I normally post things on here and share them on Facebook, but today I’m going backwards (though I’m tossing more small content on my Facebook fan page – Lyndon “Mennoknight” Unger.  It’s easy for quick thoughts and rants…).  Here’s my Facebook post:

In these days you need to be increasingly on your guard against deceit and distraction.  I’ve seen a story circulating that reports about a homosexual man who’s apparently suing Zondervan and Thomas Nelson for $70 million dollars because of mental anguish (among other things) that is the direct result of certain bible translations.

The stories that are linked are some of the following examples:

http://dailyheadlines.net/2015/07/gay-man-files-70m-suit-against-bible-publishers-over-homosexual-verses/

The “read more” link goes here:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-man-files-70m-suit-against-bible-publishers-over-homosexual-verses-33219

Did you notice the problem?

That article is from 2008.

It’s seven years old.

Seven.

The case has already gone through the courts and been tossed out, years ago.

Here’s some other links that are spreading around:

http://www.wnd.com/2009/09/109356/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-07-09-gay-bible_N.htm

http://conservativepost.com/gay-man-sues-the-bible-chaos-will-surely-ensue

They all have the same six-seven year-old date.

That’s a problem.

Christian, in these days remember:

1.  Check the dates on articles and information.

2.  Follow the links and check out the facts (as best you can).

3.  People on the internet lie ALL THE TIME.

4.  Don’t pass on articles that lack credibility.

Christians who buy such obvious deceit look REALLY stupid and it bring shame on Christ, the Church and the Gospel when we’re all running around like chickens with our heads chopped off.  90% of the things that you read on the internet are nowhere NEAR the threat we make them out to be…if true at all.

The sky is almost certainly not falling.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Mennoknight” Unger

1.  Here’s my long-awaited health update:

I finally got the results from my blood work, and I’m officially free of any trace of Hepatitis C.

Praise the Lord!

“ The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.” – Ps. 145:9

I apologize to those of you who have been waiting for updates, but the last two months has been a tsunami of waiting.  Being seriously ill is often just lying around, feeling miserable, and waiting for news about the current state of affairs or what’s coming in the future.

I also wanted to thank my family, friends, readers and supporters for several things:

–  I want to thank everyone for all the thousands upon thousands of faithful and effective prayers over the last few years.  I am still with my wife and children because the Lord has answered many prayers.  My wife has survived two years of essentially being a single parent.  My kids are still happy, and healthy, and I have one more child than when this all began.  Through this all, the Lord has sustained us amazingly!

–  I want to thank everyone for all the overflowing and exceedingly gracious financial and in-home support we’ve received from all over.

I want to thank all our local friends and coworkers who supported us with groceries and financial assistance when things were tough, and money was tight while I wasn’t able to work.

I want to thank all our long-distance friends and supporters who supported us with financial assistance when things were tough, and money was tight while I wasn’t able to work.

I want to thank all those who gave to the fundraising campaign to raise money for medical expenses, and I especially want to thank Jacey Dean who spear-headed the campaign.  That was a dark time, and many people thought I had a month or two to live, but the Lord brought us hope and help through everyone who rallied around us at that point.

I want to thank all the people from various churches in the area, and even outside of our city and province and country, for helping us with all the in-house help, yard work, meals, car-care, babysitting, financial assistance, etc.

It’s been a hard road at times, with me not being able to work and being in rough shape at times, but the Lord used all of you at just the right time to keep us going.

–  I want to thank everyone for all your graciousness in bearing with me when I wasn’t good at keeping in touch or when I wasn’t terribly social.  There were months on end where I had lost my mind, wasn’t eating, wasn’t sleeping, and was just hanging on day by day.  I’m sure I may have snubbed or been thoughtless to more than a few of you, but I don’t remember (and actually do blame it on drugs) and you all bore with me in my illness and craziness.

2.  Here’s a second piece of related news:

Now, as these 2+ years of fighting for my life are coming to a close, I’m moving on to something new, but I don’t yet know what it is.  My search for ministry work has (as of yet) been unfruitful, but I am off my long-term disability in a matter of weeks.  This means that I’m either going to go back to my Bible-College job or find some other secular work.  I’m hunting for a grown-up job right now and need to find something in Western Canada soon.

For this, my whole family still covets your prayers and asks that you remember us in this rapid transition time.

3.  One last thing:

It’s been a hard past 2+ years, and our family has taken a beating.  I’ve made myself busy with writing and getting a miniscule amount of online recognition, but now that too is changing (for the foreseeable future).  I need to find work and repair some of the stress fractures that my family has developed over the last 2+ years; my family has had a hard go of things and needs my attention now.  For that reason, I’m going to be pulling back from both this blog, the Cripplegate, and a good amount of my social media.

I’ve already made the switch to just tossing a few things on my Facebook Fan Page.  Feel free to subscribe there and give it a ‘like’.  That will likely become my main outlet for the next little while; I’ll maybe do some micro-blogging here and there (200-400-word posts, maybe once or twice a week).

I’d appreciate your prayers for my wife and kids as I try to pick up the slack and cultivate better care, communication, instruction and example for them all.

Until Next Time (whenever that is),

Lyndon “I’ve been HEALED!” Unger

It’s 2 am, and I cannot sleep, so I’ll toss up some thoughts about a passage that has been on my mind: Leviticus 18.  Now these days, people tend to think that verse 22 is the only verse in the passage, but I’ve been actually thinking of the broader chapter.  Allow me to outline it briefly to illustrate why it’s been troubling me:

Lev. 18:1-3 opens up with a command: “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not walk in their statutes” (18:3).

The idea here is that Israel is in between geographic locations (in a transitional stage).  God is about to bring them into a new one where they’re not to live according to the code of conduct that they knew or that they’re going to encounter.

Lev. 18:4-5 then transitions to a new command: “You shall follow my rules and keep my statutes and walk in them. I am the Lord your God” (18:5).

Israel is going to get a new code of conduct, direct from Yahweh, and it’s a matter of life and death (18:5).

Lev. 18:6-23 contains a code of conduct that is sexual in nature; it opens with uncovering a family member’s nakedness and closes with bestial relations.

It’s essentially a downward spiral of wicked behaviour.  The majority of the section contains prohibitions about uncovering nakedness (18:6-19) and then accelerates rapidly into prohibiting adultery (18:20), the murder of children (18:21), homosexuality (18:22), and finally bestiality (18:23).  Given the light of the past 75 years or so, that progression seems like a step-by-step description of what has (so far) been the downward spiral experienced by Canada and the US.

Yikes.

Then, the chapter closes off with a rather chilling warning that expands on the warning given in 18:5.  Here’s the passage in its entirety:

²⁴ “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, ²⁵ and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. ²⁶ But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you ²⁷ (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), ²⁸ lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. ²⁹ For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. ³⁰ So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.”

