About this blog:

This site was not developed with the intention of drawing a large number of visitors using trivial methods and shallowness. There is rejoicing among the angels when even one sinner repents and believes in Jesus Christ. (Luke 15:10) If, for as long as this site exists, just one sinner is led to repentance and belief in Christ with the aid of the material presented here, the purpose of this site has been served.

Profile

My Photo

Married to @SueBirdChaplin, LaneCh on Youtube, Host of Rightly Divided, Reagan Conservative, J.D., Deacon at Christ Reformed of Anaheim (Rom.7:24-25a)

Connect

Puritan Picks

Instagram

Instagram

Google+ Followers

The Tip Jar

*Buying from any of the ads below helps support future Youtube projects.

Go Stand Speak

Monergism Books

Thank You Cards

Links

Follow by Email

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Blog Archive

Visitors

Paid Advertising

    • Site Meter

      The Apologetics of the "Seeker" Religion

      Friday, February 13, 2009

      A little while ago, I posted a video produced by ALittleLeaven.com containing my former entertainer, Perry Noble, chastising the "troublemakers" in his audience for expecting him to be a pastor.

      I posted it on Facebook because a lot of my former friends still go there, and I wanted those that are feeling as stuck in it as my girlfriend, Susan Yenser, and I were to know that there are others out there who do not believe in putting yokes around people's necks that are extra burdensome and extra biblical. Because of this post, I received a message from a very inquisitive young woman named Lauren Mendenhall entitled "Really?" She had a problem with the video and the fact that I posted it, and she wanted to let her concerns be made known. I replied to her first reply via Facebook. For the last one, though, I asked if I could post the response here so, in the future, when I meet the same arguments (which is very often since they are anything but original), I can merely point people here without having to parrot myself again. I invite you to do the same if you find it edifying. She gave her permission for me to post it with the stipulation that I present the following disclaimer (which I will also address in my reply). I have not edited the content.:

      "You are welcome to post this, but please post this with it.

      I want to be clear that I'm not after anyone's approval. God will have to final word, and that's all I really care about. This is an argument that I could have all day, but God has not called us to go back-and-forth, judging the actions of others.

      Was is it not the Pharisees who did this? And did Jesus not say to them "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" (Matthew 6:7b).

      I know NewSpring Church. I know that they could preach a whole message one Bible verse because the Bible is so loaded with things that we can often overlook.

      I know Jesus. And I have to tell you brother, Satan would love nothing more than to see people who are heeding God's call in their lives to fail. I am firmly convinced that that very fact is the root of this commotion.

      I would be very careful where I stand and would never be so ludicrous as to say that a radical, passionate Christian, modeling his church after the Church of the New Testament, "doesn't have a clue" or is teaching a "different religion."

      I challenge you to get reall about this and wrestle with it."


      With that now said, before I get into the final reply, I believe it would help to share our correspondence thus far so as to not take any of Mrs. Mendenhall's words out of context. I will do that now. Her messages are in italics. Mine are in regular print.


      Subject: Really?

      Your profile video makes me sick. How many people have you lead to Christ? Who on God's green earth are you to criticize someone who has the balls to do what God has called all Christians to, which is to shameless and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus? I wonder how many of your hypocrit old man friends will bring with them into the Kingdom. This pettiness is the EXACT reason people are turned off by Christians, not because so fake "pastor" is best friends with everyone in their itty-bitty, holy- huddle congregation. Perry has it exactly right. Jesus is the way to Heaven, not being best friends with your pastor.


      Who determines if someone leads someone to Christ? I'd just like you to clarify that. Mormons shamelessly and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus, too, but they attribute different meanings for Christians terms much like Perry does. You see, Jesus came to make sure you have your best life now and reach your leadership potential according to Perry. The Christian faith, however, no where claims that Jesus came to make sure you have a your best life now and/or meet your leadership potential. It's that Jesus came to die on the Cross to propitiate God's wrath that's on you for being unrighteous if you believe. Quite a difference. Perry's adopted the religion of the seeker. However, Scripture claims that there is no seeker (as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. (Rom 3:10-11)) therefore Perry isn't preaching Christianity. He's preaching another religion. Although the terms are similar, the definitions are different much like Mormonism.

