My Thoughts on the KJV Debate Between Canupp & Cravatt

    I am a debate fanatic, especially when it comes to theological topics. The number of debate hours that I have watched over the last few years is staggering. You can ask my wife, I'm way too nerdy to be considered "normal". With that said, I was extremely excited when this debate was announced. It was almost like watching a college football game. I couldn't wait for it to start, I couldn't pull myself away once it started, and some of my preacher friends and me were texting our commentary through the whole thing. There also seemed to be a great deal of interest in this debate as the church was packed with many people who had driven from different states in order to be there. To my knowledge the online viewers never dropped below around 800 (counting both the BMBC and RFP stream). As of Saturday night, the video had over 15k views. 

    To begin with, I want to give props to Pastor Zorn and all of those that helped to put this on. This type of dialogue hasn't happened a whole lot within the IFB during my lifetime. Historically, theological debates have had a huge impact on the church throughout the last 2,000 years. Some of the greatest church confessions and creeds have come through debate (Nicea and Chalcedon come to mind). So again, I applaud Pastor Zorn and his congregation for stepping outside of the norm and putting this debate together. 

    Before I give a breakdown of the debate between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt, I need to give a full disclosure. I am a conservative IFB pastor and a King James man. To date, I have preached over 2,000 sermons in my life and have never preached out of anything but the KJV. I also have no intentions of changing Bible versions. However, I strive to be reasonable, balanced and gracious. I also don't lose any sleep over what the "brethren" think. 

    As a side note, although I have listened to all of them at some point through their sermons or podcasts, I have never met Cody Zorn, Nathan Cravatt, or Mitch Canupp. I want to say up front that from what I know of them, I have absolutely no reason at all to think of them as anything other than brothers in Christ who will be my neighbors in Heaven. I am rooting for them and their respective ministries, even though I would have areas of vehement disagreement with all of them. Therefore, there is nothing personal about this blog. With that in mind, let's break down the debate. 

The Moderator 

    I'll be honest, I was concerned about the level of hostility going into this debate. This is a very heated issue with passionate people on both sides. Not to mention that this debate was held at a KJVO church with a KJVO pastor, which isn't exactly a neutral site. Also, just days prior to the debate there was a video clip of Pastor Zorn floating around social media in which he told his church that Cravatt (although he didn't mention him by name) was coming to "take their Bible". He also warned them not to listen to Cravatt just because he sounds nicer than Canupp. There is no need to poison the well like this if they have confidence in the merits of their position.  

    I would go into more detail about what Zorn said in that video clip, but it would be pointless because to his credit, he looked like a different person on debate day. He seemed to treat Cravatt with respect and fairness (a point that Cravatt re-emphasized in a follow up video to the debate). I also thought that Zorn did a great job of keeping time and making sure that the debate stayed on track. I also agree with their decision to disable the comments on the FB live stream. After reading some of the comments on the RFP stream, I wish that they had done the same. 

    To my knowledge, I don't think that Pastor Zorn has ever moderated a debate like this. I have seen moderators who were much worse in other debates, so good on him. The only thing that would have made the debate format better is if they had allowed for cross-examination. That's really where the rubber meets the road in any debate. Perhaps there will be a next time. 

Full Stop

    After the writing, and prior to the release of this blog I came across yet another video of Zorn slandering Cravatt. This time it was in Sunday school at his church, the day after the debate in which he seemed to handle himself so well. In Sunday School he told the class that he hoped they were listening to the debate with "their spiritual ears and not just their physical ears." He also said that he hoped that they recognized that "brother Cravatt" was using certain "tactics" in order to seduce the bride. 

    I became pretty heated when I saw this, which inspired me to come back and add this one section before I release the blog. At least for this section, forget what I said about not being personal. When I wrote this blog I was very respectful and G rated. However, after these latest slanderous comments I am now going to just come out and say what every sane person is already thinking. This attempt to defend the KJVO position was the worst public embarrassment for the "fundamentalists" since the Scopes trial of 1925. They were out matched, out studied, out witted, out classed, and as Zorn said, we can only pray that no one actually heard the debate with their physical ears. I have heard MUCH better cases for the KJV in my lifetime. And to see the KJVO crowd get on social media and beat their chest over what happened on Saturday is embarrassing.  

    As a fellow IFB pastor, I would also like for pastor Zorn to clarify some things. First, is Nathan Cravatt a brother in Christ or a seducer of the bride, because he can't be both. Second, I would really like some specifics as to the seductive "tactics" that Cravatt used. Third, why the slander? I wish that Zorn would have just stayed classy like he did on Saturday. Why roar about Cravatt like Godzilla behind his back, and act like Barney the purple dinosaur to his face? It's a really bad look. As far as I know, humility is still taught in the KJV, unless it was removed between 1611 and 1769. 

    I have talked to half a dozen of my IFB pastor friends about the debate and we all share the same conclusion. That is, that this debate and the shade surrounding it does not represent us. I would like to think that it doesn't represent the majority of the IFB. This is fringe behavior, unbecoming of our Savior, and I want to apologize on their behalf. Now back to the original blog.     

The Stakes

    It is of critical importance to understand that there were actually two issues that were being debated. The first being the subject matter about whether the KJV is the only inspired word of God for the English speaking people. The second, and much larger issue (in my opinion) is how we are supposed to view other people that haven't come to a KJVO perspective. Let's be honest, this debate was so much more than a debate about the Bible. This was a clash between IFB and RFP cultures, in which two of their respective spokesmen went head to head. The question is, was this an epic clash of good verses evil, or simply a family disagreement between brothers in Christ? I believe this to be the central issue of the debate, regardless of whether someone holds a KJVO perspective or not. More on this later. 

Canupp 

    I believe that the fatal flaw with the KJVO side of this debate was that Canupp represents the most extreme, fringe element of the KJVO camp. He believes in at least some form of progressive revelation, that the KJV supersedes the revelation given in the Hebrew and Greek texts that the KJV was translated from. This was emphasized in the debate when Canupp said that, "The language became purer and purer until God got it the way that He wanted it." Canupp also made it abundantly clear that he doesn't care for Hebrew and Greek word studies. However, according to Canupp this isn't a big deal because 90% of the world speaks English (When in reality, it's less than 20%). 

    As Cravatt pointed out, Canupp also made it clear from some of his podcasts and sermons that he has a hard time believing that anyone can be saved from reading or hearing a sermon from another version (a point that Canupp made no attempt to deny). At one point Canupp actually made the argument that people who use others versions are following Rome and as a result will be "bundled up" with the tribulation crowd. This is a round about way of saying that they aren't saved, which is a huge blanket statement. As I stated before, I am a King James man, but this is ludicrous. Not only do I not believe that, I don't think that the vast majority of KJVO's believe that. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the majority of the people who attended the debate would agree with that. I think that this was proven by the fact that one of the few rounds of applause that Cravatt received came when he said that the "epitome of legalism" is making KJVO a prerequisite for salvation. It's hard for a particular side to "win" a debate when their debater holds a much more extreme view on the topic than they do. 