Now, consider what is said:

18:24 says that “by all these” the nations in Canaan have become unclean, but 18:25 also says that the land became unclean.

What was the result of that?

18:25 says that the result was the Lord punishing the land (not the people) and the land vomiting out the people who lived on it.  That’s a rather graphic and disgusting image.  The people who lived in Canaan were so wicked that the land itself couldn’t stand their ‘moral flavor’ and so it vomited those people out.

Following that, there’s a warning within the warning.  18:26-28 warns Israel to keep the Lords commands and not perform the wicked sexual acts of the nations that came before them.  The reason for that warning is given in 18:28: “lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you.

Call me crazy, but that seems like universal language.  18:29 seems to talk in universal language too: “For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people.“

18:28-29 don’t contain an unconditional promise as much as it is it is a universal principle.  Remember that Canaan didn’t have the law of God before; this whole passage is recorded in the law that God was in the process of delivering to Israel.  The Canaanites had God’s moral law written on their hearts, in the rough form of their consciences, but those conscience had been turned to scar tissue long ago.  Since they weren’t going to clean up their practice, the land was going to have to clean up their presence.

18:30 then gives the logical conclusion to this whole passage: Don’t do these things.  God also seals the deal with the phrase: “I am the Lord your God.”  In other words, you Israelites are getting a little special insight into these matters from the one person who knows what’s really going on in Canaan.

I think you now may understand why this section of Scripture has been on my mind.  There’re two common ideas in North America:

1.  God will forgive anything because he’s loving at the expense of all his other attributes combined.

2.  God has a special relationship with America.

Given what Leviticus 18 says, even if both were true (and they’re not), it wouldn’t matter.  The whole equation in Leviticus 18 is that sexually immoral practice defiles the land, and the land will take action on behalf of God, regardless of who’s living on it.  Even though Israel was God’s chosen people, when it comes to the practices listed in Leviticus 18, Israel and Canaan were identical; the land was no respecter of persons.

Now for clarity, I’m not saying that the land is somehow actually conscious or physically dishing out justice on its own in some utterly ridiculous way.

The whole passage is a metaphor illustrating the sheer depth of moral confusion associated with these sins. What that means is that people who perform these actions are, morally speaking, dumber than dirt…but there’s also something else.  When any nation sinks to the level of the practices of Canaan, God delivers mass judgment in the form of some sort of national punishment using the land.

I could get into all the various things that such a curse would look like (i.e. famine, disease, etc.) but that’s a whole other post in and of itself.

But consider this: both Canada and the US are one step away from the bottom of that list.  Once either nation descends the final rung on the ladder, all bets are off.  I don’t know what’s going to happen, but looking at what eventually happened to Canaan and Israel, I’d say it’s going to be a “mass graves” kind of bad.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Now I’ll Never Get To Sleep!” Unger

If you’ve been wondering where I was, your search is over.

I haven’t been blogging much in the last while.  Well, I haven’t been blogging here much.  I have written some original material over at the Cripplegate though, so I’ll simply send my readers over there to see what I’ve been doing.

1. Back on July 30, I wrote a response to Joel McDurmon’s response to John MacArthur’s response to the Supreme Court’s response to the Gay Marriage legislation in the United States.  I don’t know if it’s been responded two, but given the amount of responding that’s being responded to, I’m sure someone else will respond to me.  Eventually.  In a meme that makes fun of Dispensationalism.

2.  Back on August 6th, I wrote an article dealing with some of the biblical issues surrounding abortion.  Specifically, I wrote about what happens to nations that massacre their young.  It was a difficult to write article, but it was the fruit of a lot of study.  The conclusion was difficult to escape, and I’ll eventually post a larger and more comprehensive version of it on here.

3.  Today on August 13th, I wrote an article that has answered the burning theological questions that I collected on Facebook.  The winning one was about cat videos and eschatology.  Seeing that I was letting out my goofiness, there are multiple jokes on that post that nobody but my wife will ever get…but that’s okay.  I write most of my humor for the reward of smooches and I only get smooches from one person.  Several bushels of smooches if I’m doing well.

And now, this update is over.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Up with sick toddlers” Unger

P.S. – Here’s my son’s new favorite song.  Our Bible/Theology geekness is almost embarrassing, but there’s something hilariously cute about a 3-year-old singing in Hebrew.  His sister loves dancing to the funk part.  Definitely her Mennonite blood coming out.

Over on the Cripplegate, I recently addressed several thorny theological questions.  One was the question of what’s known as “the predator prey problem” in Creation Science.  In a nutshell, the problem arises when one speculates how in the world animals that appear to be engineered for predation were not originally predators.

In other words, how were venomous snakes part of God’s “very good” creation when their fangs and venom glands appear specifically made for hunting other organisms.  What purpose would venom have had before the fall?  What purpose would fangs have had before the fall?

Due to the predator prey problem, some people have found an old earth/theistic evolution paradigm far easier to believe than a young earth/biblical creation paradigm.

Admittedly, it’s a difficult problem.  It’s not difficult because there aren’t answers, but rather that the answers are inaccessible to everyone since the only way to answer the question would be to somehow see what creation was like before the fall.  The Bible doesn’t give people a whole lot of information about the world before the fall, so the question is shrouded in a colossal amount of rather annoying mystery.

In the comment thread, I interacted with a good brother who was wondering why venomous snakes before the fall was a problem.  I wrote a long enough answer that I wanted to save it for posterity…and also share it as a post unto itself.  For those who think about such things, here’s what I said to him:

So, at the “convenient” time when the US legalized same-sex marriage across all 50 states, two Mennonite Church USA schools were prepped and ready to flee biblical fidelity.

The US supreme court ruled in favor of Obergefell v. Hodges on June 26, 2015.  Eastern Mennonite University released there newly revised “Non-Discrimination Statement” on July 16, 2015, and Goshen College released theirs two days later.

What does that mean now?

For starters, both schools are open to all forms of sexual behavior that deviates from the Biblical standard, in both students and faculty.  Well, that’s not officially true.  Both schools are still expecting their students and faculty who are sexually active to jump through the arbitrary hoop of being “married” (which makes absolutely no sense at all)…but as if the leadership of either school is policing anyone’s bedrooms.

If a student is sleeping around on campus (and it’s even public knowledge), I already know that Goshen turns a blind eye (and has done so for decades, even when members of the faculty were raping students).  That’s part of why they have rape information on their campus website that basically includes “six signs to know if you’re a rapist” (in case you’re unsure). Their stalwart commitment to Christ is also why they have the “getting drunk and sleeping around ‘can lead to a disintegration of trust and deep emotional scars’ ” article on their campus page too.  So when you find yourself wondering “WHERE are all these deep emotional scars coming from?” you’ll finally be able to figure it out that it has something to do with constantly waking up naked in someone else’s dorm room.