      I encourage you to watch the following video.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shxQcczYuAA

      Also, you ask, "How many people have you lead to Christ?" I answer, "none." I don't lead people to Christ. God draws people to himself. I merely proclaim the message that God uses to draw those to Him.

      PS. I'm pretty sure that this past message will make you angry. I'm not positive, but 95% of my experiences with this sort of thing has resulted in such, so I'm not surprised when that happens. I just want you to know that I didn't reply with the sole intention of making you upset. If you get upset because of the things I say, I really can't help that as it is a byproduct of what I've said and not the sole purpose for saying what I've said. I just wanted to clarify that with the hope that you'll understand.

      Also, one last thing. When you say, "Who on God's green earth are you to criticize someone who has the balls to do what God has called all Christians to, which is to shameless and unabashedly proclaim the name of Jesus?" You assume that it is, in fact, Perry who is "shamelessly and unabashedly proclaim(ing) the name of Jesus." I ask how do you determine that he doing so? Is it because of his testimony? Your friends? Scripture? What is it? I'd also like to answer that if it is, in fact, me that is proclaiming Christ the way that the Scriptures have declared that we should, wouldn't that same question be directed toward you rhetorically? So your real task now is proving that Perry is "shameless and unbashedly proclaim(ing) the name of Jesus".

      Sorry, I realized that I said that was the last thing, but I wanted to ask you about this, too, after rereading your message. You say, "I wonder how many of your hypocrit old man friends will bring with them into the Kingdom."

      Would you like to name one and their hypocrisy? Can you name one?

      You then say, "This pettiness is the EXACT reason people are turned off by Christians..."

      I would contest that if you can't name one and their hypocrisy that trying to argue with informal logical fallacies called straw men would fit into the category of "reasons that people are turned off by Christians."


      Here is the message she shared that I now would like to reply to. I will post it first in whole, then reply to each part that needs to be addressed piece by piece.

      Lane,

      Of course when someone ignorantly criticizes the pastor of a church that is near to my heart, I'm going to have something to say. But that doesn't really matter. What truly matters, and what should really matter to you, is what upsets God. And to claim that God is not active in NewSpring Church, and therefore all of the other churches like it, is really standing on dangerous ground. Not because anyone there is any better than anyone else, but because the church is the Bride of Christ, and when you mess with the Church, you mess with God. When you criticize the Church, you criticize God (and please be clear, there is a difference in the Church, where the Holy Spirit is actively changing people's lives, and a little huddle of people who get together to carry out legalistic tradition and make people feel good about themselves).

      I'd encourage you to listen EVERY one of Perry's sermons. They are all central to Jesus and based on Scripture. Every single one of them. Please, find me one that is not. I would especially encourage you to listen to the first sermon of the recent series, "No Perfect People Allowed."

      So to answer your question, I know (and what's more important, God knows) that Perry is shamelessly and unabashedly proclaiming the name of Jesus and not spending all of his time trying to become BFF with the thousands of people in his congregation, because I attended that church for 3 years. How could he be expected to visit every sick person in the hospital? How could he be expected to counsel everyone who needs counseling? There are plenty of resources available for people in need at the church, but the concept is that JESUS is who you need when you're in the hospital. JESUS is who you need when you're going through things that are bigger than you feel you can handle. Do you honestly believe that having a pastor be everywhere for everyone all the time somehow convinces Jesus that He needs to be more present in any give situation. I think not. I'm pretty sure He's got that one covered.

      To address your point that Perry preaches soley on how to increase your leadership and have your best life now, yes, there are plenty of sermons about how to live the best life possible, because the best life possible is only found in Jesus. As He said himself, "I came that you may have life, and have it to the full." Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word.

      If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion" I have to wonder how many times you have even attended NewSpring before making such dangerous accusations.

      Please show me in Scripture where it says that being best buds with your Pastor is the ticket to Heaven. Please explain what "different terms" Perry uses that are analogous to Mormonism.

