Farewell Pro-Life Movement: The Dangerous Push to Redefine What it Means to be Pro-Life

A recent trend showing up in evangelical circles is the attempt to broaden the tent under the pro-life movement. Historically, the pro-life (also called right to life or anti-abortion) movement has focused on the rights of the unborn. The National Right to Life adopted the movement in 1973 following the supreme court decision of Roe V Wade. While it’s hard to dispute that political parties, particularly the GOP, have tried to monopolize the movement for political gain, the movement in and of itself is both noble and necessary. Just this week, the state of New York passed a bill that allows a woman to have an abortion anytime during her pregnancy. The law also protects abortion rights if Roe V Wade is ever overturned. The governor of New York, along with other abortion rights activists, gleefully celebrated the passing of the bill, highlighting the horrific reality and the utter depravity of the pro-abortion movement. Unborn babies murdered in the womb is the greatest act of oppression authorized by the state, a movement to combat and oppose these atrocities is vital.

A new tactic of the political left, and many in the pro-abortion movement, has been to try and blur the lines of what it means to be pro-life. Charles C. Comasy, a board member for Democrats for Life, suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that “you cannot be pro-life if you are against immigrant children.” Women and the poor have also been pushed to be included in the Pro-Life movement. Kristen Day, an opinion contributor at The Hill states, “We are Pro-life Democrats because we are committed to protecting both the lives of unborn children and the lives of those who have already been born — and not merely through charity… we believe in an active government that safeguards that dignity and protects human rights.”

I don’t mean to say that those who push for a more inclusive definition of what it means to be pro-life aren’t sincere in their concern for immigrants, women, or the poor. My point is to highlight which side of the political aisle this push is coming from. As evident by a recent tweet from Alyssa Milano (known for her extreme political views), moderates are not the only ones trying to blur the lines of what it means to be pro-life. In it she says, “There isn’t a side in this debate that isn’t pro-life. I am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Those calling me an infant killer are anti-choice. Once again, your religious beliefs do not carry more weight than scientific facts and my physical autonomy.”

There isn’t a side in this debate that isn’t pro-life. I am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Those calling me an infant killer are anti-choice. Once again, your religious beliefs do not carry more weight than scientific facts and my physical autonomy.There isn’t a side in this debate that isn’t pro-life. I am pro-life. I am also pro-choice. Those calling me an infant killer are anti-choice. Once again, your religious beliefs do not carry more weight than scientific facts and my physical autonomy.

The troubling trajectory is that this push to redefine what it means to be pro-life has now crept into the church. Many Christian leaders, authors, and pastors are now advocating that the pro-life movement include women, the poor, minorities and immigrants. Phrases like “pro-life from the womb to the tomb” and “pro-life for the unborn and born” are now being thrown around to insist the pro-life movement include these other groups. Consequently, this new push has come while many of these leaders have been more vocal on issues concerning social justice. I would like to lay out my concerns and why I think this push to redefine what it means to be pro-life is a fallacy and will have dangerous consequences.

My argument is that there are two false equivalencies being made between the unborn and those other causes. That they both are equally oppressed, and that they both are equally victims. Let me explain.

False Equivalence #1 – That both are equally oppressed

To say that the poor and the immigrant are on equal footing with the unborn is an obvious fallacy. It is absurd to the think that not being allowed into another country is equivalent to vacuuming your limbs, or not being able to live in a nice neighborhood is equivalent to slicing your brains. Whatever you think of immigration or poverty, there is no moral equivalency. One is eviler, much eviler, than the other. We know that all sin is an offense toward God, however, scripture shows us that there are different levels of offenses. In Luke 10:14 Christ says, “But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.” And at the end of John 19:11 He says, “Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.” We can see that although every sin will be judged, some sins will face a fiercer judgment. The injustice towards the unborn should be shown greater urgency than any other injustice. No one would equivocate the holocaust to the food shortage of the Great Depression. Both were serious humanitarian concerns. However, only one was a matter of pure and unadulterated evil. Only one was so wicked that it needed to be addressed and fought with everything we had.

By placing other causes on equal footing with the unborn, we are saying that all oppression is equal. In plain terms, we are saying that red lining, being stopped at the border, or not having access to the best schools is genocide. Yes, that is what abortion is, it is genocide! And this new push to redefine pro-life wants us to make a moral equivalency. It wants us to believe that the murder of 700,000 babies per year is the same as not having access to affordable health care. That would be an utterly foolish claim. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, I was including the immigrant and the poor under the category of the oppressed, but not all are. This leads me to the second false equivalency in this new redefining of pro-life.