    Now let's take a brief look at Canupp's main arguments. To be clear, it is possible to support a good position, and yet use bad arguments in an attempt to support that good position. Regardless of what one thinks about Canupp's position on the KJV, I would hope that they could be level headed enough to realize that many of his arguments were just bad. For starters, it seemed like he had trouble staying on topic. I know at some point in the debate he hit on Baptist heritage, Calvinism, forced vaccinations, head bangers, rock bands, the coming persecution in America, the tribulation period, liberalism and a partridge in a pear tree. It seemed at times that he was playing to the crowd instead of trying to win with content. I knew that this would be a temptation for him with such a "home" crowd. However, in a debate I want to hear the merits of the different positions concerning the topic being debated. 

    As far as his manner and methods, I don't think he used any notes. I also don't know whether or not he gave a single citation throughout the entire debate. If you quote, you must note. Otherwise it's just an assertion, and anyone can do that. I can't remember a single time that he rebutted Cravatt directly on any of the arguments that he made. He did attempt to challenge the assertion that King James and the KJV translators were a bunch of baby dunking Calvinists, but Cravatt had ample documentation to refute this false statement. This really looked bad considering that Canupp had just condemned the ESV for having Calvinist translators. 

    The two worst arguments of all however, were the "two cities" arguments concerning the manuscripts and the numerics arguments that he put forth. As far as the cities (Antioch and Alexandria) are concerned, it proves NOTHING about the quality of the manuscripts or the people that copied them. Without going into detail, I would say please do more research on those manuscripts and where they came from. As far as numerics go, the man actually said that "6 is the number of man, Romans is the 6th book that Paul wrote, and it has the word 'man' in Romans." Arguments like this aren't helpful to the KJVO position. Such a blind grabbing of straws comes across as being cultic. It's borderline gnosticism.

   Cravatt

    As I stated, I have my disagreements with Cravatt. But if we are talking about who won the debate based on presenting and defending their position, it has to be Cravatt. He obviously did his homework on Canupp and his arguments. He came prepared with a binder full of notes and quotes, as well as illustrations. He handled the Q & A really well, and stayed close to the debate topic. He also refuted Canupp several times on some of his baseless, citationless assertions. He came across as competent, passionate and compassionate. 

    From the opening statements it was obvious that Cravatt was trying to prove himself credible, by proving that he is in fact a Christian. He let everyone know that he believes all of the fundamentals of the faith just like the KJVO crowd. I thought that this was a brilliant strategy. It was also a sad indicator of just how far some of the fringe KJVO camp have gone in their support of the KJV that they look at non KJV Christians as if they are the apostates found in the book of Jude. I felt like Cravatt's strategy might have disarmed some in the crowd. 

    Perhaps the best thing that Cravatt did for himself was to attempt to show that the gap between he and the KJVO camp isn't as drastic as the audience would have thought prior to the debate. He clearly stated his position that the Word of God is "any translation that remains faithful to the intent of the original languages." No one in the KJVO crowd would argue with this, except to say that the only Bible that meets this criteria is the KJV. 

Conclusion & Take Aways

    Some might be confused as to how I can be a King James man and yet not get behind Canupp's arguments. I would simply say that his KJVO position and arguments are so extreme that they don't represent me or the the majority of the KJVO camp. Arguments such as those presented by Canupp do more damage to the KJVO position than men like Cravatt could ever do. Bad arguments don't help my position, and I don't need them to speak for or represent me. 

    Another thing that doesn't help the KJVO position is a lack of grace and common decency. In the Q & A session there was a woman who asked Canupp if her husband's salvation was in jeopardy because he was saved out of an NIV. Canupp completely brushed the question off and went on a rant about sacrificing truth for the sake of unity (insinuating that they had forsaken the truth). Again this is cultic behavior that true KJVO's should want to separate themselves from. If the IFB's would call out more of this silliness within our own ranks as I'm doing now, the RFP would run out of things to talk about. 

    So, will this debate cause any KJVO's to swap their Bible out for an ESV? I doubt it. Will any non KJVO's get rid of everything but a KJV? Not a chance. However, I think that if there is a win to be found in this debate, it is that Cravatt proved himself to be a brother in Christ and not some snake eyed, blood thirsty vampire of a heretic. If nothing else, he came across as sincere, honorable and human. It's easy to have a monologue about someone when they aren't there to defend themselves. It's quite another to have a dialogue with that person when they are in the same room. I hope that everyone can learn that it isn't compromise to show compassion to those with whom we disagree. I also hope we can come away realizing that we all really need to think hard and decide which issues are primary and which are secondary. Not everything is on the same level as the Virgin birth and the deity of Christ. The tension between Paul and Barnabas proves that there will be people in Heaven that just flat out get on our nerves. That doesn't make them less of a Christian. This debate wasn't just about the KJV, it was about Christian unity as a whole. If someone is truly our brother or sister in Christ, we should love them as such and not treat them as if they have leprosy. If our position is strong, we don't have to be so insecure. That's what I took away from this debate.  

    Update

    Within 30 minutes of the release of this blog, Pastor Zorn reached out to me via Twitter message. He said that he was willing to answer any questions that I might have and even volunteered to do an online interview in order to clarify some things. He stated that he does not believe that people can only be saved through a KJV, but are saved through the gospel of Christ. He also made it clear that he thinks Cravatt is a brother in Christ that he has serious disagreements with. As with anyone, Pastor Zorn and I have our disagreements, but I'm thankful that he reached out and we were able to talk about these things as brothers in Christ. You can watch the full interview here;  https://youtu.be/lNOSJfa-x98

    Immediately following the interview with Pastor Zorn, Nathan Cravatt reached out to me and asked if I would be willing to do an interview with him as well. You can watch that full interview here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Gg5ajHBrg

    

Why Baptists Don't Speak in Tongues

     Regardless of religion, race, social class, education, etc., everyone has a source of authority on which they base their beliefs. However, despite the vast diversity among people in the world, there are only four possible sources of authority. The first is rationalism (humanism), in which a person reasons from their own experiences taken in through their five senses. The second is the Catholic church. This authority encompasses Scripture, Catholic tradition and present day leadership. The third is Mysticism. There are two types of mystics, those that trust in their own spiritual experiences without any belief in Scripture, and those that believe in Scripture along with their spiritual experiences. Some examples of these two camps (respectively) would be a Buddhist who has a vision, or a modern day charismatic Christian who "gets a word from the Lord." The final possible source of authority is Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). Every single person falls somewhere within these four categories of authority. 

    Historically, Baptists have always been people of the book, holding up the Scriptures as our sole basis of authority for faith and practice. The Historical Baptist Confessions all begin with the authority of the Scriptures. This past week I began preaching through the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1833 on Wednesday night, which is the Confession that my church adheres to. Article One opens with the words, "Of the Scriptures We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth without any mixture of error for its matter, that it reveals the principles by which God will judge us; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried." 

    The simple reason that Baptists don't speak with "unknown" tongues is because the practice of tongues that we see in churches today cannot be found within the pages of Scripture. If someone comes to the opposite conclusion, they have at best been fed a gross misrepresentation of Scripture, or at worst placed all of their faith in their own experiences with no regard to Scripture at all. As we shall see, someone can believe in modern day tongues speaking and be some form of mystic, but they cannot believe in modern day tongues and also believe in Sola Scriptura. The two are mutually exclusive. 

