their demands met at the expense of the class said to be at fault. Deconstruction and reconstruction are humanistic and godless tools by which men can force the desires of their hearts to be met at the expense of truth.

Evangelical Deconstruction

In the aforementioned “Just Thinking” episode, Darrell Harrison outlines “The Five Points of Progress of Evangelical Deconstructionism.” According to Harrison, the points are:

  • Embrace and posit the idea that the church is a socially constructed system, not a divinely ordained idea that originated in the mind of God;
  • Assume the socially constructed system is designed to be exclusive of certain intersectional identities, traditions, and behaviors (i.e. LGBTQ);
  • Identify subjective points and cracks in the socially constructed system that have failed, in the estimation of the deconstructionist, and need to be fixed or reconstructed;
  • Apply a “hermeneutic of suspicion” to that socially constructed system so that anyone who is even remotely associated or connected to that system is, by default, deemed untrustworthy;
  • Reconstruct that socially constructed system into the image and likeness of the culture with a culturally acceptable theology, soteriology, anthropology, hamartiology, and eschatology.

Remember that that point of deconstruction is not about determining truth. It assumes the system – in this case, Christianity – is one of oppression and inequality. Therefore, evangelical deconstructionists begin with the idea that Christianity, as it exists now, is not something ordained by God in His word. They presuppose the nature of the Christian faith is untrustworthy and damaging in its current state. And, since Christianity is only a social construct, not a divine mandate, then it must be deconstructed to do away with the inequalities that exist.

Evangelical deconstructionists are not starting with God and His revealed word. They are starting with a philosophical ideology that presumes systems are all about power and control. This is not an examination of who God is and what He desires for His people. This is determining what they believe Christianity is supposed to be and how it falls short of meeting cultural expectations.

If, as Derek Webb claims, evangelical deconstructionists are simply the modern-day equivalent of the Reformers, then one would expect they would seek to apply the same standard of examination the Reformers used. However, when we look at what the Reformers taught, we realize these two groups are worlds apart. Deconstruction is the polar opposite of the Reformation for one basic reason: the principle of sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura

According to Michael Kruger in his article, “Understanding Sola Scriptura,” on Ligonier.org, the “conviction of sola Scriptura— the Scriptures alone are the Word of God and, therefore, the only infallible rule for life and doctrine—provided the fuel needed to ignite the Reformation.”

The Reformers stood against the Catholic Church which acknowledged that Scripture “was the ultimate standard for all of life and doctrine…” but they also believed God communicated outside the written text. The Church “claimed a trifold authority structure, which included Scripture, tradition, and the Magisterium. The key component in this trifold authority was the Magisterium itself, which is the authoritative teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church, manifested primarily in the pope.” The Reformers recognized that there was no other equal or higher authority than the word of God. And they held their ground resolutely on this matter.

The Reformers taught sola Scriptura demanded that man be held to the ultimate authority of God’s word. No man could introduce ideologies, beliefs, commands, or principles of the Christian faith that did not first pass muster under the authority of the Scriptures. This did not mean the creeds or confessions, books, historical examinations of doctrinal development, or other realms of study could not guide or instruct the Christian church. Those very things could be of great help and guidance to the church at large. They could even provide guard rails to prevent Christians from wandering into personal interpretations that were inconsistent with the faith. Yet, none of these tools could be equal to or exceed the authority of Scripture. All such matters must be subservient to the Word of God.

Where sola fide (faith alone) was the material cause (the source) of the Reformation, sola Scriptura was the formal cause (the essence) of it. How could men know that they were saved by faith alone in Christ alone? By the very word of God as revealed in the Scriptures. It was by this that the Reformers sought to combat the man-made traditions of the Catholic Church. They fought and reclaimed the orthodox Christian faith from the ideas and traditions of men who sought to dominate the church. The Reformation was about rejecting outside ideologies and calling Christians to cling more tightly to the revealed word.

For the Reformers, the Reformation was not simply about discarding theologies and practices they did not like. Rather, they examined the claims of the papacy against the Scriptures themselves. Reformers, such as Martin Luther, were not initially seeking to break from the Church but to conform the Catholic Church to the Scriptures. The birth of the Protestant church was a call to turn from worldly traditions, to die to self, and be conformed to Christ as He revealed Himself in His word.