Remember.  Those schools are “Christ-Centered.”

Both schools announced their changes in direct and open opposition to the official position of the Mennonite Church USA on marriage and sexuality.

The MCUSA says:

“We believe that God intends marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman for life. Christian marriage is a mutual relationship in Christ, a covenant made in the context of the church. According to Scripture, right sexual union takes place only within the marriage relationship. Marriage is meant for sexual intimacy, companionship, and the birth and nurture of children.”

I’m sure some people will find that unclear, but that’s not the problem.  The real problem is that a large number in the MCUSA already ignore it (and have been for some time now).  So what if the denomination has a policy that some churches (and all their schools) don’t like?  They’re the Mennonite Church USA.  What in the world is the denomination gonna do?  Take a stand on something at the risk of causing someone (who already openly hates them) to possibly have their feelings hurt?

That wouldn’t be Christlike.  He always cuddled sinners and turned their hurts into halos, right?

RIGHT?

Not only are both schools thumbing their collective noses at the denomination that they’re supposed to submit to, but both schools changed their “non-discrimination statement” in complete and total opposition to the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities.

The CCCU claims that they are “voluntary association of colleges and universities whose missions are rooted in the historic Christian faith and are informed by deeply held Christian thought, belief and practice.”

Remember: both EMU and Goshen claim to be “Christ Centered”.

Hmm.  I wonder what he’d say about that?

Well, something along those lines.

So what’s the moral of the story?

1. STOP supporting Goshen and EMU financially.

Every single Christian college I’ve ever been a part of lies through their teeth to donors and attempts to convince the donors that the school is in a wildly different theological position than is reality.  Schools want to old conservative donors (who write six and seven-figure cheques) to think they schools are conservative and still teaching the Bible.

They’re not.

Not only that, but they’re taking the donor’s money and bad-mouthing those donors behind closed doors.  I’ve heard it myself more than once.

Second,

1. Don’t EVER send your kids to EMU or Goshen.

Well, unless you hate your children and want to spiritually destroy them.

If that’s the case, skip the middleman and feed them directly to Molech.

It’s time for both schools to burn to the ground.

The sooner, the better.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “I’m afraid I really understated the last two points” Unger

I recently learned about Torben Søndergaard.

He’s an evangelist and faith healer from Denmark who is quite the public prophet, faith healer, and “global evangelist”.  He runs an organization called The Last Reformation, and he’s not exactly subtle: he claims to be part of the next Protestant Reformation (otherwise known as the New Apostolic Reformation).  His about page tells the story of how he came to be a Christian, didn’t see “fruit” in his Christian life (“fruit” meaning “miraculous healings”),  and then became a full-blown faith healer and prophet who writes books by divine revelation (which would be delivering written revelation, otherwise known as “writing scripture”).

You may not have heard of him yet, but he’s definitely getting around and building steam.  He’s popping up in Singapore, Poland, England, Australia, Holland, Turkey, South Africa, Los Angeles, etc.  All those listed countries were places where he has been in the past year alone.   Just a few weeks ago he was leading a faith healing seminary right in my own backyard.

Some people may want to dismiss him as being “the fringe”, but he’s becoming a B-list charismatic celebrity, at least according to some.   He’s clearly busy and doing this full time.  He’s writing books and traveling the world.  Even though his videos are videos of healing “on the street”, he travels because he’s invited to teach on faith healing and assorted charismatic theology in churches on every continent.  In other words, Torben Søndergaard is not that fringe.  Torben is also a fantastic example of a dangerously wide-spread type of false teacher: the guys who offer “gospel plus”.

What is “gospel plus?” 

You’ve likely heard about false gospels that subtract from the gospel.  For example, there are false gospels where a person doesn’t have to believe in core doctrines like the trinity (which usually manifests in disbelief that Jesus was the Yahweh, the God of the Jews, incarnate).  Those are easier false gospels to spot since they leave obvious things out, but false teachers who proclaim a”gospel plus” message are a little more difficult.  A “gospel plus” message is any gospel message that adds to the gospel.  In other words, if you hear a gospel message that doesn’t leave anything out but then includes unnecessary theology or requirements, you’re hearing a “gospel plus” message.

To put it even more simply, if someone is “giving the gospel” and the message they preach includes marks of “true saving faith” involving conduct, diet or dress code, you’re hearing a “gospel plus” message.

Now, I’m guessing you think you’re pretty savvy and wouldn’t get hoodwinked by something like a “gospel plus” message…right?  The fact that Torben Søndergaard has a successful ministry in Denmark suggests otherwise.  Let’s look at an example and you see if you can spot it.

This is a 30-minute episode of their web show.  IF you have time, watch it and see if you can find where it goes from “gospel” to “gospel plus”:

If you need help, I’ll break it down for you:

The show starts off introducing us to a woman named Liz.  Liz is from Scotland, an-ex Reiki Healer (if you don’t know what Reiki is, look here), and has been baptized by the Holy Spirit and has repented from her sins.

At around 1:15 she states that she’s been a Christian for around two weeks.  She says that she saw Torben Søndergaard (and his Last Reformation associates) healing people on the street.  The video then shows some clips.

At around 2:40 she says that she watched the previously displayed videos and couldn’t understand why Torben Søndergaard and his associates had more success than she did with her Reiki.

After that, she had some mix ups with her Reiki business and then God “told her” to go to Denmark and see Torben Søndergaard.

Then, around 5:50 Torben Søndergaard starts going on with a fairly long gospel presentation.  He starts off with some sort of strange form of Arminianism where God is unable to save certain people because of “the rules” (but doesn’t explain who the power is behind God, making rules for him to follow and binding his hands).  Ignoring the first 2 minutes absurd theological confusion that seems to be a strange Arminian/Molinist confusion goulash, we go on.

At around 8:20, Torben Søndergaard gives what is a fairly decent beginning to a gospel presentation.  His talk about sin with the whole of the cups turned upside down, people comparing themselves to each other, and Jesus being the cup turned upright (at 15:40), is a good presentation idea that I may steal.  It’s simple and visually punchy.

Then, at 16:10, things start getting interesting.  Jesus apparently received the indwelling Holy Spirit at his baptism (in contradiction to what God overtly revealed about Christ’s baptism, and the descent of the Spirit, to and through John the Baptist in John 1:29-34).  We’ll chalk this up to him simply not having any serious theological training and move on.