    The Scriptural Evidence

    The first place that we must visit in order to see what tongues was as practiced in Scripture is Acts chapter 2. First of all, it is important to remember that Acts is a transitional book. There are things that happened in Acts that we simply don't see today. At the time there were no NT Scriptures and Christ had ascended to Heaven. So, God gave the Apostles special powers in order to confirm His men and His message. For example, the Apostles had a 100% success rate when it came to healing and raising the dead. In fact, Peter had so much power that merely his shadow passing over someone would heal them. This does not happen today. If such people are on planet earth today they have to be the most selfish individuals to have ever lived. With modern technology they could travel to all of the hospitals in the world in a relatively short period of time and yet they are MIA. When we use Acts to get our doctrine in exclusion to the rest of the NT we will fall into error. We can't experience another Pentecost anymore than Christ can experience another Calvary. Some might argue that "God is the same yesterday, today and forever." but my reply is always, "then why aren't you still sacrificing animals?" It is true that God never changes, but His unchanging plan unfolds throughout different seasons in time. 

    Second, in Acts chapter 2 we find the very first time that people spoke with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. The context is this, people have come from all over the world to be in Jerusalem for Pentecost. The Lord used this opportunity to allow His Apostles to supernaturally speak with the tongues (languages) of all the different people groups who were there. Verses 6-7 read, "Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak IN HIS OWN LANGUAGE.  And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?" The text could not be clearer. God empowered the Apostles to speak in human languages that they did not know for the purpose of preaching the gospel to these different people groups. The result was that 3,000 people were saved. This text places an immediate burden upon the modern day proponents of tongues to give a clear text showing when, how and why this meaning of tongues somehow changes into an unknown, Heavenly prayer language. If no such text exists (and it doesn't), then we must use the definition of human languages as our lens for interpreting the other few times that tongues are found in the Bible. 

    The next text that we must visit in order to determine what the Scriptures say about tongues is in I Corinthians chapter 14. First of all, this is a very difficult chapter to interpret, regardless of which theological camp that someone is in. It seems that the Corinthian church had some sort of background information in order to receive this instruction. We aren't privy to that information today, God didn't see fit to give it to us. Also, nowhere in this text do we find a Heavenly, angelic language. We aren't told what such a tongue is, or what it accomplishes. All of those things must be read into the text by proponents of tongues. We cannot isolate difficult texts and create doctrine out of it. Doing so puts the "cult" in difficult. However, there are certain things in this text that are crystal clear. 

    For starters, the Corinthian church wasn't a spiritual body. They were carnal. Paul said in chapter 3 that he had to speak to them like babies because all they could handle was milk. This church was also full of sexual sin, even to to the point of one man having relations with his own mother (5:1). In chapter 8 we find that the Corinthians were also eating meat sacrificed unto idols. This was not the church that anyone would want to model after. 

    This sets the stage for chapter 14. Paul isn't commending the Corinthians. He is scolding them. He scolds them for their childish use of other tongues. However, when Paul uses the term "unknown tongue" it does not mean gibberish and it does not mean a Heavenly angelic language. It means to speak with human languages that others do not know (unknown to them). Years ago I had the opportunity to preach to a group of Chinese middle school students who didn't speak a word of English. However, I had an interpreter. I would preach a few sentences in English, which is an unknown language to them, then the interpreter would repeat what I had just said, but in Chinese. What good would I have done them without an interpreter? To prove this is Paul's point, he goes on to say in verses 18-20- "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all: yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." Paul spoke many human languages, but he always used the one needed to communicate the gospel. 

    As a final death knell to the modern tongues movement, Paul goes on to regulate the use of tongues, even as it was meant to be used. In verse 27 Paul states that only two or three at the most could speak in tongues. In verse 28 he says that if there is no interpreter, keep quite. In verse 34 he tells the women keep silent. If the modern tongues movement only allowed 2 or 3 to speak in tongues, never spoke in tongues without an interpreter and didn't allow the women to speak in tongues, their entire movement would be extinct over night. Is I Corinthians chapter 14 the concrete proof for the gift of an angelic language? Hardly

The Historical Evidence

    Church History and the Confessions can't be our final authority, but they help us in the same way that bumpers help us in bowling. They don't control how we thrust the ball down the lane, but they keep the ball from going into the gutter. If someone interprets or teaches something totally different than what's been taught throughout church history, it's probably not true. The modern teaching of tongues was never found in church history until the Azusa Street revival of 1906. What this means is that this modern tongues interpretation was never taught by the church for the first 1900 years of its existence. This was a new teaching. Why didn't the church always teach tongues in that way, especially if that's what the NT actually teaches? Because they never practiced it and they would not allow the text of Scripture to be interpreted in such a way. The burden of proof falls on the proponents of modern tongues to prove why they changed this doctrine, and why the church got it wrong for the first 1900 years of church history until they came along.

The Silent Evidence

    There isn't a single example of someone speaking or praying in a heavenly, angelic language in the Bible, not one. Some try to claim that Paul made a reference to him speaking an angelic language in I Corinthians 13, but this an easy one to refute. He said,"though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling symbol." Paul is giving an analogy. Paul did speak several languages. He is saying that even if he could speak in an angelic language it would be worthless without charity. This is proven by the fact that he continues this analogy in the following verses. Paul didn't understand all mysteries or have all knowledge. He didn't have all faith or give his body to be burned. He was saying that even if he did, it would be worthless without charity. Again the tongues proponents must read their assumptions into the Scripture to make their narrative work. The burden of proof is on them to explain why there isn't a single example of someone speaking in a Heavenly, Angelic language in the Bible, especially if it's so essential to the Christian faith and to the function of the church. 

    Much more could be said on the subject, even to the question "are tongues still in use today?" The short answer is no, now that we have the Scriptures that season is over (I Corinthians 13:9-10), but that is a blog for another day. I will simply say that the modern use of tongues never ceased because it never existed in the first place. 

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, Baptists don't speak in tongues because the modern use of tongues can't be found anywhere in the Bible. Someone can believe in tongues, but they can't be a true historical Baptist, and they can't believe in Sola Scriptura (at least not in this one area). By definition they are a mystic in the way that they approach truth. Many times when I have approached modern tongue talkers with the truth of Scripture, they default to their own experience (which is the text book definition of a mystic). However, we must always measure our experiences by the Word of God, and not the Word of God by our experiences. 

    I live and pastor in the heart of Mormon country Utah. Mormons are some of the most mystical people that I have ever encountered. Their leaders even encourage it. A few months ago we had a very nice Mormon lady to visit our church. After the service I shared the gospel with her. In response, she told me that she knows Mormonism to be true because she prayed about it, and one night Jesus came into her room, sat on her bed and told her that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God and that Mormonism is true. This kind of thing is all too common in Mormonism. This is a form of subjective and not objective truth. I told her that I've had Catholics and Muslims tell me similar stories. They also claim their own experiences as proof that their particular faith is true. How can any of these experiences be proven to be true above the others? They can't. This is why we must submit ourselves to the objective truth found in Scripture. In the words of the great Puritan writer John Owen, "If extra Biblical revelations agree with Scripture, they are needless, and if they disagree, they are false."   