Did the Reformers call out for repentance from false doctrine? Absolutely. But what were those calls based upon? The examination of the Scriptures which demanded the Christian understand the context of the writers and readers. To learn what was meant at the time the words were written, what the original audience was expected to understand, and how they were supposed to apply the teachings in their lives. The Reformers knew that the key to refuting the false teaching of the papacy lie not in simply believing that Rome was wrong and it hurt people. It lay specifically in knowing what God meant in His revealed word, interpreting it rightly, teaching it to the people, and calling them to obey it.

Genuine reformation starts with the Word, not with assuming the Christian faith is just bad because people do not like how it is practiced.

Deconstruction is Not Reformation

Deconstructionists like Derek Webb want to picture themselves as modern-day Reformers who are rescuing the church from itself. In truth, they have much more in common with the Catholic Church of Luther’s day.

Deconstructionists do not examine first the Word of God to determine how they should live and practice the faith. Instead, they begin with a presupposition that the church today simply is wrong because the culture at large feels excluded and oppressed by its practices. Rather than examine those presuppositions against Scripture, they seek to force their ideology upon the church and require it to conform to their man-made traditions. They have elevated their philosophies to be equal with and above Scripture itself. The Christian faith is expected to change to meet their expectations instead of their being required to conform to the commands of Christ.

Christian, the deconstructionist is not a reformer. He is, at best, a confused and deluded person but, at worst, he is an apostate and false teacher. Do not be manipulated by the emotional appeals to see such persons as merely practicing the battle cry of the Reformers. They could not be further from “Semper Reformanda” if they tried. Deconstructionism is antithetical to the Christian faith and it is a direct challenge to the authority of Scripture. Reject such appeals and seek first the kingdom of God as He has revealed it to you in His precious, inspired, infallible, inerrant, and all-sufficient Word.

The Debate Over Secondary Issues in Scripture

This week, Chris and Rich discuss primary and secondary issues of Scripture. Does a doctrine being designated “secondary” mean it is irrelevant or should not be debated? 

Show Links:

G3 Article – The Doctrine of Sympathy 

STTK – On Rick Warren, Women Pastors, and “Secondary Issues.”

Blue Letter Bible – The Writings of Paul

Christianity.Com – Paul’s Letters

CARM – Doctrine Table

Ligonier – What is Sound Doctrine?

TGC – When Should Doctrine Divide?

Find Forgiveness in Christ

Support Voice of Reason Radio

 

The Future of Abortion in America

This week, following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Chris and Rich address certain evangelical arguments about how to best end abortion. Some are arguing that Christians must cede authority to the government to provide for the needs of mothers, but is this biblical?

Show Links:

VOR Episode – Whole Life Means Woke Life for Abortion

STTK Article – Is Roe the End?

STTK Article – Elitists Lecturing the Church About Abortion

Abort 73 Article – US Abortion Statistics

NY Times – Who Gets Abortions in America?

Karen Swallow Prior – I Prayed and Protested to End Roe. What Comes Next?

David French – The Pro-Life Movement’s Work is Just Beginning

Elitists Lecturing the Church About Abortion

Today, I read articles by both Karen Swallow Prior and David French regarding making abortion “unnecessary” and “unthinkable.” In both cases, they give token acknowledgment to the fact that Christians for hundreds of years have actually done the hard work of caring for those in need. But, their solution isn’t to praise that work and call for churches to keep doing the same.

Rather, it is that Christians simply have not done enough to address those issues, so we must now abdicate that responsibility and give it to the government. Both articles advocate for government-sponsored social and financial programs, appealing to the sense that women who are pregnant seek abortions due to societal and monetary issues.

Both Prior and French call for society at large to be responsible to fund and care for pregnant women through government-enforced taxation and redistribution of resources. What I find interesting in both articles is that neither is willing to recognize that it has been government-based programs that have caused much of the societal and financial decay in our nation.  Welfare programs have repeatedly made women and minorities dependent on handouts. They do so by punishing recipients the moment they obtain any kind of self-sufficiency by ending those benefits. Social and financial programs are very much not an opportunity to provide a “leg up” but force people to live on the meager dolling of what the bureaucrats give them.