      Of course Jesus came to die on the Cross to propitiate God's wrath that's on you for being unrighteous if you believe. I'm not sure where you got that I was ever questioning that. And I'm not quite sure where you got that NewSpring has missed that point as well. "We’re NewSpring Church and we exist to make the name of Jesus Christ famous." Afterall, doesn't He deserve all of the glory for saving us from our inevitable self-destruction?

      Hmm...I don't about you, but that sounds like a Christ-centered church to me.

      Yes, God draws people to Himself, and yes, He alone is the way to salvation, so for that very reason, is it not our purpose on this planet to proclaim his name, to spread His Word to ends of the earth? In case you missed it in what I would estimate is the meager handful of times you've attended NewSpring, that's the basis and motivation of the church. It's in every message. Again, I challenge you to find a message where this isn't the case.

      The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met. "And it will be given to you; SEEK and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you," Matthew 7:7-8a.

      So I leave you, and your judgmental friends, with this Scripture: "Why do you look at the plank in you own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye.' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck from your brother's eye, " Matthew 7:3-5.

      It astounds me that Christians would have anything negative to say about another Christian allowing Jesus to use their life for His glory. I believe that God is doing a huge work through NewSpring and many other churches like it. I also believe that Satan would like nothing more than to see these churches fall. So criticism is to be expected. Does the Bible not say that we will endure many hardships for following Christ? It is scary to me though, that this opposition, the Satan loves, is coming from people who proclaim to know Christ.

      I understand that it was not your intention to upset me, or the thousands of people who will join you in Heaven, who also believe that Perry has had the courage to lead NewSpring Church in the radical and passionate way all churches should be lead, proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ above all things. But it's inevitable that people will be upset by your reckless, unsubstantiated statements.


      Lauren

      Here's my response:


      "What truly matters, and what should really matter to you, is what upsets God."


      First notice the implication here in this statement. ie. If I don't endorse Perry Noble and his methods, ideals, etc., I'm upsetting God. I fully agree with the statement on it's own merits, but when taken in the context of her entire exchange, the implication is obvious.


      "And to claim that God is not active in NewSpring Church, and therefore all of the other churches like it, is really standing on dangerous ground."


      First, you'll notice that I nowhere made this claim. I believe that God is active in New Spring, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness churches, and Mosques, but, as Scripture tells us, "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience." (Eph 5:6) God is active in unbelievers, but it's an active wrath that's at work inside of them. God is active in believers, too, but it's an active grace that's at work inside of them. Now, I believe there are people who are saved at New Spring. I know several of them personally. However, I believe that they're saved in spite of New Spring, and not because of it. I attended New Spring. I know the ego-stroking that goes on there, and with Noble not preaching the Gospel, I believe that would constitute disobeying God as much it would for someone to defend him for not doing so. This will be addressed more in detail in a bit, though.


      "Not because anyone there is any better than anyone else, but because the church is the Bride of Christ, and when you mess with the Church, you mess with God. When you criticize the Church, you criticize God (and please be clear, there is a difference in the Church, where the Holy Spirit is actively changing people's lives, and a little huddle of people who get together to carry out legalistic tradition and make people feel good about themselves)."


      Here we have possibly one of the most telling aspects of this young girl's argument. Aside from it sounding curiously Roman Catholic at its core, I'd like to point out several inconsistencies between her assessment and the Bible.:

      1) Notice her implication again. It's basically "if you criticize someone in the church, you're criticizing God." Wow. So get this, folks: No matter what, if you see something that you are convicted of that is wrong going on inside of the church, you are to keep your mouth shut because by criticizing that, you're criticizing God. Now, one only needs remedial logic to then ask the young lady, "Well, aren't you criticizing those who are criticizing? I mean you've already indicated that you consider Lane a brother, so your argument that "he isn't considered a Christian so you have a right to criticize" is null." So here, the only possibility left is that this young lady has employed what is called "a double standard." ie. It's ok for me to do, but if you do it, it's wrong. And because I'm standing for God, I shouldn't be held to the same standard that you are held to. ie. Hypocrisy account #1

      Note this instance because it shows up quite a bit in this letter, and it will help in the critique of her "Pharisee" claim later.