In 16:55, Torben finishes up the  “gospel” component of his talk.  He gets the repentance and law/gospel distinctions right, which is good.  At 17:29, he even mentions the removal of the heart of stone and the insertion of the heart of flesh (which is great).  Then he gets into the “gospel plus” component and things move from interesting to bizarre.

But, at 17:35 he says that the “heart of flesh” is a conscience.  He continues saying a bunch of confusing stuff about the conscience.  He recognizes the fact that unbelievers have a conscience (ala Rom. 2:15), but at 19:17 he says that believers get a new conscience at conversion (?!?).   He proves his point with a story about how he couldn’t watch some horrible movie after he was saved.  In case you think I’m needlessly picky, that’s not nearly the worst of it.

Then, at 20:10 he says “the light is inside, but the body is dead”, meaning that after a person repents of their sins and believes the gospel, they’re still spiritually dead.  The cup is still turned over (carrying on the metaphor he’s been using for 12+ minutes) and he says that we have to bury the dead body.  At 21:00 he explains that baptism is two things: (1) the burial of the dead body with Christ and (2) getting the Holy Spirit.  Not only do people apparently get the Holy Spirit at water baptism, but also at 21:45 he says that the proof of the filling is when the Holy Spirit overflows through the mouth of believers through speaking in tongues.  In other words, speaking in tongues is the proof of a successful water baptism and proof of salvation (assuming that the baptism of the Spirit is what brings the dead sinner to life, continuing what is a confusing metaphor with the cups: the cup is turned over only after the baptism).

At 23:35, we then see Liz’s baptism. Torben says, at 24:15, that they’re planning on baptizing Liz and delivering her from demons.  Then, at 25:00 they start commanding the “Spirit of Reiki Healing” to come out.  Over the next two minutes, Torben keeps shouting “freedom” and “come out” and blabbering in ecstatic speech.  Liz groans and writhes and at 26:20 Torben starts commanding Liz to speak in tongues, which she does after a little prompting.

From around 27:00-27:30 she talks about what it felt like to get baptized with the Holy Spirit, and then at around 27:40, she immediately goes out with the Last Reformation crew and starts healing people.  At around 29:00 we see Liz perform her first healing (of a sore ankle by a kid who’s visibly unsure what’s going on).

At 29:50 we see her interpreting her experience: the “sore ankle” healing is what brings her the assurance her salvation.

Ouch.

At 30:08 she tells the viewers what she wants them to know:

“For you out there, I just want to say to you that God is real, that he wants to be in your life, he doesn’t want you to suffer, he just wants you to be happy, and not have any stress in your life.  He wants you to, um, trust him and believe in him that he’s going to take care of you, that he always has done.  He’s already taken away your sin; paid the price of your sin.  And now, we have to make a step towards Jesus, like he’s made that step towards us, but, he’s taken away our sin.  We take one step towards Jesus, he’s going to come, and if we ask for forgiveness for sins, and, um, like all the Reiki Healers and everybody that’s into ‘New Age’, um, crystal healing, um, anything to do with spirituality; they’re being deceived.  It’s not real.  It’s other entities: you don’t know who’s coming through you, you don’t know who’s guiding you, you’re asking for beings to come in, but, do you know who they are?  I do know.   The proof is, once you’ve had the Holy Spirit, you, you feel renewed and reborn, and, just know that God is going to be there for you and guide you.

So looking at the confusion that Torben lays out for poor old Liz, looking at what he actually does with her, and looking at what she says about it all, it’s pretty clear that the gospel isn’t a propositional message about sin, righteousness and the judgment to come (i.e. Acts 24:25).  Reading her summation of the gospel, it becomes pretty clear that she doesn’t understand the whole component about her sin, the death of Christ, or how either one relates to God (in other words, the main propositional component of the gospel message).  She summarizes the gospel along the lines of “God wants you to be happy and stress-free, know that he’s taking care of you same as always, has removed your sin and now you need forgiveness for the sin…that he’s already removed…so that he can guide you…which he wasn’t doing if you were into “New Age” stuff…”

I’m sad for how this woman has gone from one deception to another.

The defenders of Torben will say that he did give her the gospel; the full gospel.  This is part of the reason why “gospel plus” is harder to spot.  If a person preaches rightly about sin, righteousness, the judgment to come, the person and work of Christ, etc. and then adds “speaking in tongues” to that (or anything else), they’re not preaching the gospel because they’re not preaching the same message as the Scripture.  As you can see from the video, the “plus” part of the “gospel plus” message is always where the false teachers focus and the “gospel” part is there, mostly to deflect criticism.

That’s a perfect example of the false gospel of “gospel plus” and why it’s so dangerous.

Also, that’s a good reason why people should have nothing to do with Torben Søndergaard.  Consider yourself warned about a spiritual fraud: listening to him may well endanger your soul for eternity.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “evaluating public information about a public individual” Unger

P.S. There was recently a post on his Facebook Wall about his recent trip to Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  The post announced one of his many amazing healings.  It read:

One who was healed was a lady who had walked with crutches for three months after having broken her leg. Now she could walk and bend her leg for the first time in 3 months.

Yup.  Woman walked on crutches for 3 months after breaking her leg.  Then, at the end of three months, she went to a faith healer and was miraculously healed.

Hmmm.

How do I express my thoughts?

***Update at the bottom***

I honestly, sincerely wish I could move on from the topic of the Charismatic Movement, but it just keeps on coming up.  It’s been almost two years since the Strange Fire conference, and it seemed like all the parties involved got their shots in.

The Cessationists made their reasonable appeals, made a lot of unreasonable rants, published their stuff, wrote their responses, etc.

The Continuationists basically cried about division and broad brushes.

The Pentecostals basically cried about division and broad brushes.

The Charismatics basically cried about division and broad brushes.

Charisma Magazine kept on doing everything possibly in their power to provide an endless tsunami of amazing examples as to why the Strange Fire Conference was necessary (and possibly understated things: every single word in that statement links to a separate mind-numbing article, just for a few dozen examples)

There has been biblical proportions of ink spilled on the topic and I’ve been involved in a small percentage of said spillage.  In fact, I got started blogging more seriously when Dr. Michael Brown started laying salvos against the conference, before the conference.  We interacted quite a bit and then yesterday, I saw this:

And I was wondering “what does that mean?”

I mean, as much as I don’t care for talking about Dr. Benny Hinn, Dr. Brown did spend four days as a guest on Benny Hinn’s show.  He did claim that he theologically checked out Benny Hinn and couldn’t find anything overtly wrong whatsoever with Hinn’s theology or practice.  That in and of itself made a whole lot of people wonder what in the world was going on, since most people can find something questionable after a few minutes on Hinn’s own website (let alone Youtube).  Many folks aired on the side of assuming it wasn’t what it looked like where as others saw it as Brown talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Either way, it looked pretty bad to a whole lot of people.

