"By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics

In the original version of the "By What Standard?" documentary trailer released by Florida based Founders Ministries , among other highly objectionable tactics (which I will get to in a minute), the trailer chose to portray Rachael Denhollander as a wolf in sheep's clothing, an enemy of the Church using the sexual abuse of women and children as a Trojan horse for "godless ideologies".  If you don't know who Rachael Denhollander is, and why it is despicable to choose to highlight her involvement in helping the Southern Baptist Convention comes to grip with the widespread sexual abuse in its midst, read this amazing article about Rachael that highlights her faith (paying particular attention to the role she played at the last SBC gathering, making her a target of Founders Ministries):

She surrendered her secrets to put away a sexual predator. But her sacrifice isn't over - by Matt Mencarini, Louisville Courier Journal

Did you read the whole article?  If not, go back and read it, otherwise you might not understand why I'm upset, actually really upset, when a self-proclaimed defender of evangelical Christianity behaves in this way.  Following the release of the trailer for "By What Standard?" (watch it here, I have been unable to find the previous version containing Rachael online) uproar ensued on behalf of those targeted in the trailer and from those who had been interviewed for the documentary who strenuously objected to being a part of this finished product.  In the end, three of the board members of Founders Ministries resigned when the board as a whole refused to admit that it had erred and needed to repent publicly.  And while the portion of the trailer containing Rachael Denhollander has been edited out, the trailer was then re-released after Founders Ministries president, SBC pastor Tom Ascol, defended the original trailer and rejected the stand taken by the three board members who resigned in a letter about their departure: Resignation Letter

"Our conversations led to an impasse regarding the nature of sin, unintentional sin, unwise acts and what faithfulness to Christ requires in the wake of each. Though each of these three men formulated his own arguments, their views led them all to conclude they could not conscientiously continue to serve Founders without agreement on these points as it relates to elements in the trailer. As the statements of Fred Malone and Tom Hicks below indicate, they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that. This is the fundamental point of the impasse that we reached." - Pastor Tom Ascol
Following significant push-back about the trailer, Founders Ministries issued the following clarification: About That Trailer , for the three board members who resigned, this defense was not sufficient.
"Some expressed concerns about a 1-2 second clip of Rachael Denhollander, accusing us of presenting her as demonic. Certainly, no one at Founders Ministries believes that and we did not foresee people taking it that way. That was not our intention and, admittedly, not our wisest editing moment. We regret the pain and confusion we caused by this unwise alignment of image and idea. We have removed the clip and have reached out to her and to her husband, Jacob. We are grateful for so many of Mrs. Denhollander’s efforts to serve victims of abuse." - Pastor Tom Ascol
If you appreciate the work of Rachael Denhollander, why did you group her with the "godless ideologies" bent upon the destruction of the church?  Why include her at all?  This defense, "we didn't think people would react that way" is shallow, at best.  The entire trailer features an us vs. them mentality, those opposed to, so we are being told, sound Biblical teaching (Are they really?  That's a serious charge requiring a serious discussion, not a slick hit piece), must be confronted in this manner.
If the portrayal of Rachael Denhollander was the entirety of the issue with the trailer, it would be enough.  But there is more.  The trailer utilizes slick video production techniques to portray the "good guys" in color and the "bad guys" in black and white.  In addition to claims made by several of those interviewed that their words were taken out of context, the screen flashes with images of protests, a figure being burned in effigy, a female clergy member, and United States Senator Bernie Sanders, all clearly being shown as the "enemy" {in brief flashes, like the psycho killer in the next horror movie, complete with sound effects}.  Perhaps the inclusion of Bernie Sanders, an openly Jewish politician, is a random choice, but in a trailer highlighting a conspiracy theory, a subtle takeover of a cherished institution by nefarious outside forces, how could it not occur to the creators of the trailer that they would be invoking the anti-Semitic trope that the Jews are the ones trying to destroy Western civilization?  Of all the liberal politicians that could be shown (if you must portray a politician and thus bring politics into this as well, another questionable choice), why the only well known Jewish politician the one?  If this is an oversight and the creators did not make this connection, it is a significant one, because it seems highly unlikely that those who swim in cesspool of anti-Semitism won't see it as a "nod, nod, wink, wink".
If Christians treat each other this way, no holds barred, take no prisoners, is it any wonder that we're treating fellow Americans as an infection to be eradicated when we disagree with them but don't have the spiritual bond that is supposed to make such behavior unacceptable?
Founders Ministries has been called to task by many in the leadership of the SBC, but that rebuke is insufficient, this behavior needs to be rejected far and wide, and those who watch the film need to be aware of the unethical way in which it was promoted.  No matter what the virtues or faults of the final documentary end up being, it was promoted in a way that has more in common with a political PAC hatchet job than anything connected to Christian brotherhood.
If Founders Ministries believes that they are fighting for the soul of the SBC, and maybe for all of evangelical Christianity, and if they believe that soul is in mortal danger, they still must adhere to Paul's words, "Why not say--as some slanderously claim that we say--'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is just!"  We, as Christians, are not allowed to "fight fire with fire".  We cannot justify slander, hit pieces, and treating fellow Christians as an "other".  I know that Pastor Tom Ascol has stated that such is not the intent of the documentary or its trailer, but such is certainly the reality.  Watch the trailer.  Does this look like an invitation to a debate on a serious topic, or a political ad meant to portray the other side in a negative light through slick editing?  Calling those one disagrees with "well intentioned"(as Pastor Ascol, to his credit, has done) is not good enough, when the tactics one uses to respond drown out that statement.  Pastor Ascol has made his position clear, "they believe we have sinned in how the trailer portrayed certain people and issues. Tom Nettles, Jared Longshore and I do not believe that."  Intentions do matter, but not all sin is intentional.  The resignation letters from two of the three board members who resigned admit this, that among other things, showing Rachael Denhollander's picture with the audio "forces of darkness" was wrong, even without intentionally conflating abuse victims with those labeled as dangerous to the church.
Read the article about Rachael, watch the edited trailer, consider the resignation letters and the defense of the trailer by Pastor Ascol.  When you are done, ask yourself this question, is this what Jesus had in mind when he said, 'By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.' (John 13:35).  I cannot see how it could be.