      2) I would also like to inquire of the young lady if she considered Peter to be of the church post Christ's crucifixion. We are told in Galatians that Paul withstood Peter to his face. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Gal 2:11) Paul then went on to critique Peter's conduct as that of one who was compromising the Gospel. Does it follow using this young lady's logic that Paul was criticizing the church? Apparently so. We move on.


      "I'd encourage you to listen EVERY one of Perry's sermons."


      She encourages me to listen to "EVERY one of Perry's sermons." That's right. I have to listen to every single one before I make a determination of where this man is coming from. Again, I'd like to ask the young lady if she's read EVERY post I've ever written. Not because I want to hold her to this ridiculous standard, but to prove Hypocrisy account #2. If she has not read EVERY post I've ever written, why is it alright for her to call me a Pharissee (make a conclusion about me, my work, etc.), but it's not alright for me to assert that Perry is in error (make a conclusion about him, his work, etc.) It's an inane standard for judging another's work, and, by her own words, she doesn't follow it herself.


      "They are all central to Jesus and based on Scripture. Every single one of them. Please, find me one that is not. I would especially encourage you to listen to the first sermon of the recent series, "No Perfect People Allowed."""

      Ok, I admit. I appreciated this softball. Click the following play button where Perry insists that God told him to preach on the history of New Spring Church for about a half hour instead of preaching the Gospel and where, when Perry argued with God, "God told him to shut up and preach on the history of New Spring Church." Perry claims that's how God talks to him, btw.





      "So to answer your question, I know (and what's more important, God knows) that Perry is shamelessly and unabashedly proclaiming the name of Jesus and not spending all of his time trying to become BFF with the thousands of people in his congregation, because I attended that church for 3 years. How could he be expected to visit every sick person in the hospital? How could he be expected to counsel everyone who needs counseling? There are plenty of resources available for people in need at the church, but the concept is that JESUS is who you need when you're in the hospital. JESUS is who you need when you're going through things that are bigger than you feel you can handle. Do you honestly believe that having a pastor be everywhere for everyone all the time somehow convinces Jesus that He needs to be more present in any give situation. I think not. I'm pretty sure He's got that one covered."


      As you saw in the original video I posted, one of ALittleLeaven.com's major critiques was that Mr. Noble would rather spend time with his family then with someone sick at the hospital therefore, based upon Mr. Noble's preference, it was ok for him not to visit that person in the hospital. Mrs. Mendenhall, here, takes exception to the fact that pastors are expected (and the ones I know like to) visit the sick, spend time with them, etc. I can see where Mr. Noble is coming from, though. If the people under your care are really just a number to you anyway, why visit them? They won't be in your doors so you won't be able to brag about them. You could, however, brag about the number of people you went to see that were sick. Perhaps he hasn't thought of this possibility yet or it isn't deemed cool enough for the "Seeker" religion, though. I'm not sure about this one.


      "To address your point that Perry preaches soley on how to increase your leadership and have your best life now, yes, there are plenty of sermons about how to live the best life possible, because the best life possible is only found in Jesus. As He said himself, "I came that you may have life, and have it to the full." Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word."

      Ah, you knew this verse was going to come out eventually. It's a favorite of the "Seeker" religion. They believe that that verse means that Jesus came so we could live our best life now, as Mrs. Mendenhall rightly declares her religion's profession. I would like to ask her at this point, do you consider those who are suffering for their belief overseas in places like China, the Middle East, etc. to be Christians? Would you tell one of the mothers of someone who just was murdered for their belief in Jesus that this is what Jesus had in mind when he was speaking of the "abundant life"? I would hope not. You see, the Scriptures, if we take them as a whole, mention many things including being persecuted for our faith, being without worldly goods at all times, etc. As Paul says, though, "I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need."(Php 4:12) Abundance you say, Paul? But, Paul, your life was ended with you being beheaded. Was this the abundant life you were talking about? Yes, it was. You see, Paul learned that "to live is Christ, and to die is gain." That's what the verse "live life more abundantly" means. In no way did he mean for this verse to be taken in the context of what I call "Closet Narcissism" (self love in the form of wanting your best life now covered up with a seemingly pious veneer of love for others).