False Equivalence #2 – That both are equally victims

The social justice movement lives off the idea of class warfare. It categorizes the oppressed and oppressor, the victor and the victim. If there is any poverty or discrimination of any kind, then it must be calculated and systemic. In this ideology, it is easy to view the minority, the poor, and the immigrant has a victim of oppression. While there is clearly some lasting effects of racial discrimination and unjust treatment from the pre-Civil Rights area, not every minority or poor person today is a victim. However, every murdered baby is. Some are indeed poor because of racial discrimination and unjust business practices; however, many are poor out of wrong decisions, bad investments, or even sinful habits. The social justice advocates love to point to the verses in scripture that mention the cause of the poor (Psalm 103:6, Proverbs 31:8-9). But they rarely mention verses like Proverbs 21:5 “The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to poverty.” Yes, many are poor due to unjust dealings, however many are not. 

In the same way, not every immigrant is a refugee fleeing oppression. This is another fallacy of the social justice movement. While many immigrants are fleeing oppression and seeking refuge in America, many others are seeking a better way of life or more opportunity. The latter is not oppression. And we know that some indeed have sinister motives for wanting to migrate. My point is, there are many things to consider when thinking of the poor, the minority, and the immigrant. Not all are equally victims. By placing them under the same tent as the unborn we are affirming that they are  equally victims. We are not considering the different layers of those other groups. The unborn have no layers. They are all equally victims, all are innocent, and none have a voice. The fundamental problem that Christians have with abortion is an ethical one. Though there may be levels of difficulty and less than ideal circumstances for the pregnant mother, our belief that life begins at conception causes us to view every abortion as murder.

These two false equivalencies will have a devastating effect on the pro-life movement. It blurs the lines and minimizes the urgency to fight for the unborn. Let us be concerned for the widow, orphan, and the poor, there are legitimate needs that must be addressed. This should be done as we live out God’s word in the context of community. By loving our neighbor and taking seriously the causes of the poor all around us. But that is not what it means to be pro-life, that’s what it means to be a Christian. The pro-life movement began out of a level of urgency. There is a clear other level of atrocities that are being done in the name of abortion. Expanding the meaning of pro-life may seem like a noble cause but it can have dangerous implications. Soon there will be a call for protection of LGBTQ rights under the umbrella of pro-life. 

I recently came across a tweet that read, “pro-life people who only speak out on abortion need to rename their group; immigration is pro-life, sanctuary cities are pro-life; helping refugees is pro-life, gun control is pro-life, right 2 clean water is pro-life, ending police brutality is pro-life; equal rights are pro-life” -@eliz18mcdermott . When everything becomes a pro-life issue, soon nothing will be a pro-life issue. And then we can say goodbye to the movement as we know it.

Reformed Baptist for Beginners

In 2017 my family set out to plant a new church in Dallas, TX. Surprisingly, not many people asked, “what kind of church are you going to plant?” I guess that’s to be expected. Those that know us know that we have been attending, serving, and ministering in  a non-denomination, Charismatic church. So when people we know find out that our church is Baptist, they seem a bit surprised. When they find out we are Baptist and Reformed, they seem a bit confused...some even a little terrified. That is because many are familiar with Baptist, but not too many people are familiar with the word ‘Reformed.’ So, I thought it would be a good idea to write up something explaining what it means to be a Reformed Baptist, for those with limited knowledge of  theology and church history. I'll try to keep it short.

Some people get nervous when a church uses a title to describe it. For example, people are fine with a church by the name of ‘Vertical Church’ but they would probably shy away from a ‘Vertical Methodist Church, or a ‘Vertical Pentecostal Church.’ However, all churches have a set doctrine, or some set beliefs. It might be Baptist, Presbyterian, or Pentecostal. Many churches just choose not to put their title in their name. Even non-denomination churches have a set of beliefs, they just choose not to affiliate with a denomination. Many non-denomination churches have Baptist beliefs, some Assembly of God, some Church of Christ, and so forth. We don’t use the title in our church name, we just call it ‘Ecclesia’ not ‘Ecclesia Reformed Baptist Church.’ 

So, let me attempt to explain what a Reformed Baptist is. Let’s take the word 'Baptist’ first.