For an additional perspective on the tactics used in the trailer see: Video links Beth Moore, Russell Moore, James Merritt to ‘Trojan horse of social...Religion News Service  Notice in particular the greater detail on the now deleted Rachael Denhollander scene and her husband's response.

For a previous blog post I wrote about how Christians ought to engage with their adversaries (both within the Church and without): How a Christian must respond to adversaries

Sermon Video: We Need Love - 1 Corinthians 12:31b-13:3

What is the center of Christianity?  Having explained to the church at Corinth their need for unity and gifts of ministry from the Holy Spirit, Paul chooses to remind them that these things, are necessary as they are, are not the foundation upon which Christ is building his Church, that honor belongs to Love.  How does Paul know this?  Simple, if one were to have gifts of showmanship/eloquence without Love, one would have nothing.  If one were to obtain deep knowledge and wisdom without Love, one would be nothing.  And if one were to give charitably all that one has, even being willing to surrender one's life for others or even the Gospel, but has not Love, one would gain nothing.
Without Love (and I'm using the capital L on purpose, as Paul is about to define the Love he's talking about in the next passage, and trust me, it isn't the love we toss around all the time), nothing that Christians build will matter.  Love is at the heart of God's will and God's plan, for as John reminds us in his letter, "God is love".  We all need Love.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Time-bound particulars or Timeless principles? David's sin with Bathsheba

When considering the interpretation and application of a passage of Scripture, it is necessary to evaluate it regarding whether it is an example of time-bound particulars or timeless principles.  An example debated within the Bible itself as recorded in the book of Acts is whether or not new Gentile Christians ought to obey the commands in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) regarding circumcision.  In the end, first Paul, and then the Jerusalem council agree that while the command of circumcision is normative for the descendants of Abraham (Jews) for all time, the time-bound particulars of it do not apply in the same way to Gentile converts operating under the New Covenant.  While the principle of being a sacred people, called by God to be holy, still applies to the Church (and its new initiation rite, baptism), the expression of that principle given to God for Israel did not apply to the Church.
Consider the case of David's lustful adultery with Bathsheba which is recorded in 2 Samuel 11.  On the one hand, the time-bound particulars of the situation might seem vastly different than any modern situational equivalent: David was a Jew (Law of Moses), living in ancient Israel, where he was a king, and his society still tolerated (wrongly) polygamy.  Where is the connection to your average Christian married man of Gentile background (Law of Grace), living in modern America, where he is an average citizen of no real power/wealth?  And yet, one need not find superficial connections between David's circumstances and those of a modern married Christian man because the timeless principles upon which David's actions are judged are not bound by his circumstances.  When David saw Bathsheba, lusted after her, sought her ought, had sex with her, and then conspired to have her husband killed so that he could keep her for himself, he violated the 6th and 7th commandments, "You shall not murder", "You shall not commit adultery", as well as the 10th, "You shall not covet your neighbor's...wife" {Exodus 20: 13,14,17 the numbering of the commandments varies by tradition}  If a modern married Christian man were to meet a woman, lust after her, have sex with her, and then conspire to have his own wife and her husband killed so they could be together, he too would be violating these same commandments.  While David was King of Israel, his actions were the same as thousands of other men (and women) who have befouled the sacred marital bed by allowing lust to lead to adultery.  While the circumstances surrounding a modern day affair (far too polite a word for actions that both anger God and tear families apart) bear little resemblance to David's palace intrigue, one need not struggle to apply the moral lesson given by the prophet Nathan to David when he rebuked him, "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes?" (1 Samuel 12:9)  Times may have changed, but lust is still lust, marital infidelity is still marital infidelity, and conspiracy to rid oneself of a rival is still murder. 
In the end, there are certain passages of Scripture, commands and rituals, which either no longer apply in the New Covenant to the Church, or no longer apply in a modern world with free democratic citizens; at least not in the same way that they applied to our ancestors in the faith.  On these occasions we must seek out the timeless principles upon which these passages rest and then consider how to apply those principles to our situation; a more difficult task.  However, this may not be necessary as often as we think, for human nature has not changed in the past few thousand years, God's nature, in particular his justice, holiness, and righteousness, have never changed.  The people of the Bible were people just like us, facing the same temptations and trials (even if in different packaging), and needing, just as we do, the grace of God to overcome them.