      Also notable to bring up is #3 Hypocrisy account. Here she says, "Not that you can sit around and judge people who are following Jesus allowing Him to use them to spread His Word." Yet she... um... calls me a Christian and judges me. Yeah.


      "If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion" I have to wonder how many times you have even attended NewSpring before making such dangerous accusations."


      Again, here we are presented with a stipulation. It's basically "Before you can critique someone, you must attend x place y amount of times." She asks for Scripture in her next quote which we'll get to, but I'd like to ask where this stipulation is found in Scripture, too.

      This portion of my critique may be the most important of all. She says, "If you honestly believe that Perry is "teaching another religion"..." I must emphatically declare that I do believe that the "Seeker" movement is another religion altogether at worse, a cult at best. There are many reasons for this, but I believe this clearly illustrates the reason.:

      When we work through something, we start off with a premise. If that premise is false, the entire syllogism is false. There may be true aspects of the syllogism, but as a whole, it is false because the premise cannot be false while the syllogism be true. Here is the entire "Seeker" movement's premise:

      "Unbelievers seek after God."

      That's it. The entire movement is based on this premise. The Bible, however, states that no unbeliever seeks after God. (Rom. 3:11) The notion that unbelievers seek after God is an anti-biblical notion. If the "seeker-sensitive's" premise were taken out of the equation, the entire movement would falter to nothing. It's what it's built on. It's not even built on the fact that Jesus died for our sins. It's certainly mentioned at time to time, but like a syllogism that says, "All dogs are black. I am a male. I used to own a black dog." even though the two later statements are true, the first is false therefore the entire "truth" crashes. Here's the "Seeker" movement's syllogism: "Unbelievers seek after God. Jesus died for the sins of those who believe. Get them in the church no matter what so we can save them." The syllogism fails.

      Christian religion teaches: "Unbelievers do not seek after God."

      The "Seeker" religion teaches: "Unbelievers seek after God."

      The "Seeker" religion is an anti-biblical religion.

      There are numerous other things that could be brought up to substantiate this, but because of the length of this post, I'll move on. You can refer to the fact that they redefine certain terms like "abundant life", sin as "mistakes", etc. for further evidence of this.


      "Please show me in Scripture where it says that being best buds with your Pastor is the ticket to Heaven."


      I can't do it, because it's not there. However, I'd like for this young lady to show me where I ever made that assertion. Just for future reference to Mrs. Mendenhall, when arguing points, straw men don't necessarily help your position if you're seeking to be taken seriously and found credible.


      "Please explain what "different terms" Perry uses that are analogous to Mormonism."


      Reference above, and please realize that I wasn't saying that the "Seeker" religion's terms are the same in substance as those used in Mormonism. Realize that I was saying that in the same manner as the Mormons who attribute different definitions to Christian terms, much of the same is done in the "Seeker" movement. I'm not sure if Mrs. Mendenhall understood my assertion.


      ""We’re NewSpring Church and we exist to make the name of Jesus Christ famous." Afterall, doesn't He deserve all of the glory for saving us from our inevitable self-destruction?"


      Jesus does deserve all of the glory, but preaching Him is the only way that He receives that glory. He doesn't care about your self-esteem, whether your checkbook is balanced, etc. (HT: Paul Washer). "Making Jesus famous" by not preaching Him in His fullness to unbelievers because the entire premise of your religion is wrong, is not the way to glorify Him, though. I also find this kind of ironic that someone who partakes in decisional regeneration asserts that Jesus receives all of the glory. If your decision was what saved you and nothing more of what He has done for everyone, why shouldn't the glory go to yourself for saving yourself? Predestination is the only soteriology that gives all of the glory to God. The other professes to give all the glory to God, but even that is a masked self-righteousness.


      "The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met. "And it will be given to you; SEEK and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you," Matthew 7:7-8a."