What is a Baptist? First, let’s clear up some of those nasty rumors. No, Baptist don’t believe that the Holy Spirit is dead, dancing is evil, and you should only read the King James Bible. Now, just like other denominations, Baptist come in all shapes and sizes. So yes, there may be a few fringe Baptist that are known for weird things, but hey, who doesn’t have a few people in their family they aren’t too proud of?  

Simply put, a Baptist is someone who holds to ‘believers baptism’. That means that we believe water baptism is for believers, those who have made public profession of faith in Jesus Christ. Baptist hold to essential Christian beliefs – the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the bodily Resurrection, salvation by faith alone, and the second coming of Christ. You know, many of the same things most Christian churches teach. Baptist churches are also autonomous, which means that each church is independently governed by its own church body.

What distinguishes Baptist from many others? Well, there are a few secondary things, like not baptizing babies, but mainly it is the fact that we choose to affiliate with other ‘like-minded’ churches. By uniting like this we can do more together. Our church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist of Texas Convention. In doing so, we participate in missions, church planting, training, and other relief efforts across the world. These are things a small church plant like ours would never be able to do on our own.  By no means is this meant to be a complete definition, but that is a short explanation of what it means to be a Baptist.

Now, for that other, somewhat scary, unfamiliar word.

What does it mean to be Reformed? Simply put, to be Reformed means to hold to Reformed Theology. Theology just means ‘the study of God.’ Reformed Theology comes out of the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century. The Protestant Reformation was the time in church history when people arose to protest the practices of the Roman Catholic Church. Don’t let the word theology confuse you. Again, every church has a theology, it may be Pentecostal theology, Church of God in Christ Theology, Methodist theology and so forth. Reformed Theology may seem odd because it isn’t heard much today, but over 100 years ago it would have been more familiar than the others.

Does that mean Reformed Theology comes from the 16^th century and not from the Bible? Absolutely not, the dictionary definition for the word reform means to ‘make changes’ or to ‘improve.’ This is what the Reformers in the 16^th century set out to do. To change the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to where they resembled the clear teachings of the Bible. This is why they were called ‘Protestants,’ because they protested Rome’s practices and teachings. Even today, Christians are usually identified as either Catholic or Protestant.

What does Reformed Theology Teach? I like to say Reformed Theology is ‘Big God Theology,’ this means that every doctrine is understood in the light of a big God. That means every doctrine begins and ends with God and everything is seen through His view and His purposes. When you start with a doctrine of a big God, it has a profound way of viewing every other doctrine in scripture.

The Reformers in the 16^th century revived some Biblical tenants of Christianity, they are known as the ‘Five Solas of the Reformation.  The word ’Sola’ is a Latin term that means ‘only’ or ‘alone’. The Five Solas of The Reformation are the foundation of Reformed Theology. They are as follows - Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), Sola Fide (Faith Alone), Sola Christus (Christ Alone), and Sola Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone).

That doesn’t sound any different than what other Christians believe, what makes Reformed Theology distinct? That's right, our essential beliefs are the same as many others. But as I said, once you hold firmly to Big God theology it effects other doctrine's of scripture. This means that our view of some doctrines may be different than others. I will name and briefly explain a few of these distinctions. Some of these words may be unfamiliar and confusing, but stay with me as I try to briefly explain them. 

Calvinism – This is probably one of the clearest distinctions of Reformed theology. We hold to a Calvinistic view of salvation. It is called Calvinism because a preacher by the name of John Calvin was one of the first to articulate it after the Protestant Reformation. Before him Augustine taught it, before him the apostle Paul, and before him Jesus Christ. The teaching was not invented by John Calvin, it is merely the view of salvation he saw clearly taught in scripture.

Calvinism teaches that it is God, not man, that chooses in salvation. Man's free will is only free to act on what it desires. Dead in sin, it does not desire to seek God (Rom 3:11). If man is dead in sin, and has no desire to seek God, then God must act and awaken those he elected before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1:4). That does not mean we don’t evangelize and preach the gospel to everyone. We don’t know who God has elected so we obey Christ’s command to go into all nations and make disciples. (Matthew 28:19)

Covenant Theology – Reformed Theology is also Covenant Theology. It means we believe God deals with men in covenants, mainly 2 distinct covenants. There is the ‘covenant of works’ (broken by Adam in the Garden) and the ‘covenant of grace’ (promised to Adam in the garden and fulfilled in Jesus Christ). This means that God has one plan for His people. There is not a separate plan for Israel and a separate plan for the church. The church and Israel have always been one people, they are God’s chosen people.

Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) – This means we worship God only in ways that are regulated by Him in scripture. If you are familiar with scripture you know that God has provided many ways to worship Him in song, dance, instruments, joyful noise and so forth.  Anything outside of that, such as drama and other forms of entertainment, are not to be used in worship. That doesn’t mean we don’t enjoy various arts and entertainment, we just believe there is a time and place for everything. In other words, there won't be any Minions or Spider Man's on stage during our worship service. 

Confessional – Almost every church holds to a confession, some call it a Statement of Faith or Core Beliefs. While many churches create their own, Reformed churches typically hold to one from church history. The Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession or London Baptist Confession to name a few. Most Reformed Baptist hold to the 1644 or 1689 London Baptist Confession. Ecclesia holds to the New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833), which is an abridged and revised version of the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

Ecclesiology – Reformed Churches also hold to a high ecclesiology. Ecclesiology just means the study of the church. If we are going to hold to a high view of God, then we must hold to a high view of His church. This means that we take things like church membership, church governance, and the sacraments (baptism and communion) very seriously.

Cessationism - Cessationist believe that the spiritual sign gifts in the New Testament have ceased to be given to individuals. The sign gifts are typically identified as the gift of tongues, gift of healing, and gift of prophecy. This doesn't mean we don't believe in miracles or healing, we pray constantly for them. Nor do we believe God can't do these things (believing in a big God, we trust He can do anything). We just believe that the need for these gifts have ceased with the completion of scripture. It is scripture that now equips and completes us for every good work (1 Timothy 3:16-17). Those signs gifts were given in the 1st century to affirm God's word when scripture was yet to be completed (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Doctrine of Man - One last distinction I should mention is our view of man. The Reformed tradition believes that there is no good in man apart from Christ. Without Christ man's heart is deceitful and wicked (Jeremiah 17:9). And although we are immediately justified (made right) at our conversion, we are still in a process of sanctification (becoming more like Christ). This means we don't preach sermons that tell people to chase their dreams, follow their heart, or pursue their destiny. Since we are still in a fallen state, it is too hard to trust in those things. Instead we teach people to trust in God's written word.

We also teach that Christians still go through suffering and hardships (just like the Apostles did). One day our tears will be wiped away, but that day hasn't come yet. This means we don't preach what many call the 'prosperity gospel'. The belief that God promises that you will be rich, successful and prosperous as long as you are a Christian. Yes, many Christians will enjoy prosperity, but it is God's sovereign choice who He exalts and who He makes low (1 Samuel 2:17). 

I could go on, but I have already made this post longer than I intended to. I hope this information gives you a clearer picture of what it means to be a Reformed Baptist. If there is something I confused you on and you still have questions, please ask me Chris.ecclesiaatx@gmail.com. This was not meant to be an exhaustive study and there is certainly more I can say. But I think there is enough here for you to get an idea what our church believes, what it’s is like, and that we really aren’t too weird after all. Until next time, SDG!

A Look at Bill Johnson at Trinity Church Pt. 3

A Look at Bill Johnson at Trinity Church Pt. 3

I conclude my 3 part review of Bill Johnson’s sermon that he gave at Trinity Church on March 5^th. The sermon can be heard online here. In part 1, which can be read here, and part 2, which can be read here, I engaged with statements made by Bill Johnson throughout his sermon. Statements that I found to be full of error when examined under the light of scripture. I conclude this 3 part review with some thoughts, summarizing the sermon as a whole. I then will end answering a few anticipated questions regarding this review. 

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul exhorts the church for turning to what he calls “another gospel”. In Chapter 1 verse 6 and 7, we read ^“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—  not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.” What is the gospel? Simply put, the gospel is the “good news” that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners from their sins. Any message about Christ that does not make that the center point is “another gospel”. Any message that does not highlight the work of the cross, and any message that does not center on Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) is not the true gospel. For it is by the message of the cross of Christ that we are reconciled to Him (2 Cor. 5:19). When we try and reconcile man to God by other means than we preach another gospel. This is what I believe Bill Johnson, and others like him, are doing. They are proclaiming the “good news” is that Christ came to empower us for signs and wonders. They are proclaiming the “good news” is that God will prosper us, or God will heal us, they are proclaiming that the "good news" is that God gives us everything we ask for. Oh, they will never say that. They will speak of the cross, they will speak of salvation. But ask yourself, what are they known for? When you think of their messages do you think of Christ and Him crucified? Or does your first thought go to what their ministry highlights? Prosperity, signs and wonders, dynamic living, walking in your destiny, these are all forms of "other gospels." Many of these things are the "bait" these ministers use to bring people to God. As Greg Gilbert says A number of “bigger” and “better” gospels have been advocated in recent years, and each of them seems to be gaining a significant following. Insofar as these “bigger” gospels make their center something other than the cross, however, I would argue that they are really less than the gospel, or no gospel at all.[1]