Sermon Video: One body, many parts - 1 Corinthians 12:12-31

Having expressed the variety of gifts given by the Spirit to the Church (local and universal), Paul next emphasizes the unity within that church, as one body made up of many parts.  The analogy emphasizes both the need for each part to be connected to the body, and the need for the body to have all its parts both connected and functioning properly in order to be healthy.  Thus the church needs to be unified, a status that is much easier when each part (person) within it feels both welcome and appreciated.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

NO politician will ever be, "like the Second Coming" to claim such is blasphemous

Let me be clear at the outset, this warning pertains to ANY politician or their supporters who have the audacity to make a comparison to Jesus Christ, in particular those who claim themselves to be Christians.  In 1966, John Lennon of The Beatles said, "We're more popular than Jesus" the reaction was predictably massive, but what if someone claimed far more than being more popular than Jesus, that a politician was loved, "like he is the Second Coming of God"?  Conspiracy theorist and radio host Wayne Allyn Root recently said just that, and the politician he was referring to responded with, "Thank you...Wow!"

I’m an evangelist and a Trump voter. But Trump as the ‘second coming of God’ is blasphemous. - Jay Lowder, the Washington Post {A link to an opinion piece from 8/22 that also addresses political issues; take it for what you will, my own voting record and political preferences are not discussed here, nor will they be; this is a religious issue, where politics are trampling upon holy ground, and as such it needs to be addressed.}

While it has not been uncommon for political and religious leaders to be labeled The Anti-Christ by their critics (For example: Martin Luther's denouncement of Pope Leo X, or speculation about Napoleon when he was seemingly unstoppable conquering Europe), it is less common for any significant political or religious leaders (discounting small cult leaders like David Koresh with relatively tiny followings) to compare themselves, or be compared by others, to The Chosen One, The Messiah, or The Second Coming.  Why?  Two simple reasons: (1) fear of provoking God's wrath when any flawed human being places himself/herself, or is placed, upon equal footing with the holy and righteous sinless Son of God, (2) and humility.
In the Gospels, some of those who opposed Jesus did so precisely because he made claims such as, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30) or "before Abraham was I AM" (John 8:58, the I AM emphasis is mine to reflect how his audience heard the statement, as a claim of equality with the LORD).  How did Jesus overcome this hesitancy?  Through signs, wonders, profound teaching, a spotless life, and most importantly, the vindication of being raised from the dead.
Is there a Biblical example of someone claiming divine status who was unworthy of it?  Actually there are two prominent examples, and it didn't go well for either one.  Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon, perhaps the mightiest ruler on earth, but he became full of himself as evidenced by his command that his subjects bow in worship of a golden statue of himself.  Later, the prophet Daniel warned him of his hubris, after which,
Daniel 4:28-33
28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?”
31 Even as the words were on his lips, a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like the ox. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over all kingdoms on earth and gives them to anyone he wishes.”
33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like the ox. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird.
The second example is in the book of Acts where Herod Agrippa I (grandson of Herod the Great) receives praise from sycophants hoping to earn his favor but in his vanity willingly accepts it,
Acts 12:21-23 New International Version (NIV)
21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
While it is not our business to expect or pronounce any tragedy as divine judgment (for God alone knows his own mind), it is still a form of idolatry (and therefore beyond the pale) for any Christian to elevate ANY leader beyond the status of a mere servant in the House of the Lord, and it is a gross sin for any self-proclaimed Christian, having come to Christ as a hopeless sinner in need of God's grace and mercy (or at least by claiming to be a Christian, letting people believe you have done so), to allow himself/herself to be held up as any sort of Chosen One, as if God had any need of a 2nd Messiah.
When Christ returns, as he promised to do when he ascended into Heaven, it will not be open to debate, the signs will not be ambiguous, as Jesus himself warned his disciples,
Matthew 24:23-27 New International Version (NIV)
23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
On a related topic: How is it that we, as Christians, can be so misguided as to believe that the answer to our nation's problems lie chiefly in the political realm?  Is humanity beset by poor choices or by sinful rebellion against God?  Does our system need to be tweaked to create a moral society, or do we need a complete transformation that only the Spirit can provide by saving the Lost?  Did Christ leave behind a Church to do his will through acts of service, or a kingdom (empire, nation) to accomplish his will through coercion and might?  Do we have a government problem, or a sin problem?  I'm all for better governance, more equitable and just laws, and ethical factors mattering in the decision making process; and I have no doubt we are a long way from what an ideal government would look like, but that panacea is not where our hope lies, it is a mirage that will remain always beyond the horizon.  We, all of us, have a spiritual need that requires a spiritual solution.  We have been given that one solution, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who died in our place and offers us salvation by faith.  We have already been given our hope, because he was, and is, the Chosen One, the Messiah, and he will be the Second Coming of God; he and no other, period.  To put anyone else, even by comparison, into that category, is an act of blasphemy.