      I admit, out of her entire response, this may be the part that befuddled me the most for this purpose: She said, "The Romans passage you have cited states the fact that in our sinful human nature, we do not seek God. But when God changes our lives, which He has done in my life, my husband's life, and many of my friend's lives through Perry's preaching at NewSpring, "the old is cast away, and [we are] a new creation," we are commanded to seek after Christ with our entire being, and there we will be met." If she adheres to this, why is she in a place called the "Seeker" movement which openly professes to try to be relevant to the culture to bring unbelievers who are "seeking after God"? It doesn't make sense. It seems that here she needs to truly determine where she stands on the issue because right now, she and the Bible are saying one thing, but the religion she's defending says and operates on another.

      Also, just to clarify, I believe that if we "seek we shall find", but Mrs. Mendenhall and I may differ on the reason one seeks. One might believe that it was the decision one made for Jesus which saved them apart from any regenerating work of the Spirit while I believe it's because God gave me faith. I'm not sure of her position on this, but since she brought up the verse, I figured I'd clarify.


      "So I leave you, and your judgmental friends, with this Scripture: "Why do you look at the plank in you own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye.' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck from your brother's eye, " Matthew 7:3-5."


      #4 Hypocrisy account: She says that my friends are judgmental, and implies that's wrong by quoting Matthew 7, but didn't she just make a judgment saying that we're judgmental? Hmmm...


      "It astounds me that Christians would have anything negative to say about another Christian allowing Jesus to use their life for His glory."


      #5 Hypocrisy account: She has provided several messages now calling me a Christian and even calling me one in this statement, but has had a lot of negative things to say. Hmmm...


      "I believe that God is doing a huge work through NewSpring and many other churches like it."


      Well, it must be true if she believes it, then. Who am I to argue that means of arbitrating truth?


      "I also believe that Satan would like nothing more than to see these churches fall. So criticism is to be expected."


      Here, she shares the implication that if we are against these place's way of doing things, we're in cahoots with Satan, himself. This has already been dispelled earlier in this post in a similar statement she made, but think again as to how this would have related to Paul and Peter when Paul "withstood him to the face". Peter was just trying to make himself relevant by eating with the Jews, right? I mean, what's more important, Paul? The Gospel or making sure that several Jews make their decision for Jesus? Folks, this sounds more and more to me like the Roman Catholicism that every Protestant disavows. It's sola ecclesia when it really comes down to it. "What the church says goes." Remember, even the Roman Catholic church quotes Scripture from time to time to attempt to substantiate what they're doing.


      "Does the Bible not say that we will endure many hardships for following Christ? It is scary to me though, that this opposition, the Satan loves, is coming from people who proclaim to know Christ."


      Allow me now to point you all to a site called "The Voice of the Martyrs." Here you can read about brothers and sisters around the world who are going through persecution for their faith. Persecution that doesn't involve Starbucks being out of the cardboard holders on their cups on a certain night, but real persecution involving limbs being chopped off, eyes gouged out, and even murder among other things. I'm so ready for missionaries from other countries to start coming here to evangelize and give some of the pansy American "church" a wake-up call. For Mrs. Mendenhall to equate "persecution" to someone criticizing another's Gospel presentation just shows how sheltered, secluded, and ignorant many of these people involved in this religion truly are of real persecution being experienced by brothers and sisters throughout the world. It's only natural that you don't want to concern yourself with much of that kind of stuff, though, when your "Gospel" is focused on your "abundant life."


      "I understand that it was not your intention to upset me, or the thousands of people who will join you in Heaven, who also believe that Perry has had the courage to lead NewSpring Church in the radical and passionate way all churches should be lead, proclaiming the name of Jesus Christ above all things. But it's inevitable that people will be upset by your reckless, unsubstantiated statements."


      I would like to ask her at this point, which statements *specifically* does she claim are unsubstantiated. I smell the burning of another straw man.



      With all of this now done, I'd like to point specifically to an assertion she made several times throughout the time of our correspondence. It's the issue of me being like a Pharisee. To help show some light on this, let's examine some of the key aspects of the Pharisee.

      1) Their hypocrisy.
      They said one thing and did another. It was one of the things that Jesus railed on them for.