Also, rampant sexual immorality in our nation can be traced to the government-sponsored promotion of “safe sex” education over abstinence. And it is the government force-feeding acceptance of “alternate lifestyles,” teaching sexual perversion as virtuous and freeing.  Nowhere in either article do Prior and French call for churches to hold the government accountable for helping to further the depravity that has resulted in “unwanted pregnancies,” yet we are called upon to make this same bureaucracy responsible for solving the problem it helped cause.

Also interesting is their appeal to statistics which say abortion has decreased since Roe. Yet, neither address that abortifacient contraceptives have risen in use (i.e. “the morning after pill”). Countless numbers of babies have been aborted after conception because these “medications” prevent implantation after initial conception. Children that are conceived, yet lost because the pill caused them to be flushed away are still murdered, even if they were not injected with saline, burned, and dismembered.

Both Prior and French want to lecture Christians and take the “moral high ground” by saying we can’t really be pro-life unless we endorse government-based solutions. Yet, their arguments are spurious and vapid. They mostly ignore the work done for centuries by the Church, use statistics slanted in their favor to make their case, and conveniently fail to address the government’s own hand in our current mess.
In short, their solution is no solution at all.

Is Roe the End?

A Historic Moment

Today, June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In this monumental decision, the Court ruled there is no constitutional protection for abortion and returned the matter to the States. In other words, each State must now decide whether to make abortion illegal, legal, or restricted in some capacity. This means it is not a full ban on the horrific practice despite what commentators, media personalities, or politicians have claimed.  Nor is it a removal of a Constitutional protection enshrined in our founding document. There has never been any such protection in the Constitution. What Roe v. Wade did is interpret that laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. That decision thus prohibited states from making laws outlawing the act. In today’s decision, the Supreme Court reversed that finding and determined no such protection existed. You cannot remove something that was never there.

What Now?

What happens next? All 50 States in the Union must now determine what laws they will pass with regard to the act of abortion. Some states have already passed legislation that would be triggered once the decision was handed down. Other states already have laws protecting the practice of abortion and will continue to stand by them. Ultimately, each state’s laws will be based on the votes of its citizens and the representatives they place in State political offices. This is not the end of abortion, but it most certainly limits the ability of people intent on murdering their babies. The fight to end abortion is far from over, but a major victory has been won.

What does this mean for the church? As Christians, we recognize that Scripture declares murder to be a sin. God knew us before we came into being.  He declared when would be born and would die.  He determined the path our lives would take. And He knit us together in our mothers’ wombs. We are made in His image and likeness. God has declared the willful murder of such image-bearers to be a sin, one which has not only temporal but eternal consequences. Therefore, the church must continue to proclaim to the world at large that the murder of babies is a sin. That those who promote, affirm, endorse, and engage in this willful rebellion will face His just and righteous wrath. We must call on the world to repent of such heinous sin and turn to Christ whereby the only hope of forgiveness can be found. We must not equivocate on this matter. We must firmly, authoritatively, and with great love, proclaim this truth to the world.

What Cannot Be

But we must not fall prey to the language of the world on this matter. We must not seek to soften the blow that abortion is a sin by telling people that abortion is only thinkable because we have failed to provide for the needs of women. That abortion only happens because social justice has not yet been achieved. This is patently untrue. Murder occurs because people are sinners. We commit sin because our hearts are enslaved to sin. That sin will be shown in a myriad of ways, including the murder of babies in the womb. We can justify our sins all day long with hundreds of reasons but it is still sin. We cannot remove the guilt of sin because life is unfair or difficult.

We must also not fall prey to the redefinitions of terms. It has become passé to rephrase pro-life to mean “pro-whole life.” In other words, that protecting infants from murder is not actually being pro-life. To be pro-life, you must be willing to have the secular government at large provide and care for life from womb to tomb. We are told we must authorize the government to so organize society through financial incentives, social programs, and health care to ensure that every life born has every single thing it needs. In this redefinition, you cannot possibly be pro-life without this provision. To reject it means you are “pro-birth” and could not care less what happens after.

Those actually aware of the history of the church know that Christians have created numerous resources for hundreds of years to care for children and families in need. Through local church donations and care in the community – and through the creation of charities, pregnancy centers, hospitals, adoption agencies, and more – the church has always stepped up to the plate to provide for those children in dire need. It is a lie from the pit of Hell to say that Christians do not care what happens after a child is born. And by adopting the language of “pro-whole life” we deny the truth that countless Christians in history have actually done the work of caring for those in need.