    

The Specter of Communism

    Although tyrannical dictatorships and oligarchies have been around for thousands of years, Russia became the first official communist state in 1917. A little over a century later, communism has left over 150 million bodies in its wake. Communist regimes assume the role of God in that they claim to be the giver of basic human rights. The sovereignty of the state is absolute and cannot be questioned. Everything the state does is good and right, merely for the fact that the state decrees it. The common people in this system look to the state for everything; income, education, health, safety and permission. Communism is the government structure of Satan himself. This type of government is probably what Paul had in mind when he warned us about "spiritual wickedness in high places" (Ephesians 6:12). It oppresses the masses for the benefit of a few. Communism and personal freedoms cannot co-exist, and because personal freedoms come from our Creator, there is no room for Him either in a communist state. 

   For decades the USA was a beacon of freedom, and the number one enemy of communism worldwide. In fact, communism seems like a completely foreign concept for the vast majority of the western world. However, due to years of moral and cultural decay, it seems that the specter of communism has raised its ugly head even in the most unlikely places. Could countries such as the U.S. and Canada actually embrace such a depraved system? I'm afraid that we are much closer than we realize. 

    In 1961, a man by the name of Cleon Skouson revised his book, The Naked Communist, to include a list of 45 goals that the communists would try to implement in America over the coming decades. Skouson was highly qualified on the subject given that he worked alongside Ronald Reagan for several years, studying and battling communist ideas at home and abroad. Skouson stated, "The general thrust of the 45 goals was to attack the Judeo-Christian underpinnings that had long prospered and protected freedom, and to replace them with the bricks, mortar and top-down force of a purely socialistic society."1 Here are some of those 45 goals;

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights. This was clearly seen in 1962 when the courts banned public prayer and Bible reading in public schools. 

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks. 

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, and policy-making positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV and pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” Cancel culture anyone? 

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. 

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, and healthy.”

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a world-wide basis.

30. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.” Skouson was a little off the mark with this one, they actually just label them all as racists, and therefore discredit any good thing that they might have done in their life. 

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business. Think about our professional sports teams in America right now, among other major corporations and industries. 

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. Keep in mind that Skouson wrote these goals in 1961. I am beginning to think that the man was a prophet. When I read goal 38, I can't help but think about the recent cries to defund the police. But just to show how incredibly accurate Skouson was with this one, let's take a look at a quote from a Business Insider article, written in June of 2020 in response to the death of George Floyd, 

"There is only one answer to fix a system so deeply and structurally racist and violent: reduce the role of the police in society and replace them with a system that seeks justice through peace. This means reducing the amount our governments spend on police and instead investing in alternative, community-based resources to take over the jobs we have inexplicably handed to police."2 

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. One can't help but think about the transgender insanity and the laws that cater to it. 

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. This is one of the main reasons that we homeschool our children. 

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems. Have you ever heard of BLM or Antifa? 

    I asked the question, "Could countries such as the U.S. and Canada actually embrace such a depraved system?" At this point I think the better question would be, how long before it happens. If Covid-19 has revealed anything, it is that many of the powers that be feel that they are close enough to taste it. Think about what's happening in Canada right now with Grace Life church. The Canadian government threw Pastor James Coates in a maximum security prison. When that didn't work, they put a pad lock on the doors of the church, three fences around the property, and are patrolling with 24 hour security. When protestors showed up this past Sunday, The RCMP sent out over 200 cops to keep them in line. While all of this was happening on church property, the members of Grace Life Church were meeting to worship in a secret location. Canada now has an underground church. However, I personally know pastors and churches in California who are doing the exact same thing right now. 

An army of police surround the Grace Life Church building

   In one fell swoop, the constitution has been scrapped, countless small businesses have gone under which means less competition for the big corporations, people have become more dependent upon the government, churches have been shut down, the government has been able to pad the pockets of special interest groups in the name of "Covid relief", the national debt has sky rocketed, people have been arrested for exercising their basic freedoms, we have even lost control of our breathe hole, all for a virus with a 99.7% survival rate. Covid-19 has been a communist's dream. Anyone with a rational mind clearly understands along with Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn that, “We know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying.” Yet they continue to get away with it. 

    So what happens next? I'm obviously not a prophet, but I feel pretty confident about three things going forward. First, there is only one of Skouson's 45 listed goals that the communists have not had any major success in reaching. Care to guess what it is? 

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

   I firmly believe that this current administration's number one goal is significant gun control legislation. This is evidenced by President Biden's recent executive order on gun control. Over the coming months the headlines from the ministry of truth media will be saturated with every act of gun violence on the planet. We will hear about every gun related accident, robbery, suicide, homicide, gas station hold up, bb ricochet, etc. They will play upon the emotions of the easily manipulated in order to ram their anti-gun legislation through. After months of people wearing face napkins that aren't even medically rated, hiding behind plastic shields with no sides or seal, spacing out and following lines on the floor, they know that the people can be manipulated.

    Secondly, I think that even if the Covid paranoia dies down, there will be another "public safety hazard" just around the corner. Narratives are already being built about a new virus strain, or variants that won't be affected by the current vaccine. Most people won't willingly give away their rights unless their is a cause for the greater good. In the case of Covid, it's "public safety". Who could be against that, right? Outspoken activist and communist sympathizer, Saul Alinsky wrote, "The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.".... "The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.” Whitman put it: “The goal once named cannot be countermanded.”3 In other words, radical change comes by way of a "moral cause" or "the greater good". This was in reference to the implementation of communist ideals.

    Lastly, I think that Christians will see increased persecution as time goes on. George Washington once said, "a Bible reading people can never be enslaved." Born again Christians are the kryptonite to the communist worldview. This is why the Bible is outlawed in 52 countries worldwide. Christians know that their rights and freedoms come from God, not government. We understand that God is sovereign, not the state. We believe in strong family values, hard work and dependence upon God's provision. There is no place for that in communist ideology. Alinsky went on to say, 

    "Dogma is the enemy of human freedom. Dogma must be watched for and apprehended at every turn     and twist of the revolutionary movement. The human spirit glows from that small inner light of doubt     whether we are right, while those who believe with complete certainty that they possess the right are     dark inside and darken the world outside with cruelty, pain, and injustice."

    Alinsky is saying that if anyone has any true convictions that go against the cause, they must be destroyed at all costs. No wonder the RCMP is going to such great lengths to fight against pastor James Coates and Grace Life Church, while at the same time releasing dangerous sex offenders back into the public and warning everyone to be careful via Twitter (what happened to public safety?). Imagine if even a few dozen churches got bold and did the same thing as Grace Life? The RCMP can't have that. 

    So what are we to do, given this information? Three words, live your life. Go to work, go to church, worship, pray, share the gospel, spend time with your family, don't let people make you feel guilty for not participating in their mask fantasy (or any other fantasy for that matter), graciously stand for truth, trust God, don't be afraid. The enemy is unknowingly accomplishing God's will, just like Joseph's brothers when they sold him into slavery. What they mean for evil, God means for good. The true church is being sifted right now. If we can rejoice in one thing, it is that the fence is becoming too high to straddle. The light is seen most clearly in the darkness. Let the church of Jesus Christ arise and be salt and light in these dark days. What a wonderful time to be a Christian. The specter may be at the door, but we've no need to fear. As G.K. Chesterton once said, “We fear men so much, because we fear God so little. One fear cures another. When man's terror scares you, turn your thoughts to the wrath of God.”