I don’t get the sense that Bill Johnson puts a high value on the message of the cross. If he mentioned it, it was in passing. The theme of the sermon was very man centered. To this I am not surprised. Many in the “signs and wonders” movement make their message about the seeker and his potential. Rarely do they spend much time speaking to man about God, rather, they speak to man about man. What man can do, what man can accomplish, and what man has the potential for.

I also don’t get the sense that Johnson has a very high view of scripture. He didn’t get to the text until twenty two minutes into his sermon, and when he did he read the verse in passing. It was more about his message and what he was trying to convey. As you can see from my review in parts 1 and 2, rarely did he give any scriptural reference to any of his claims. Many of the verses he quoted were used out of context and were being twisted to support his claim. Johnson makes it seem that he has some type of inside knowledge to what the scripture is trying to say. This is not the Spirit giving him new insight, in my opinion, this is soft Gnosticism. Gnosticism was an early Christian heresy that closely resembled Mysticism. It is the belief that one has some sort of “secret knowledge” given to them directly from the divine. 

The few times that Johnson made statements I agreed with, I found them to be empty. At one point in the sermon he says “the goodness of God is the cornerstone of all theology.” To this I say Amen. However, based on the sermon, one would conclude the “goodness of God” is signs and wonders. Indeed the goodness of God is the cornerstone of all theology. But it is the goodness of His love, and goodness of His mercy. It is the fact that a good God came to rescue a wretched sinner like myself. Elsewhere Johnson claims “The hope of the world is in the power of the gospel.” Yes, Johnson is exactly right. The hope of the world is in the power of the gospel. However, Johnson never articulates what the gospel is. Never is there a reference to depraved sinners in need of a righteous Savior. By listening to this sermon one would conclude the “power of the gospel” is in signs and wonders. At the conclusion of his sermon Johnson gave a typical altar call. He asked if there was anyone that wanted to “get right with God,” he also asked if they wanted to be “part of His family” and “be forgiven of sin.” There was no articulation on what it meant to be a sinner in need of a savior. There was no mentioned of the sinner being guilty before a Holy God. There was no mention of the atoning work that Jesus did on the cross. There was no call for repentance, and no call for people to abandon their sins and turn to Christ. He mentions that “this is the greatest miracle of all.” However, based off his own expression and limited attention given to this part of the service, it’s hard to see that he believes his own claim. 

In conclusion, I can see why many have taken issue with Bill Johnson’s theology. His gospel is one that makes signs and wonders the centerpiece. He twists scripture to promote his message, and he deviates from the main message of the cross. Rarely does he make the main thing, the main thing. Bill Johnson is someone I would not recommend. In fact, I would encourage people to run away from his misguided theology. Not only is it not helpful, it is one I find to be dangerous to the body of Christ.  

Below I answer some anticipated questions one may have after reading this review. 

-          Why did you write this?

I wasn’t planning to write this review. My goal was to simply listen to the sermon. I had heard what others had said about his theology and I wanted to hear it for myself. After listening for a few minutes I was astonished by the twisting of scriptures and erroneous teaching. I then felt a burden for people trapped in this theology. Good, God fearing people who are being fed this type of teaching. What he was saying angered me, I take it personal when people trample on the word of God. I heard him twist scripture after scripture and it began to break my spirit. I had sorrow and compassion for the people listening to him, so I couldn’t help but write this review. I wanted to warn them, as Ephesians 5:11 says “Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them.” As I said when I started the review, my sole purpose was to “contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3)

-          Aren’t you being divisive?