Well, not Dr. Brown.  He apparently couldn’t understand why people would be opposed to his presence on Benny Hinn’s show when John MacArthur had (hypocritically) been on Ray Comfort’s show (as both were aired on TBN, Brown saw this as a double standard).

After watching Brown for a while, I’m actually wondering what would look bad to him.

For example, Phil Johnson posted this link and asked for response from Brown:

In the ongoing and rather lengthy thread that followed, Dr. Brown wouldn’t say anything negative about the comments in the linked video.  Jenn Johnson said, repeatedly, that the Holy Spirit is “like the Genie from Aladdin” since he’s blue (as in the color), funny, sneaky and silly…among other things.

Why is it so hard to say “That’s absurd!” and toss the video aside?

Instead, he first dismissed himself from commenting since he had blocked Phil Johnson’s account (which some might see that as ironic, given that Brown complains that MacArthur has not responded to his requests for a meeting).

Then, after multiple people linked the video, he chastised commentators for dropping the word “heresy” or “false teacher.”  Apparently, calling Jenn Johnson a “false teacher” or “heretic” means that she’s irreversibly going to Hell (which someone should never say in Brown’s paradigm, seeing that he’s an outspoken Arminian and nobody is ever irreversibly damned – for those that are interested, I address this topic directly on point 8 here).

Consider this interaction:

Or this one:

Or this one:

But there was nothing except a hanging question that is never directly answered:

But then there’s the original claim itself.

Surely he must remember the dialogue he’s had, like the interactions that we’ve had together online, or the one that is documented here and easily available:

Surely he must remember all the debates that he’s had like this one:

Or this one:

But I wonder if the only Cessationist that matters to Dr. Brown is John MacArthur?

He feels ignored by John MacArthur and is upset at what he feels is some form of injustice.

I guess I can sympathize now, since when I attempted to respond to a tweet he sent to me, I saw this.

I would suggest that being blocked by Michael Brown after he complains that John MacArthur isn’t heeding his calls for debate may be considered ironic.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Firony? It’s like Foldy or Fronzy!” Unger

***Update – Dr. Brown has reached out to me and taken some positive steps at clarifying confusions. I will write an update as time permits in the next few days, but am currently preparing for a trip. I’m happy to bring any sort of dialogue to this issue and will attempt to do so.***

I promised to update the previous post, but life is running at mach 1 right now.

I’ll do my best to update quickly now as I providentially have around two spare hours in my day, but this will pretty much be a frantic rant.  Dr. Brown has reached out to me for dialogue and unblocked me on Twitter.  Regardless of disagreements, that’s commendable.  I have had some interaction with him privately, and that’s still ongoing.

I will say that Dr. Brown claims that he was given the impression that Phil Johnson was the person to contact in order to arrange a dialogue with John MacArthur (that’s a fairly public claim, so I don’t believe I’m revealing private correspondence).  Phil has responded to Brown’s claims today with this updated article, claiming otherwise.  Phil has provided some rather straightforward comments, where as I haven’t seen anything of corresponding clarity from Dr. Brown.  He may have responded in kind, but I haven’t seen it.

I’m in no place to comment, seeing that I don’t have the necessary information to have an opinion beyond what I’ve already insinuated:  Phil appears to address these things candidly and with straightforwardness, which makes him look more credible…

…but that situation is not really what has frustrated me with this all.

A good number of people who have been watching from the sidelines (from both sides) are trumpeting judgments, as they have always done.  Around 90% of those people are the same people that like to air their opinions on everything, and their opinions are basically weightless.  They’re not thinking clearly or carefully, haven’t done nearly adequate biblical research to have an opinion with the level of vocal conviction that they profess, and they don’t really care about being careful or accurate.  For them, this whole issue was settled when they discovered that John MacArthur was a CALVINIST, or when Michael Brown went on Benny Hinn’s show.  There’s a time for thinking and a time for action, and they don’t think this is a time for thinking.

They what I’d call the social media lynch mob; they come out of the woodwork by the boatload, regardless of the issue.  I ignore them and hope that Michael Brown will stop giving credence to the opinions of people who clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.  I think part of this whole problem is the mental/spiritual consequences of constantly being online and facing the attacks of hordes of fools.

But even that is not what has frustrated me the most.

The thing that has really bothered me is the people who come from Cessationist circles, with right theology on paper, who have acted like pygmies with a PlayStation when it comes to applying their right theology in public discourse.

It’s come to my attention that Dr. Brown has been subjected to memes and generally direct insults as a result of this whole interaction…and that by people who should most certainly know better.  I’ve responded to this sort of behavior in the past, but now I’m going to take matters up a notch.

If you have a biblically-informed understanding Cessationism and Calvinism and are yet confused about the right use of the tongue in common conversation, you’re less mature in the Lord than you like to tell yourself.

That’s right.

You’re apparently unaware of the meaning and application of passages like:

“O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent?
    Who shall dwell on your holy hill?
He who walks blamelessly and does what is right
    and speaks truth in his heart;
 who does not slander with his tongue
    and does no evil to his neighbor,
    nor takes up a reproach against his friend;” – Ps. 15:1-3

“There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
    and one who sows discord among brothers.” – Prov. 6:16-19

“With his mouth the godless man would destroy his neighbor, but by knowledge the righteous are delivered.” – Prov. 11:9

“There is one whose rash words are like sword thrusts, but the tongue of the wise brings healing.” – Prov. 12:18

“The heart of the righteous ponders how to answer, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil things.” – Prov 15:28

“An oracle is on the lips of a king; his mouth does not sin in judgment.” – Prov. 16:10

“A man of crooked heart does not discover good, and one with a dishonest tongue falls into calamity.” – Prov. 17:20

“Whoever keeps his mouth and his tongue keeps himself out of trouble.” – Prov. 21:23

“Walk in wisdom toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person.” – Col. 4:5-6.

“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless.” – James 1:26

“Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.  For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.  If we put bits into the mouths of horses so that they obey us, we guide their whole bodies as well.  Look at the ships also: though they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs.  So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great things.

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire!  And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell.  For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind,  but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God.  From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.  Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water?  Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.” – James 3:1-12

Those are some serious passages with serious warnings and repercussions.  For example, James 1:26 suggests that if your mouth is habitually shooting off, the act of that shooting off bears testimony to the fact that your profession of faith is fraudulent.

Yikes.  That’s not even commentary on what you say, but simply commentary on regularly giving unfiltered vent to whatever you’re thinking.