1. Skousen, W. Cleon. The Naked Communist: Exposing Communism and Restoring Freedom (The Naked Series Book 1)  

2. https://www.businessinsider.com/we-need-to-defund-police-reduce-budget-spend-social-services-2020-6

3. Alinsky, Saul. Rules for Radicals (p. 36). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

The Idol of Self

    Remember the days when news outlets actually reported the news that was relevant to our lives? Yeah, those were good times. However, the media has now become a propaganda machine for Marxist politics and perverse ideologies (which go hand in hand btw). Yet here I find myself reporting on this very "news". The difference is that the mainstream media for the most part provides nothing but a monologue. They exist in an echo chamber, and even a basic dialogue with reason and truth will expose the lunacy of their position.

    The latest media darling is Pop singer, Demi Lovato. Did she make the news for winning a Nobel Peace prize or discovering a cure for cancer? Of course not. Instead, she recently made headlines for telling the world that she now identifies as pansexual. I know that we will sleep better tonight knowing this information. If you're unfamiliar with what a pansexual is, it's someone who is sexually attracted to people regardless of their gender identity. It used to be called bi-sexual. However, this term no longer works because in our 21st century brilliance we have discovered dozens of other genders. Lovato recently told Joe Rogan on his podcast that she is "so fluid (sexually) now." She also took a shot at her Christian upbringing by claiming that she was "like, super closeted off." The truth is that absolutely nobody cares about whether or not Lovato is a pansexual. If the headlines were honest they would read, “Pop Singer joins resistance, shakes her fist at God”, that’s really what this is about. However, the most disturbing thing that she said, which is really the catalyst for this blog is, "I love accepting myself." As if this is some kind of human virtue. 

    Let's take a moment and examine her statement about self acceptance. Is accepting ourselves a virtue? Would it ever be proper to not accept ourselves. What if a child molester proudly shared with the world that he is a pedophile? He admits that he has struggled with guilt for years, but now he is finally free from the restraint of conscience and has now accepted himself for who he really is (it will happen soon enough). What sane person would applaud such a thing? Some might argue that I am comparing apples and oranges when it comes to pansexuality and pedophilia. However, once someone abandons God's objective standard for what love and marriage are (one man, one woman, one lifetime), then they effectively lose any objective standard by which to define what love and marriage are not. 

    To further investigate this point, let's look at another extreme example. What about Adolf Hitler, the Nazi dictator that ordered the extermination of over 6 million Jews? What he did was not only legal at that time, but it was also socially acceptable. Hitler was proud of what he did. Even a rudimentary study of his writings, or the accounts of those closest to him would attest to this fact. Was Hitler right for accepting himself? We all know the answer to that question. Some might ask how I could possibly compare Lovato's pansexuality with Hitler's genocide. Most would say that these two things are beyond comparison. While I won't attempt to argue that point, that's not the point that I'm trying to make. The issue here is found in one word, standard. Lovato find's herself acceptable by her own standard, and Hitler found himself acceptable by his own standard. In other words, both Lovato and Hitler are/were law unto themselves, the producers of their own standard of righteousness and truth, and essentially their own god. By abandoning God's objective standard (The Scriptures), Lovato would have absolutely no standard by which to condemn Hitler or anyone else for anything. She can't plead consensus or legality because it was the legal consensus in Nazi Germany that Jews were less than human and deserved death. This is why the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Living our lives without the foundation of the knowledge of God and his created order reduces a person's worldview to absurdity. 

    While these ideas certainly seem more prevalent in our day, they are as old as Eden. The very first lie that Satan ever told was in Genesis 3 when he told Eve that she could become her own god by disobeying the true God. This modern day form of relativism is know as "existentialism". The most well known proponent of existentialism was French Philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre. One of his most popular sayings was that "existence precedes essence". Sartre wrote, 

"What do we mean by saying that existence precedes essence? We mean that man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterwards. If man as the existentialist conceives him is not definable, it is because to begin with he is nothing. He will not be anything until later, and then he will be what he makes of himself."1

    In other words, Sartre taught that people are in control of their own destiny. The pen is in their hand as they write and create the story of their life. If Lovato claims to be a pansexual, or an alien from the rainbow planet, nobody can argue with her. The danger of this worldview is that is devalues human life, because if someone doesn't have the capacity to produce an essence (i.e. those with a mental handicap, downs syndrome, babies in the womb, etc.) then they are just an existence, or as Hitler referred to them in his T4 project, "life unworthy of life". Human value comes from the fact that we are all created in the image of God. Once a society abandons the reality of God, then human life is devalued.  This has always led to horrific consequences historically. 

    Another danger of this self-accepting existentialism is that it sees absolutely no need for repentance. After all, it was the Pharisees that bragged about their own self-righteous superiority (they were the ones that plotted the killing of Christ). This world view is a breeding ground for narcissism and entitlement. This is the exact opposite of the gospel message, that all people are wicked and sinful in the sight of a holy God, and that God calls all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. 

    In conclusion, many times it's easy to applaud those that the world applauds. It's easy to get caught up in the emotions or fads of the day. It seems all too natural at times to get caught up in the causes that are championed by the world. I mean, it just sounds so good that someone would "accept themselves". Who could argue with that? Just remember that Satan made the only thing that would bring death to Adam and Eve more desirable than the perfect life that they had. This sexual rebellion is Satanic and needs to be exposed. None of us need to cast off the restraint of conscience and accept ourselves for the sinners that we are. We need to repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. When we do this we can accept who we are in Him. We become accepted in the beloved, children of God and the bride of Christ. Any other self-acceptance is idolatry, a worship of the creature more than the Creator. The gospel of grace sets men and women free from the penalty and power of their sin, it does not affirm them in their slavery.

1. Jean-Paul Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” trans. Philip Mairet, in Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre, Revised and Expanded Edition, ed. Walter Kaufmann (1956; New York: Penguin Group, 1975), 360. . Sartre, “Existentialism is a Humanism,” 369.

   

     

       

 

The Greatest Struggle of the American Pastor

    It was the Summer of 2001. I was 16 years old at the time, and had taken a mission trip to Reynosa, Mexico with my youth group. The one thing that I will always remember about that trip is when we visited one of the farming villages outside of the city. I had never seen such poverty. In fact, growing up in a middle class neighborhood in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, I had no idea that such poverty even existed. I saw large families piled into tiny, one room shacks with dirt floors and only bed sheets to cover their doorway and window openings. These shacks also had no running water or electricity, which meant that these families also had to endure the brutal Mexican Summers with no AC. 