My goal is not to be divisive, my goal is unity. But unity for the sake of unity is not always helpful. We are not to be united in error. Our goal is to be united in the truth of God’s word. In Galatians 2:11-14 we read of a time where Paul opposed Peter openly. Peter was doing things in public that caused people to be “led astray.” The reason Paul gives for his confrontation was because he believed Peter was doing things “not in step with the truth of the gospel.” I have never heard anyone accuse Paul of being divisive. Paul did not confront Peter to shame him or just to be judgemental. The purpose was to expose error in the hope that they would unite in the truth. By what we can tell from Acts and the rest of the Epistles, it seemed Peter did turn away from his error. Paul could have stayed quiet and not do anything. He could have said “well as long as Peter is reaching many Jews, I don’t want to cause division.” But Paul couldn’t help but speak out. My purpose with these post is for people to examine the errors in this movement so they too can walk “in step with the gospel.”

-          Isn’t this just a matter of interpreting verses differently?

My response to Bill Johnson weren’t over misinterpretation of scripture, they were over twisting and adding to scripture. There is room in the body of Christ to interpret scriptures differently and I believe these things should be discussed in love. However, there is a difference between misinterpreting scripture and adding to it. We can have differences in interpretation when it comes to eschatology (the end times, the tribulation, the millennium), or infant baptism, or even discussions on whether scripture properly permits elements in worship. These are things brothers in Christ throughout history have widely disagreed on. But my concern with Bill Johnson is far more than a trivial disagreement. Attributing new meanings to what Jesus said is not trivial, it is a best careless, and at worst slandering Christ. Scripture has been studied for nearly two thousand years. The early church fathers and the Reformers have painstakingly examined the word of God to form fixed doctrines. This is why it is important to study church history. To know what the Orthodox Church has believed about certain text for hundreds of years. To trace this belief all the way back to the early church and the Apostles. For Bill Johnson, or anyone else, to come along and deviate from the way the text has been interpreted for nearly two thousand years is not trivial. For him to all of a sudden come up with a new meaning and new doctrine (yes a signs and wonders gospel is a new doctrine), in my opinion is not trivial, but highly dangerous.

-          Aren’t you just attacking a man of God?

I am not attacking for the sake of attacking. Again, I am examining his message under the light of scripture. Bill Johnson is not above examination. Even the Apostle Paul’s messages were subject to examination. Scripture commends the Bereans who “received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11). Here was the apostle Paul, one of the greatest men of God ever, and even he was subject to examination. The Bereans were examining Paul’s message to see if what he was saying was true. And if they found out Paul was adding to, or misapplying scripture, I highly doubt they would have kept quiet for the sake of unity. As a pastor I welcome examination from my flock or anyone else. My goal is to walk in step with the gospel, if I am preaching in error I hope to be corrected.

-          Why attack Bill Johnson when he is doing great things for the kingdom?

First, we are never called to do “great things” for the kingdom. That is a pragmatic and self-centered idea that has infiltrated the church within the past 50 years. “Doing great things” is not on the list as a fruit of the Spirit, faithfulness is (Gal 5:22). We must faithfully, and rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). Having a successful ministry does not equate faithfulness. Scripture doesn’t commend the “good and successful servant”, but rather the “good and faithful servant” (Matt. 25:23). If we are going to measure “numbers” and “success” with truth, then we must say that Roman Catholicism is the truest doctrine. After all they have been the most “successful” religion that we have known.

Second, we must be careful in measuring “great things” by worldly standards. Large altar calls and spontaneous baptisms does not mean God is at work. It is only God and the Spirit’s work that can regenerate the heart and make dead man live. Raising your hand or walking down the aisle does not equate to the new birth. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23 “Many” will be turned away from the kingdom, not a few but many. Many who have said “Lord, Lord,” and many who have “done mighty works.” The “altar call” has led many to believe in a false assurance of salvation. They believe because they said a prayer or were dunked in water that they truly are converted. As JD Greear puts it Salvation does indeed happen in a moment, and once you are saved you will always be saved. The mark, however, of someone who is saved is that they maintain their confession of faith until the end of their lives. Salvation is not a prayer you pray in a one-time ceremony and then move on: salvation is a posture of repentance and faith that you begin in a moment and maintain for the rest of your life”[2] Furthermore, as I articulated above, what gospel is Bill Johnson winning them to? Is it to a gospel that says “Come to God to receive a better life” or “experience signs and wonders”? If it is a gospel that is void of the cross, atonement, sin, repentance, holiness, wrath, and grace, then it is not the true gospel.

-          But I feel good with this type of message, it has really changed my life. I now have a greater desire for God. How can this be wrong?