Beyond that, I’ve heard some people justify mocking on the basis of 1 Kings 18:27.  It’s quite ironic for Cessationists to justify contemporary behavior on the basis that it was performed by a prophet.  Beyond that, I cannot mock without crossing the line into sinning with my mouth.  If you think you can, you’re either amazing or a wildly deceived about yourself.

Guess which one I’m betting on?

Now am I a hypocrite in these matters, judging by a standard that I have inconsistently and self-servingly applied to myself?

Without a doubt.  I don’t see that in myself, but I’d be a fool to think I’m sinless in this regard.

I’ve tried to let objective facts speak for themselves (with some choice pictures and a few tongue-in-cheek comments along the way).

I’ve tried to not call names, ever.

For the record, saying that someone has lied (or misrepresented) about a specific incident is not saying that the person is a habitual or unrepentant liar.

Saying that someone hasn’t adequately researched a topic is not saying that they’re generally incompetent as a scholar.

I’ve tried to do my research into whatever matters I’m addressing, knowing full well that nobody reads the copious links and documentation I provide to establish a point.

Does my hypocrisy somehow impugn the biblical standard?

No.  My inability to keep the biblical standard doesn’t compromise the integrity of the biblical standard.  It only shows that I’m not the righteous man I wish I was.  I need Christ to be righteous and fail to be righteous continually, just like everyone else.

I’ve been told by Charismatics that I’m unsaved, a workman of Satan, deceived and deceiving others, a possessor of a conscience that is malfunctioning, working for the Antichrist, committing the unforgivable sin in being a Cessationist, etc.  I’m not surprised by that sort of vitriolic/ignorant mockery coming from people whose life verse is 3 John 2 or Mark 11:24.  I’m sad for those people and I pity them, knowing that they’ve been deceived by the shallow/false teachers whom those people lack the biblical acumen to properly evaluate as false teachers.

But to my fellow Cessationists who acting in that same manner and yet are exposed to far greater quality theology, teaching and biblical exegesis, I say this:

If you don’t obey Christ’s commands…

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” – Eph. 4:29-32

“So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” – 2 Tim. 2:22-26

“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. For

‘Whoever desires to love life
    and see good days,
let him keep his tongue from evil
    and his lips from speaking deceit;
let him turn away from evil and do good;
    let him seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,
    and his ears are open to their prayer.
But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’ ” – 1 Pet. 3:9-12

…you may also face his warnings.

Double Yikes.

Doctrine is only as valuable as it’s application.  If you know a ton and don’t rightly apply it to how you act, your learning is in vain.

So here’s a hint: when it comes to your tongue or being gracious to folks with whom you disagree, always air on the side of caution.  Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any biblical  warnings against those who are too cautious in guarding their tongues when condemning theological error.  That doesn’t mean saying nothing, but rather restraining the tongue in the process of biblical evaluation.  You know, like Paul did:

“And looking intently at the council, Paul said, “Brothers, I have lived my life before God in all good conscience up to this day.”  And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.  Then Paul said to him, “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”  Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?”  And Paul said, “I did not know, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’” – Acts 23:1-5

I hope I’ve, in some way, modeled appropriate restraint while critiquing my theological naysayers and opponents.  If not, learn from my bad example and do better.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Anticipating no shortage of kickback…too my face” Unger

P.S. – I’ll likely be offline for a few days.  I’ll be traveling.

Well, it’s been two months of nothing.

I obviously haven’t been blogging, but I also haven’t really been on any other social media at all.  I literally have 15-30 minutes of time per day for all web related things, so this post has been in the work for weeks.  Still, here’s some thoughts on a topic I’ve left for far too long: apologetics!

If you’ve been around Reformed theological circles for any length of time, I’m guessing you’ve come across that phrase presuppositional apologetics.  In this post, it’s not my goal to unpack what presuppositional apologetics is.  If you’ve never heard of presuppositional apologetics, a great place to start would be this article.   That would direct you to some good print resources and the website would have some decent resources (as would this one…if you’re brave).  There’s no shortage of web resources, but they’re not all of equal quality.  That’s actually what brings me to this topic.

Not only are all presuppositional apologetics sources of varied quality, but all apologists are of varied skill sets.  Apologists tend to gravitate towards studying philosophy or theology but precious few of them tend to study biblical exegesis (at least beyond a surface level –  an example of the type of problems arising from the typical apologists’ focus away from exegesis is here).  That’s not saying that apologists are biblically ignorant or grossly incompetent with the text of Scripture, but they tend to be enthusiasts rather an experts when it comes to exegesis.  What’s worse is that most enthusiasts who think they’re experts fall into enthusiast-level errors; common confusions if you will.

I’d like to offer some exegetical assistance today on a specific text that is probably the most widely known “common confusion” in presuppositional apologetics: Proverbs 26:4-5.

Here are those two verses:

“(4) Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

(5) Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.”

Now in presuppositional apologetics circles, those two verses have been misunderstood and misapplied to the apologetic process in a specific way.  Starting with the late Greg Bahnsen (a patron saint of modern presuppositionalism), those two verses have been taken to give a two-step biblical process for apologetics.  Bahnsen specifically took Prov. 26:4-5 as a two-step guide to arguing with a fool (aka. unbeliever).

Here’s my attempt at summarizing Bahnsen’s misunderstanding of Prov. 26:4-5:

(4) Don’t assume a fools’ worldview (as common ground) when arguing with him.

(5) Assume his worldview when arguing with him for the sake of pointing out the internal inconsistency of his worldview.

In his book Always Ready, Bahnsen describes this two-step process when he writes:

“In the first place, the unbeliever should not be answered in terms of his own misguided presuppositions; the apologist should defend his faith by working within his own presuppositions. …But then in the second place the apologist should answer the fool according to his self-proclaimed presuppositions (i.e., according to his folly). In so doing he aims to show the unbeliever the outcome of those assumptions. Pursued to their consistent end presuppositions of unbelief render man’s reasoning vacuous and his experience unintelligible; in short, they lead to the destruction of knowledge, the dead-end of epistemological futility, to utter foolishness.” (Always Ready, 61-62)

American Vision has definitely continued on Bahnsen’s confusion on Prov. 26:4-5.  They’ve got an article on their website that spends several pages explaining the two-step process laid out in Prov. 26:4-5.  The article says:

“Now then, what does Solomon mean in Proverbs 26? Why does he direct us on the one hand not to “answer a fool according to his folly” (v. 4), while on the other, he urges us to “answer a fool according to his folly” (v. 5)? This seems contradictory. But it is not; and it precisely outlines the Presuppositional Apologetic’s two-step procedure: Positively, you must present the truth and, negatively, you must warn of folly. Be aware: though biblical apologetics involves these two steps, you do not have to use them in this order. The apologetic situation might require that the order be reversed. Nevertheless, both steps are necessary, even if not in any particular order.” (7)

Answers in Genesis also tows the Bahnsen line on Prov. 26:4-5.  They have an article here which says:

“When we are engaging skeptics with the truth of God’s Word, we can apply the ‘don’t answer/answer’ strategy found in Proverbs 26:4–5. We don’t accept the skeptic’s ‘folly,’ his terms for the debate. We stand firmly on our presuppositions. Instead, we show the skeptic the logical consequences of his foolish presuppositions and point him to the truth of the Christian worldview.”