    Our main purpose for going there was to host a worship service in a barn located at the center of the village. About two hours prior to the service our youth group walked around the village and handed out fliers to the residents, inviting them to the service. Admittedly, I thought that this would be an exercise in futility. In my heart I laughingly thought, "Who's going to show up to a barn in the heat of the Summer to hear preaching on such short notice?" However, I was in for a shock. It seemed as if the whole village showed up. All of them had walked, many of them were barefoot. The barn was packed with women and children sitting on hay bales and hard bench seats. The men would not come in (I think it was a cultural/pride thing but I'm honestly not sure) but they did stand at the barn door and listen. I couldn't understand a word of this Spanish worship service, but the preaching was passionate and the singing was incredible. It was clear that everyone was happy to be there. There was no special singing group or big name evangelist. There were no padded seats, AC, stage lighting or effects. There were no gimmicks, door prizes or fellowship meal. There was only Bible preaching and singing. It was a very humbling thing to be a part of. 

    Fast forward to 2021. I am now 36 years old and have been a pastor for over thirteen years. The Lord has given me some amazing opportunities that I never dreamed of and didn't deserve (I'm just a Gump from West Alabama). On top of pastoring some wonderful churches, the Lord has allowed me to co-host a local FM gospel radio show that aired every weekday from 11-1. Our church also had an additional hour long radio broadcast on Sunday mornings at 9 AM. I've also had the privilege of doing some open air outreach at abortion clinics, college campuses, gay pride parades and other outside events. This led to a podcast that showcased videos from our outreaches. The total views and downloads from all of my online endeavors are well into six figures. I've also been able to write a book about finding my birth mother at the age of 27, as well as getting to lead her to Christ and baptizing her. I've preached at prisons and nursing homes, knocked on countless doors, handed out an insane amount of gospel tracts, prayed countless prayers for the lost, and for revival, etc. I am also currently pastoring a church in the heart of Mormon country Utah. (And yet I am constantly haunted by the knowledge that I am not doing nearly enough)

    So, why mention all of this? It's because even with all of these outreach opportunities, I have never again seen the amount of gospel enthusiasm and commitment that I saw on that scorching July day in the Mexico desert. If I could actually see the statistics of people that I have shared the gospel with, verses the number of people that have been saved, I'm afraid that the percentage would be shamefully abysmal. The same is true of people that I have invited to church, or to a special event. If I were to compare the number of church members that I have lost over the years with the ones that I have gained, I think that the numbers would be about even. This means that at best I am maintaining the status quo. If I am to be honest and make myself vulnerable, many times I feel like a failure. There has been many tears shed. There has also been countless nights of venting this feeling to my wife as we lie in bed. 

    This brings me to the crux of this blog; what is the greatest struggle of the American pastor? I believe that it can be summed up in four words; the desire for validation. We want to know that what we are doing is working, and that our efforts matter. Salesmen enjoy good numbers on their sales reports. Mechanics get a feeling of satisfaction when they bring a broken down car back to life. Doctors must experience a sense of euphoria when they save a life or bring sick people back to health. Carpenters feel accomplished when they admire the work of their hands. Some of the most hard working, intelligent, faithful, educated, honorable men that I know are pastors. They would have been successful at anything they chose to do, and yet they struggle in the ministry. In fact, I know quite a few men that left a lucrative career in order to be obedient to their calling. How are they to find any validation in what they are doing? 

    Is it possible to measure "success" in the ministry? I believe that it is, although I believe that many times the reason that we get so discouraged is because we have a different measuring stick than God does. If someone were to Google the word "success", they would find 3,270,000,000 results in 0.95 seconds (I know because I just did it). There is a countless list of books, videos and online seminars about success. However, it may surprise the reader to know that the word "success" is only found one time in the Bible.  Moses has just died, and the Lord reveals Himself unto Joshua in order to transfer His authority unto him. As Joshua gets ready to lead the people across the Jordan River, the Lord gives him this advice, "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." Joshua 1:8. The Lord says here that He measures success by the amount of obedience to His Word. Joshua and the children of Israel fought plenty of battles and had their share of failures, but that wasn't the point. 

    When we think about the ministry of Isaiah, we love to talk about his response to God in chapter 6 and verse 8, where he says to God "Here am I; send me." There have been countless T-shirts and missions themes with this phrase on it. However, most people don't read the next few verses to see what God was sending him to. God essentially tells Isaiah that the people won't listen, they will completely ignore Isaiah's message, he will be hated and then God will have to judge them anyway. The people were living in a time of relative peace and prosperity and cared very little for the things of God. To my knowledge, Isaiah never had a single convert. Jewish tradition says that Isaiah was killed by being sawn in two from his groin to his head. Who wants to sign up for that? Are we to say that the most renowned prophet in the OT was a failure? It depends on who we are asking. According to the results he was an utter failure, but according to God he was immensely successful. Christ Himself quoted Isaiah several times in the NT. 

    I believe that we also see this principle in the NT with the parable of the sower. In Mark 4:3, Jesus said, "Hearken; behold, there went out a sower to sow." The seed of course is the Word of God. It fell on four types of ground, which represent the human heart. Only one of the four represent someone who is actually saved and bearing fruit (I would be happy with that percentage these days). However, the truth in all of this is, that our only responsibility is to sow the seed, preach the gospel and leave the results up to God. We can't save one soul, change one heart or cause one person to do right. The best that we could ever do is get somebody's emotions or compliance, only God can get their heart. Our mission is this simple; a sower went forth to sow. We will make ourselves miserable by trying to play the part of the Holy Spirit in the lives of others.  

    The truth is that like Isaiah, we are living in a time of prosperity in America. People don't care about the things of God. If even a tenth of the people that I have shared that gospel with had the same enthusiasm as those poor villagers in Mexico, I would be in a never ending building program. The results aren't up to us, they are up to God. If we live and die by the results we will get a big head when things are going well, and get depressed when things are going badly. We will also be tempted to water down the gospel message and change our methods in order to attract carnal men and women. If we ever lose confidence in the message, we will change our methods. We must find our joy in the sowing, not in the reaping. Be encouraged pastors, keep studying, praying and preaching. God sees. Think about one day hearing those words "Well done thy good and faithful servant, enter thou in to the joy of the Lord." Let Him be our validation, or else self validation can become our idol. 

Dr. Seuss, Critical Race Theory, and the Coming Purge

 

    In 2004, Diana Duyser made headlines when she sold a ten year old, half eaten grilled cheese sandwich on EBAY for a whopping $28,000. How was she able to accomplish such a feat of salesmanship? She was convinced that the Virgin Mary's face could be seen in the grilled cheese sandwich. Duyser stated, "I would like all people to know that I do believe that this is the Virgin Mary Mother of God." Could she have been lying about what she believed? Sure, but that's beside the point. The fact is that she was able to convince someone else that the Virgin Mary was in and on this sandwich. Amazingly, sales of such things are much more common than one might think. The moral of the story is that a person can see whatever they want to see if they are looking hard enough for it. 

$28,000 Virgin Mary Sandwich

    Perhaps this is why Dr. Seuss' books were able to be read by millions of people for over seven decades before we finally figured out that Seuss was actually a Nazi propagandist and the grand wizard of the KKK. How could we have been so blind? At least in 2021 we are finally smart enough and woke enough to realize just how inherently racist Dr. Seuss' books really are. So it comes as no surprise that Dr. Seuss will no longer be recognized on Read Across America Day, and that half a dozen of his books are now being pulled from the shelves (see the list here; https://www.nj.com/entertainment/2021/03/dr-seuss-canceled-social-media-sounds-off-as-6-of-his-books-are-no-longer-being-published.html). 