If your life has been fully and truthfully changed by the Spirit I believe it’s in spite of this message, not because of it. God in His providence can save, change, and restore His children in the midst of error. It’s not how we should go about it, but in His loving kindness, He does seek out His own. Scripture tells us he comes to “seek and save those that are lost” (Luke 19:10). He will find His people wherever they are. But that is no excuse to continue walking in error. “Good feelings” or “great passion” are no excuse for error. Christianity is not about “emotional experiences”, we are not called to walk in a manner of mindless emotionalism. Colossians 1: 10 says “…walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him: bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God." Our walk should be one pleasing to him, bearing good works, and growing in our knowledge of God. We are not to surrender our knowledge to emotion and experience. Many people in this movement have a lot of zeal and passion for the things of God. We tend to excuse or overlook the truth in favor of that zeal and passion. Scripture, however, does not overlook that. In fact, Romans 10:2 mentions this very thing "For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge."

-          What is the harm in this message?

There are many, but for the sake of time I will identify two. One is that “another gospel” creates a false sense of assurance. It confuses people into believing they have embraced Christ when they truly haven’t. The Christ they have embraced is one who empowers them for greatness, not one who died in their place at the cross.

Second, it can cause doubt, guilt, and lack of trust in God. For example, telling someone whose mom is dying that “with enough faith she will be healed” is reckless. What happens if the mom passes and doesn’t get healed? They will start to question God and themselves. They will live the rest of their lives with guilt, or lack of trust in the things of God. This is a dangerous teaching in the word of faith movement. One that has caused many to abandoned hope and faith in Christ all together.

I can think of a few more questions, but for the sake of making these post easily readable I will stop here. I do hope that you understand this is not an attack on those that attend Trinity Church or those that enjoy messages from the likes of Bill Johnson. My aim is not to offend, scold, or confuse people. My aim is not to do harm to the body of Christ. My aim is to assist the body of Christ. May aim is to shed light on false teachings and help expose them (Eph. 5:11). I believe the body of Christ suffers from a lack of Spiritual discernment. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 tells us For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. I believe we are well into those times.

For a closer look at the errors of Bill Johnson and Bethel Church, please visit the links below.

Grace and Peace,

http://www.piratechristian.com/messedupchurch/2016/1/the-bill-johnson-cornucopia-of-false-teaching-bible-twisting-and-general-absurdity

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=15508

http://www.equip.org/article/off-map-bill-johnson-pursuit-extrabiblical-authentication/

---

[1] Gilbert, Greg. What is the Gospel? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010. 103,104

[2] Greear, J. D. Stop Asking Jesus Into Your Heart. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2014. 5

A Look at Bill Johnson at Trinity Church Pt. 2

A Look at Bill Johnson at Trinity Church Pt. 2

I continue my review of Bill Johnson’s sermon titled Kingdom Living that he gave at Trinity Church on Sunday March 5^th. Earlier I posted part 1 of my review in which I mentioned my concerns regarding the theology and twisting of scripture that I heard from that sermon. You can read part 1 of my review here. As I stated in part 1, my critique of this sermon is not meant to offend people who attend Trinity Church. My intent is to shed light on some theology that I find concerning, and examine the sermon in light of the scriptures. 

As I did in part 1 of my review, I will continue to interact with statements made by Bill Johnson throughout his sermon. I included the minute marker next to the statements if you would like to go back and hear the statements for yourself. You could follow along here. I will conclude with a summary of the sermon and answers to some anticipated questions some might have regarding this critique. This I will do in part 3 of these posts, which can be viewed here.

-       Jesus did not display miracles to show what God can do, but he did them to show what man can do (15:48)

Johnson again gives no scriptural reference for this claim. This is classic eisegesis into the miraculous works of Christ. Eisegesis is the process of deriving something from the text that isn’t really there. It is coming to a conclusion based of your own presupposition, not based on what the text actually says. On the contrary, Acts 2:22 tells us that Christ performed miracles to confirm that He was from God, “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—. Furthermore, Jesus Himself gives us the reason for His miraculous works in John 10:25 ²⁵ Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me,. Again, I see nowhere in scripture where Christ, or anyone else, claimed that He did miracles to show that man could do them also. As John Macarthur rightly notes "When Jesus began to do miracles, the disciples must have been ecstatic. Here was undeniable proof that Jesus was the true Messiah!”[1]

-        John the Baptist said to Jesus “I need your baptism, in the Holy Spirit and Fire” (24:34)