      2) Their assertion that anyone who didn't follow what they said *without allowing for critique* was against God and therefore of the devil.
      They even claimed that Jesus was of Satan when he debated the Scriptures with them and what they were teaching was really what God had said and intended.

      3) Their denial of certain Scripture and their acceptance of other Scripture to fit into their worldview.
      We hear very often in Scripture of the Pharisees trying to corner Jesus by taking verses out of context to fit their worldview. They didn't want the same standards that they applied to others to be applied to themselves so when Jesus confronted them on issues, they grew very upset and angry.



      I would now like to address each of these in terms of our conversation.


      1) I counted at least 5 instances (and I can find more) of double standards employed by Mrs. Mendenhall in her critique. She claimed that it was wrong to critique other Christians in her critique. Even in the stipulation she gave me for posting this, she said, "This is an argument that I could have all day, but God has not called us to go back-and-forth, judging the actions of others." then she goes back (or is it forth?) judging my actions by saying, "Was is it not the Pharisees who did this? And did Jesus not say to them "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?" (Matthew 6:7b)." 1) = check

      2) As I just mentioned, she claimed that it was wrong to critique Perry because he was of God. This is not only anti-historical, it's anti-Christian in nature. We're always supposed to examine not only ourselves, but every teaching that comes out and flee that teaching that doesn't conicide with God's Word. (1Tim 6:3) This is a Christian telling us this (Paul). So, while Mrs. Mendenhall's critique is not only hypocritical, it's also anti-Biblical. 2) = check

      3) This was mainly addressed in the above in the places dealing with the "abundant life" redefinition and other places. You'll also note, though, that Mrs. Mendenhall became pretty upset when I tried to see if Perry Noble was keeping in accordance with Scripture because "when someone ignorantly criticizes the pastor of a church that is near to [her] heart, [she's] going to have something to say." I believe I've already proven that not only was my critique warranted, it was anything but ignorant. 3) = check


      Given all these things and all the experiences I've had within the "Seeker" religion itself, I have no other conclusion than what follows:

      Folks, I submit to you the Apologetics of the "Seeker" Religion: the Phariseeism of our day.



      Take care,
      Lane Chaplin

      7 comments:

      christianlady said...

      Woah. She had me at the word "balls." From there on out I really wouldn't have been able to take her seriously.

      The basic same thing is repeated as criticism of those willing to stand up and speak the truth. "If you speak against this pastor then you speak against God" is very similar to "if you say our church is not preaching the gospel you are telling lies" or what we also heard "if you say our church is leaning emergent you are telling lies from the pit of hell." Nice.

      I'm am sorry you are being attacked for standing up and yet I do know we were warned that we would be so attacked....

      Press on!

      W.M. (Bill) Price said...

      Good night! I see her fruit and I think of the kind of fruit that church is putting out. So sad.

      Rick Frueh said...

      Anyone with a balanced and unbiased approach can plainly see the abrasive and self righteous way in which the pastor addressed the limitations of a pastor, especially one that pastors a large church. Instead of a humble "I wish I could" approach, he delivers an "I don't care" ambiance.

      The lady's communication to you indicates another attitude pervasive from all theological and evangelical persuasions, namely, we are much more blind to the shortcomings of the people in our own doctrinal genre and seem to have 20/20 vision concerning those from the other side of the tracks. I have read the same self righteous bullying from some who criticize men like Noble, which most times renders a legitimate point as lost among the blog invectives.

      Summarily, your perspective of the video was completly accurate.

      PuritanReformed said...

      The exchange sounds strangely familiar. Do all the seeker evanjellyfish believers have a claass where they learn all the same answers?

      Beng said...

      Indeed there is, Daniel.

      It's called the "School of the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) run by the prince of the power of the air who bestows his own spirit to all his students (Eph 2:2,3). This school is sponsored by rulers, authorities and cosmic powers (Eph 6:12).

      PuritanReformed said...

      SB:

      *groan*

      blackreformingkid said...

      I never thought I'd see the day someone could defend a pastor being a selfish man. Guess it's another one to show the kids...

      Related Posts with Thumbnails



      A Blue Ink Blog