    Seriously, what's going on? I think that the answers can be found in another book that isn't being pulled from the shelves, a book that has made the New York Times Best Seller list on two different occasions. The book that I am referring to is White Fragility; Why It's So Hard For White People to Talk About Racism, by Robin DiAngelo. DiAngelo is a diversity trainer and counselor. If her name sounds familiar it's because just recently one of her training webinars was released to the public in which she made this infamous statement to Coke employees, "To be less white is to be less oppressive, arrogant, less certain, less defenseless, less ignorant, more humble." (See story here; https://nypost.com/2021/02/23/coca-cola-diversity-training-urged-workers-to-be-less-white/)

Robin DiAngelo

    Diangelo is one of today's leading voices for Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality. The main theme of these two ideologies is that the world is divided into two categories, the oppressors and the oppressed. CRT obviously applies to race, but intersectionality highlights the intersection of these two categories. We hear them all of the time; LGBT vs. "homophobic", white vs. black, wealthy vs. poor, men vs. women, trans women vs. real women, etc. Our society has been saturated with CRT on every level for the last two decades and we are now seeing the fruit. This ideology is completely antithetical to Christianity and the Biblical Gospel because the oppressed are merely victims who have no need of repentance or forgiveness, while the oppressors are evil and are incapable of being granted forgiveness. When someone actually buys into CRT and Intersectionality, it becomes clear why our society seems to be in a race to the bottom. Tis better to be a victim than a villain. 

    So what does all of this have to do with Dr. Seuss? Well, everything. It's important to understand that CRT is a religious ideology. And in their religion, Seuss is an oppressor. But why? Before we get the answers from DiAngelo's book, I want to preface by mentioning another book that I read years ago by Dr. Walter Martin entitled, The Kingdom of the Cults. In this work Dr. Martin points out a language barrier in which religious cults will redefine well established words, or invent new ones in order to push their agenda. Make no mistake about it, White Fragility is a theology book for the woke religion. While there are many works on the subject, I am convinced that White Fragility is the KJV of CRT. And just like Dr. Martin warned, DiAngelo has completely redefined old words and invented new ones in order to push CRT. This is absolutely essential in understanding why Dr. Seuss is being attacked. Let's take a look at some of the terms in her book. 

White Fragility- This is the reaction of white people when they are confronted with the reality that they are racist. It is a form of "denial" and "bullying". It's purpose is to "maintain the white equilibrium in society." 

White Solidarity- When white people don't keep racism in the forefront of regular conversation. Apparently, if white people aren't talking about racism in the break room at work or at the dinner table at home, then this is a form of racism. 

White Flight- when white people flee the city to move to the suburbs in order to get away from black people. 

White Guilt- When white people finally come to terms with their racism and its negative consequences. However, according to DiAngelo, this can also be confused with righting the wrongs of past racism, and thus become an excuse for not making any further progression. Just because someone has white guilt does not cleanse them of their inherent racism. 

White Saviors- Even when white people treat black people with love and respect, this is actually a form of racism because it proves that white people feel superior to black people. DiAngelo specifically mentioned the movie "The Blind Side" as being racist because it portrays a wealthy white family saving a poor young black man from his rough uprbringing. 

Racism- isn't really limited to individual acts of discrimination based on race. Racism is a system in which all whites are "invested". Therefore all white people are inherently racist, this is not even up for discussion. Racism is essentially an unforgiveable sin. And because racism is so "complex", "fluid" and "constantly evolving", literally anything that white people do could be considered racist at any given time. Hence, the racist Dr. Seuss books that literally nobody had a problem with until now. 

White Supremacy- has very little to do with groups like the KKK and almost everything to do with white influence and power in society. DiAngelo specifically mentioned that most of the richest people in the world are white, the majority of Congress is white, most judges are white, most CEO's are white, etc. This is the modern definition of white supremacy, which pretty much means that if a person is successful and white, by default they are white supremacists. 

    The proponents of CRT and Intersectionality aren't about equality, they want control. Everything that they preach is about destroying the system. This is why it makes perfect sense that even a beloved children's author like Dr. Seuss would be in their cross hairs. He was a wealthy, white male who wrote books that drew people of all races together. Dr. Seuss books are considered by many to be a sacred part of their childhood. But not anymore, now it's racist, and if you like his books, then that makes you a racist. And you're so blind about your racism that you didn't even notice it until someone pointed it out. 

    In conclusion, it's important to point out that the system that CRT and Intersectionality seeks to destroy is the American Capitalist system, the nuclear family, and the church. Every political revolution must have a religious system as an ally. CRT is the religion of Marxism. They deem Dr. Seuss' books racist because they want them to be (hence the Virgin Mary grilled cheese sandwich). But it won't stop at Dr. Seuss. If society thinks that his books are bad, can you imagine what they want to do with the Bible? CRT isn't a religion of grace, it's a religion of guilt, shame and penance. Right now they are making disciples and identifying heretics. I will save them some trouble and confess my heresy because I wholeheartedly reject CRT. It is a hellish religion. The truth is that I didn't have to read White Fragility in order to know that I have a depraved heart apart from Jesus Christ. But because of His atoning sacrifice on the Cross, my sin debt has been cancelled. That’s the only cancel culture that we should be concerned with. Christians, we need to anchor ourselves in the truth of God's Word and the Gospel because a storm is coming.  

 

    

      

What Should We Do With The Ravis' of the World?

 

    The results of a four month long investigation into the sexual misconduct of renowned author and apologist, Ravi Zacharias, just dropped yesterday, and it's bad (read the report here). There's no sugar coating it. There is no defending the indefensible. Apparently, Ravi was involved in sexual misconduct for at least a decade, possibly more. This misconduct included sexting, the solicitation of prostitutes using ministry funds, and at least a manipulative form of sexual assault, if not worse. The most disturbing thing to me personally was that sometimes before engaging in sexual acts he would pray with his partner/victim and thank God for the opportunity. 

     The direct damage done to the victims is immeasurable. However, there is also a ripple effect of indirect damage that will negatively impact countless others. When a person does something horrendous like this it's like they have pulled the pin on a hand grenade and held on until it has exploded. It kills them and the shrapnel blast does the most damage to those closest to that person and works it's way out. For someone as prominent as Ravi this includes a lot people. Those closest to the blast would have to be his family. Sadly, it appears that due to his extensive travel, Ravi was able to keep his behavior a secret from his family. They are finding this information out along with the rest of the world. With Ravi dying of cancer in May of last year there is no way for them to even confront him about any of this. I can't imagine the devastation that they are experiencing right now. We need to pray for them, along with the victims. 

     The blast then reaches out to his supporters, those countless millions who were impacted by his ministry. This secret sin has now put a question mark on every book that he ever wrote, every speech given, every debate, lecture, sermon, article, tweet, radio broadcast, TV appearance, etc. We are now questioning everything. 

    Lastly, the blast goes out to the enemies of Christ. They aren't close enough to feel the shrapnel, but they hear the blast. Many are no doubt rejoicing in their heart (and some publicly) about this great stain upon the name of Christ. However, any fair assessment of the situation must judge Christianity by its teachings and not its adherents. Ravi was clearly disobeying God's Word in order to do such heinous things. But this leads us to the question that everyone is asking, was Ravi a deceived Christian, or a deceiver of Christians? Let's take a moment to analyze each of these possibilities.    