We are all familiar with this scene in Matthew chapter 3. In this chapter we read how John the Baptist baptized Jesus. In verse 14 John questions Christ saying “I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?” However, never in my life have I heard someone interpret John’s statement to Christ as needing to be baptized in the Holy Spirit and Fire. Again, Johnson deviates from the meaning of the narrative and drifts to a form of eisegesis. John’s baptism was one of repentance from sins. In questioning Christ he was saying that the sinless Messiah did not need to be baptized, rather that the sinless Messiah should baptize him, the sinner. The fact that they were in the water performing water baptisms easily proves this. Why would John ask Jesus to baptize him in the Spirit and fire while they were standing in the water performing water baptisms? Furthermore, why would John be asking to be baptized in the fire at all? In context, the fire represents judgment as it does throughout all of scripture. John’s statement meant that there would be one coming who would baptize believers in the Spirit, and sinners in the fire of judgment.

-       Unbelief is a partnership with the demonic (29:15)

You may be tired of hearing this, but Johnson gives no scriptural reference for this claim. Yes we know that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). However, saying lack of faith is partnering with the demonic is absurd. In Mark chapter 9 we read of Jesus healing a boy with an unclean spirit. Before the healing we have this exchange between Christ and the boy’s father that appears in verses 23 and 24, ^“And Jesus said to him, “if you can’! All things are possible for one who believes.” Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!” The boy’s father expressed to Christ his unbelief.  Jesus did not scold or attempt to cast out a demon from him, rather he continued on and healed the boy. This is a common theme in the Word of Faith movement. As Hank Hannegraff puts it, to them faith is a force. He adds “You will discover that the ‘God’ of the faith movement is not the true God at all. He is merely a pathetic puppet governed by the impersonal force of faith.[2] True faith is not found in believing our wants will become a reality. True faith is trusting in God’s sovereignty and that His will be done.

-       Jesus turned to His disciples and said “how come you don’t have any faith?” (34:36)

Here Johnson references Jesus calming the storm. As Christ was asleep on the boat the disciples awoke Him out of fear. Christ replied to them “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” (Matt. 8:26). Johnson implies that Jesus was rebuking their lack of faith in not calming the storm themselves. Nowhere in the text is that implied. Verse 27 concludes with the disciples saying “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?” The rebuke was for not trusting in Jesus. They did not say “even the winds and sea obey us,” rather “the winds and sea obey Him.” The purpose of the miracle was for Christ to reveal His authority over nature itself. As John MacArthur says “Jesus’ calming the storm demonstrates His unlimited over over the natural world. At that point, then, the disciples felt not a fear of being harmed by the storm, but a reverence for the supernatural power that had been displayed.”[3]

-       God has the solution (to every crises) but is simply looking for the servant of the Lord to come to Him and reveal the meaning of the Kingdom (40:56)

It is difficult to discern where Johnson is going here. My guess is he’s saying that God is just sitting back waiting for the right person to come along and align himself to receive all the solutions. Again, this is a common theme in the Word of Faith movement. They portray God as one who answers to every beck and call of the believer.  Yes God has the answer to every crises, and yes He is able to solve every problem, but that doesn’t mean He will, at least not in this age. There will come a day where there will be no more death, or mourning, or crying, or pain (Rev 21:4). But until then we live in a fallen world where creation groans up until its present time. That present time is the redemption of our bodies (Rom. 8:22-24). The most scandalous thing about this statement is that it seems to assault the very sovereignty of God. Scripture tells us that God is the heavens, He does what He pleases (Psalms 115:3). That His council will stand and He will accomplish His purpose (Isaiah 46:10). And who has spoken and it come to past, unless the Lord commanded it? (Lam 3:37). On and on scripture affirms that God is sovereign over all things. He is not powerless to our decrees, nor does he need our permission to do anything. God’s purposes will stand regardless of our faith. They will stand whether we declare them or not. Man is not sovereign, rather man is helpless without the power of the almighty God. Again, this is a common theme in the Word of Faith movement. One that should be rejected by every believer.

…In part 3 of this review, I summarize my thoughts and answer some anticipated questions. You can view Part 3 here. Please be sure to read through part 1 of this review as well.

Grace, and Peace!

---

[1] MacArthur, John. The Jesus answer book. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2014. 68

[2] Hannegraaff, Hank. Christianity in Crises. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers. 63

[3] MacArthur, John. The Jesus answer book. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2014. 59