Proverbs 26:1-12 contains a cluster of proverbs related to fools.  The passage starts off warning that honor is unbecoming a fool (26:1) and then warns the reader against careless cursing (26:2).  I’d take a guess and suggest that 26:2, being the only proverb where the word “fool” doesn’t appear, is included as a cautionary warning against being quick to label someone a “fool.”  That’s not a hill I’d die on, but only an educated guess.

The passage continues on warning that the way to get through to a fool is with a beating (26:3). Then comes 26:4-5, where we have two proverbs that appear to contradict one another rather blatantly.  That apparent contradiction has caused consternation to many people, but I’d suggest that 26:4-5 uses identical vocabulary for the purpose of juxtaposition (contrasting two ideas for the purpose of illustrating a point).  The idea here is that one can do the same thing to two different fools and have two different results (v.4 vs. v.5) because they’re fools; they don’t act rationally and don’t respond predictably to things.

In other words, if you deal with a fool in accord with his foolishness, he’ll think you’re a fool (v. 4), but if you don’t deal with a fool in accord with his foolishness, he may think he is wise (v. 5).  Both are sadly true of fools.

For “exhibit A”, I subject the entire website of Facebook.

For “exhibit B,” I submit the following illustration that appears bi-monthly somewhere on Facebook:

If you respond to someone saying something utterly foolish (i.e. “Did you know that John MacArthur said that Christians can take the mark of the Beast in the tribulation and still be saved?), they’ll think you’re a fool (“here’s the clip moron! How do you explain that away?”).

If you don’t respond, they’ll think they’re right (“I sent the clip to Phil Johnson and he was too scared to answer!  He knows that John MacArthur is a heretic but won’t say anything because John is his boss!”).

I used to get a dime every time I heard that example, but I cashed them all in when I had enough to buy me an old jalopy.

Getting back to Proverbs, fools don’t act rationally or reasonably. That’s why they’re unbecoming of honor (v.1).  That’s why they need a rebuke with percussion (v.3) instead of melody (v.4-5). That’s why you don’t rely on them for relaying messages (v.6) and that’s why they don’t respond to wisdom (v.7). That’s why you never honor them (v.8), listen to them (v.9), or hire them (v.10). They don’t learn from their errors (v.11)

Then the passage takes a shocking turn, building on all that has been said before: a fool has more hope than a proud man who thinks highly of himself (26:12).

Yikes.

Vs. 12 is kind of the capstone of the preceding 11 verses, and is a blistering admonition against being prideful.

But 26:4-5 is not a two-step formula for defending the Christian faith against unbelievers.  Rather, it’s a warning that any sort of arguing with a fool may be unproductive, regardless of the tactic a person takes.  With fools, you never can be sure.

I don’t bring this up because I want to score points showing that some miniscule exegetical point of Bahnsen (and a whole lot of other folks) is incorrect.  They’re all far more significant folks than me and I have no interest at all in being more famous than I already am…especially in Christian circles.  “Christian fame” is the absolute worst kind of fame.

The reason I point out the popular misunderstanding of Prov. 26:4-5 is because some presuppositional apologists make Bahnsen’s two-step process out to be the main course of their apologetic practice.  They make presuppositional apologetics appear to be, at least on the street,  mostly arguing about the laws of logic with fools (who often are so caught off guard with the nature of the argument that they’re floundering to participate in the argument in the first place).

Prov. 26:4-5 offers a warning against that sort of thing instead of commanding it.

A fool that is shown the error of his ways often will become a confused fool who will likely respond with anger, not thanksgiving.  Showing internal inconsistencies in the worldview of a fool will, more often than not, be an ultimately fruitless endeavor since they’re unpredictable and irrational in the first place.

Unbelieving skeptics need the gospel.  They don’t need to be forced into a corner and have their faces rubbed in the fact that their worldview is incoherent.

Sadly, I swallowed the Prov. 26:4-5 confusion for several years and got really good at showing unbelievers that their worldview couldn’t hold water.  I once even argued a proud and educated fellow into a corner to the point that he surrendered the argument and admitted defeat…and promptly became a Hindu.

You can even still do things like applying an internal critique to a worldview (I’m not against that either), but I’d suggest that if you’re taking Proverbs 26:4-5 as some sort of divine formula for the apologetic encounter, you’re trusting God to bless a process he never gave you.   I would recommend not focusing on arguing logic or worldview as the main course of your interaction with foolish objectors to Christianity. In fact, you may find yourself trying to circumvent those discussions (like I try to do with the list technique that I use), at least initially.

Also, take this clarification and build on it.  Presuppositionalists need some better “on the street” tactics than we’ve currently got.  I’d encourage readers to come up with some fantastic new approaches to practical dialogue, informed by responsible and accurate exegesis, and offer some great and much-needed positive rhetorical strategies to presuppositional circles.

After all, in this coming era Christians will need increasingly persuasive rhetorical packaging, right?

Let’s get on that now.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “I’m not saying I’m smarter than (insert apologist/ministry)” Unger

Horrible, terrible news from Paris today.

Absolutely horrific.

If you don’t know what happened, look at any news site on the entire internet.  100+ people killed in several coordinated attacks upon Paris, France.

The hashtag #PrayForParis went nuts on Twitter, and the people of Paris, France definitely need prayers. That’s certainly true.

Pray for the injured.

Pray for the families of the murdered.

Pray for order and justice.

Pray for the government.

Pray for the successful proclamation of the gospel to all parties on all sides.

And so on…

But I cannot help but notice how ironic it is how so many people who essentially live as though God doesn’t exist all of a sudden call for prayer when life takes a turn for the worst…as if folding one’s hands were some sort of emergency plan for life when everything else fails.

For example, Katy Perry was calling for people to Pray for Paris today.

I mean, come on.  She lives with about as much concern for God as Steven Fry.

If you have no regard for God in your work, leisure, relationships, parenting, finances, politics, etc. but somehow think he’s obligated to treat you as if nothing’s amiss when your life turns upside down, why is that again?

Why does Yahweh, the God of the Bible (and the one you’re likely praying too), owe you a favor when you’ve done your best to utterly disregard him (outside of holidays and the occasional time you were upset) until now?