A Deceived Christian

    To be clear, it is possible for a saved person to fall, and unfortunately fall hard. There are several illustrations of this in Scripture. The most notable one that comes to mind is King David. The Bible says that he was a man after God's own heart, yet he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband killed in order to cover it up. He had gotten so far away from the Lord that when the prophet Nathan told him a story about a rich shepherd stealing and killing the one sheep of a poor shepherd, he completely missed the fact that Nathan was talking about him. Nathan finally had to put a finger in his face and say "Thou art the man." David's broken and repentant response in Psalm 51 is the indicator a true child of God. 

    It is important to point out that a Christian can never lose their salvation. Anyone who believes that has a misunderstanding of the gospel. However, while a Christian can't lose their salvation, they can lose everything else. In David's case, he lost his firstborn son with Bathsheba. One of David's other sons, Absalom took his throne by force and tried to kill him. Even though Absalom would be killed and David restored to his throne, the sword never departed his house. And Ironically, his house would also experience sorrow of a sexual nature. One of David's other sons, Amnon, raped his half sister Tamar. The poetic part is that Ammon had tricked David into sending Tamar into his bedroom. David also never won a military battle after his adultery. The giant killer couldn't even get a victory over his own family, or his foreign foes. God promised to chasten his children (Hebrews 12:6), or as Charles Spurgeon said, "Christians can never sin cheaply." 

A Deceiver of Christians

    I John 2:19 warns believers about false converts, and even false teachers. It says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." The confusing thing about this situation with Ravi is that he never recanted the faith or taught rank heresy. If he had, this discussion would be over. How could a man with such a gift for teaching the Word live such a double life and never break his stride? In attempting to answer this question I need to bring up another fallen hero, Joshua Harris. Harris became famous with his 1997 book I Kissed Dating Goodbye. In this book he encouraged young people to use their singleness to honor the Lord and wait for God to bring them the right spouse. He also gave great encouragement and tips for purity and courting. I thought that the content of the book was amazing. I had even put it on a list of books that I want my children to read when they become a teenager. I also thought it was great that he got to write the sequel to that book, when he found and married the love of his life. That's why I was shocked when in 2018, he disavowed and discontinued both of those books. When I read that news I looked at my wife and said, "I bet that he is about to spiral." Sure enough, a year later he recanted his faith completely and divorced his wife. Since then he has been seen at countless gay pride events and the like. 

    Joshua Harris' picture can be found in I John 2:19, but what does all of this have to do with Ravi? When I heard the news about Harris, I literally couldn't believe it. I was so impressed with his books that I just couldn't believe that he was a phony. So, I began to do some research into his life. Come to find out, he grew up in a large, conservative Christian, church going, homeschooling family. He wrote I kissed Dating Goodbye while in his early 20's. My conclusion is that Harris was both a student and product of his environment, a very good one in fact. However, outward reform can never make up for a lack of inward regeneration. Eventually, what's really on the inside will find its way out. 

    Could it be that Ravi was just a great student of his environment, and a victim of his own genius? Truth be told, the ministry was very lucrative for him. Or, was he a born again believer who made heinous choices? After reading the report, I personally struggle with the idea that someone could truly be saved and live such a double life for so long with seemingly no repentance. However, I don't think that anyone has the knowledge or authority to make that call with 100% certainty. The fortunate thing is that God does know and we can be sure that He will judge accordingly. At worst he is in hell, and at best nobody can be sure that he is in Heaven. What a horrible way to leave this world. What horrible thoughts and doubts to leave in the mind of your family. So, what can we learn from this situation?  

Examine Yourself

     II Corinthians 13:5 commands us to, "Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" So many people base their salvation on something that they did way back when. They are putting their faith in a prayer, baptism, good works or being a church member. But what is your relationship with God doing for you today? If our conduct doesn't match our confession, then something is wrong. Repentance isn't a one and done, it's a lifestyle. Have you truly been born again by the Spirit of God? Have you truly repented and put your faith in Jesus Christ to save you from the penalty and power of your sin? 

Don't Surround Yourself With "Yes" Men

    Allegations of sexual misconduct first came out in 2017 when Ravi was caught with pictures of a naked woman on his phone. He simply explained it away and nothing was ever done about it. Since that time, at least three victims came out against him, once again the situation was ignored. RZIM, Ravi's ministry organization, is complicit in every bit of this. They refused to hold their leader accountable because they thought that he could do no wrong. Either that, or at least some of them knew about his escapades and didn't have the guts to do anything about it. If RZIM has any decency they will dissolve and give their remaining funds to a ministry that still has some credibility. 

    Every Christian needs to belong to a local, Bible preaching church and be subject to its leaders. Every ministry needs to be out of a local church, operating under its umbrella. This is Biblical and it provides a big fat word that we don't use anymore, ACCOUNTABILITY. A church worth its salt would have nipped everything in the bud years ago. They would have disciplined and/or exposed Ravi. Someone that's too big for a local church is too big for their britches. No ministry organization or board of trustees can make up for a lack of accountability to the church. Surround yourself with people who love you enough to tell you the truth. 

If It Doesn't Look Innocent, Chances Are that It's Not

    Ravi struggled with chronic back pain. As a result he frequented massage therapists all over the world. In fact, he even owned a few massage parlors in Atlanta. My wife also struggles with chronic pain in her head, neck and back. Some nights I have to rub her back and neck with medicated lotion before she can even go to sleep, so I can sympathize. However, I can't understand a man, especially in the ministry that can go into a room alone with another woman, get naked (except for a towel) and let her rub him down. Sometimes Ravi would even have the therapist come alone to his hotel room. I'm not a smart man but I know what the term "compromising situation" means. This of course escalated into what we are reading about in the news today. He ended up paying rent and cash to some of his therapists in exchange for sex, using ministry funds to do so. Not to mention taking advantage of other therapists who wanted no part of it. He was able to do all of this in plain sight under the ruse of back pain that called for massage therapy. Anyone who thought it strange would have given him a pass due to the circumstances. But I am reminded of, "Abstain from all appearance of evil" I Thessalonians 5:22

Keep Your Priorities Straight

    It's no secret that Ravi was a sought after speaker. He had an insane travel schedule for most of his life, taking him all over the world. Much of that time his family was not with him. Personally, I am always leery of traveling evangelists that are never seen with their wife or children. More than once I have seen such men fall. As a full time Pastor, let me drop a bombshell, ministry isn't that important and neither are you. Tis a fool who attempts to save the whole world and lose his own family. Of course ministry is demanding. It takes work. But we have to be balanced. My kids know a lot of preachers, pastors and missionaries, but they only know one dad, that's me. The same is true of me being a husband to my wife. If my marriage fails, so does my ministry. Keep the home fires burning. 

Conclusion 

    In the end, situations like this are a real head scratcher. I don't have all of the answers and I don't know anyone that does. It's tragic, there is no way around that. No one wins in a situation like this. But it should serve as a wake up call that none of us are immune to such failure. So, what should we do with the Ravis' of the world? Make sure that we aren't one of them.