Do Not Forget Our Primary Mission

Finally, we must not assume this particular victory means our work is done in the culture. Even if all abortion was banned today (may we see that day soon) evil hearts that desire to murder their children are still enslaved to sin. The very hearts that want to fight to restore abortion to legal status are still speaking vile words that spew forth from evil hearts. Their standing before God has not changed even if the law were changed completely. Sinners bent on evil still need the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we rejoice and worship God for His mercy on this matter, we must almost recommit ourselves to the command to make disciples of every nation. We must confront hearts with the truth of Scripture that they are enslaved to sin and will stand before God on Judgment Day. That the only hope of forgiveness, even for those who have already murdered children in the womb, is Jesus Christ. We must confront them with their sins, warn them of the danger to come, and plead with them to turn to Christ alone.

Christians, Roe is not the end. While the fight has been long and arduous, it is not yet over. And it would not be over even if we could put an end to this abdominal act. The first and primary mission of the church is the proclamation of the gospel and the winning of souls to Christ. We can fight and win culture wars but still lose souls to Hell. Let us fight the one without neglecting the other. No, Roe is not the end. It is a time of humble rejoicing to be sure. But, it is also a reminder of the great God we serve and the mission He has given us. Let us go forth and serve our King this day and every day till He brings us home.

The Most Dangerous Thing We Can Say

One of the most dangerous phrases ever uttered is “but we have to do something!” Because what often follows is thoughtless adherence and obeisance to whatever suggestion comes along. As long as it is immediate, feels good, and satisfies our emotional craving for the appearance of action, we grab it. 

The truth is, such a desire for immediate action lacks thoughtfulness and consideration. It doesn’t look for a solution that is real, has moral and ethical substance, and has consideration for future ramifications. Rather, this mindset eschews such concerns because it is not fast enough, it doesn’t help people feel better right now, and it does not stop our fears that something bad will happen while we wait.

The “do something!” mindset is not ruled by objectivity, rationality, and morality. It is ruled by emotion. It does not care who brings a solution as long as it happens immediately and soothes our anxieties. It does not ask if those bringing the solution have a proper basis for their ideas, it just wants the ideas now. It does not care if there may be ulterior motives for the future because what matters is helping those hurting in the here and now.

If someone questions the validity of the solution, if someone shares concerns that the proposed ideas could be more harmful than good, if they say there are moral, ethical, and legal problems, then that person is decried as having no love for the hurting. It is more important that we act now to give the appearance of care than to wait – being concerned with how we are able to care in the immediate moment – while we develop sound, logical, ethical solutions. That just takes too long and we want our pound of flesh now.

As Christians, we know the most dangerous thing we can do is seek to satisfy the desires of our heart. The human heart is an idol factory that demands the constant worship of self. We, by nature, eschew being held to any outside standard. We don’t want our ideas or solutions examined against an objectively moral rationality that is not our own. We might not get what we want if we do.

Christians know just how wicked the heart of man is because our Savior had to die that we might be saved from those sinful hearts. So, it stands to reason that the Christian should not be quick to grab whatever solution presents itself. If God’s ways are higher than ours, if His plans are superior to our own, if His principles have greater love and kindness than we can ever muster, then we must submit all that we say and do to examination by His holy Word.

But, all too often, we as Christians are quick to jump on the “do something right now!” bandwagon. We fear being seen as unkind or unloving if we do not act quickly. Yet, love is not really demonstrated if hasty solutions not only fail to heal the hurt but also deceive those we care about into thinking that we need not take our worries and cares before the Lord.

Hastiness means we are being led by our hearts and not the Lord. It tells us that what matters is not seeking the wisdom of God in all things but trying to calm our anxieties quickly in whatever manner sounds good. This is not caring for the hurting. This leaves them in their pain running from one worldly idea to another in hopes they find an immediate peace, one that may or may not last.

Christians know that God’s ways mean He works in His timing and according to His nature. God may heal now or He may heal over the course of a lifetime. But, He will always work according to His revealed Word. And, He will do it for His glory.

Therefore, Christians, we must be willing to be patient, work hard, examine ideas in the light of Scripture, and be willing to reject any solution that does not seek first the glory of God. If we do this first, then what we bring to the hurting will not only bring genuine healing and peace, but it will point those people back to the One who can not only heal in the temporal but in the eternal.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 Slave to the King

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