Do you get annoyed at friends who only call you when they need something from you because you see through their blatantly obvious manipulation and duplicity?

Do you think God’s stupid enough that HE doesn’t see through your blatantly obvious manipulation and duplicity?

Just a quick thought from a tired and burned out fellow.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “Pray Without Ceasing” Unger

Man.  I had 2 hours to write tonight (first time in forever) and I got a bit into one post and then responded to a comment with this.

So much for all my plans to get some writing done tonight.  1.5 hours spent on a single comment that will likely be ignored or glossed over.

In other news, I’m still chipping away at this.  Sometime in the next century I’ll have a small e-book on modesty done.  I may toss a few of the chapters on here or the Cripplegate for feedback, but we’ll see.

At this pace, I’ll be getting a pacemaker before I finish anything.

Oh, and I guess I should tell you, my readers, what’s happening.

I now have a good secular job (which obviously takes up a lot of my time) and have placed all vocational ministry aspirations on hold for the next few years.  I’m currently being involved in my church as much as I can, which has also been great.  Finally, my wife has been laid out in bed with a herniated disc for the last month and my kids are getting older and needing all my free time for teaching, training, reading, wrestling, and generally getting as much “dad time” as they can get.  Between work, church and family, I have no writing time left anymore.

The days of regular and substantial blogging are now over.

The days of me staying up 2 hours past my bed time to respond to one commenter are now upon us.  Maybe things will change in a few months, but until then, that’s what happening around here.

God bless you all and remember to keep reading the Cripplegate for all their regular and wonderful content.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Once a Month Blogger” Unger

It’s a Bible Bite!

Seeing that time is incredibly precious for writing endeavors, let’s just get going!

In 1 Samuel 9, we see Saul chosen to be the new (and first) king of Israel.  He goes looking for his Father’s lost donkeys (9:1-4), decides to inquire of a seer (9:5-10), finds out about the seer (9:11-14 – vs. 13 is very interesting in the light of what happened in chapter 15), encounters Samuel and is honored by him (9:15-26), and then waits with Samuel to hear what God has to say to him (9:27).

In 1 Samuel 10, we see what Samuel says to Saul.  Saul is anointed by Samuel (10:1) and told of three signs that will occur to show that God is with him (10:2-8).  The minute Saul goes to leave Samuel, God “gave him another” heart (10:9). Also, the first and second signs occurred but nothing is said about the details (10:9).  Then, at Gibeah, Saul prophesies (10:10-13).  After that, Saul goes home and tells his father that he couldn’t find the donkeys and went to Samuel for help (10:14).  Saul’s father asks about Samuel (10:15) and Saul tells his father about the donkeys but not his anointing as the king of Israel (10:15-16 – it’s interesting how we see Saul’s fearfulness manifesting immediately, and that with someone he should trust more than anyone).

Shortly after, Samuel calls together the people at Mizpah and informs the people that even though they’ve rebelliously asked  God for a king, God is going to give them one (10:18-19).  Samuel divides all the tribes and families by lots in order for God to unveil Saul as king but Saul could not be found (10:20-21).  The Lord then revealed his location (10:22) and he was found and presented to the people (10:23-24).  Then Samuel talked about the rights and duties of the king, writing those things down for posterity (which would be an example of a prophet writing noncanonical literature), and sent everyone home (10:25).

1 Sam. 10:26 says “Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went men of valor whose hearts God had touched” and then is followed by verse 27:

But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace.

Now many things jumped out at me from the passage, but 10:27 jumped out the most.  Seeing that God gave Saul “another heart” in 10:9, we see that God did the same thing to the valiant men in 10:26.   I don’t think it’s talking about a salvific change of heart (i.e. a regenerate heart), but rather a divinely driven change of attitude (I admit that I suspect Saul wasn’t actually a believer, but that’s a whole other blog post…I mean, book.  1 Chronicles 10:13-14, along with a few dozen other scriptures, lead me to that conclusion).  That change of attitude contrasts wildly with what we see of Saul in the future, and shows the unavoidable affect of the Spirit of God on the heart of any man.

Saul was scorned by “worthless fellows” and when he was publicly insulted on his coronation day, “he held his peace.”  This same Saul was the guy who spent years of his life trying to kill David, his most trusted ally, on the basis of what was clearly a crazed conspiracy theory (and starting shortly after David won several military victories for him – 1 Sam. 19:1-10).  This is the same Saul who, only 4 chapters later, almost put his own son to death for the capital crime of eating some honey (1 Sam. 14:24-46).   This is the same Saul who wiped out a whole town and murdered 85 priests, including the high priest, because he heard that they had helped David (1 Sam. 22:11-19).  This is utterly ironic because he refused to kill the Amalekites (the enemies of Israel) when the Lord commanded it (1 Sam. 15:1-9) but gladly slaughtered 12 minivans worth of his priests.

This is the same Saul who didn’t hold his peace on anything ever again.

Lots of lessons here; more than I can possibly mention in a few words.

Still, I thought of two things:

1.  The Lord is the one who makes the differences in attitude and outcome, even with one’s enemies.  When we have people in our lives who make them difficult or downright horrible, we often forget to pray that the Lord would change their hearts.  Sure, we pray for their salvation (and we never stop doing that), but we can also pray for their attitudes.  It makes a job far easier when the guy who hates you stops hating you.

2.  Christians should always have gracious hearts.  We should always be the ones who hold our peace.  That doesn’t mean that we’re mutes, but it does mean that we don’t “put people in their place,” even when they deserve it (and notice how the Lord referred to those men as “worthless”).  In other words:

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. – Eph. 4:29-32

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “still working on James 1:26” Unger

***I looked at my “drafts” folder tonight and realized that I had 54 blog posts at some stage of being written.  I’ve committed to finish up a one for you that will hopefully be a quick and useful reference at some point. This post only has been 8+ months in the making…sigh…***

Over the past 2+ years as I was reading my eyes out and learning a boatload of information about the Renewal (Pentecostal/Charismatic/Word Faith/etc.) movement, I ran across a lot of questionable information on the internet that suffered from three common problems:

1.    Unverifiable Citations.  As I followed up on some quotes and claims, I found that many of them were either unable to be substantiated or questionably fabrications (I explain this problem in a full post here).  Because of that, I made a point of trying to stick to print resources in my research.  This ruled out some of the more colorful stuff that  I could have used, but it was a point of scholarly integrity for me.  If you cannot track down a quote to an original source and verify its credibility, it doesn’t really exist.
2. Quote Misrepresentation.  Again, as I looked at some writers, I found plenty of zinger quotes that lost their zing when I followed them back to the original source.  Far too often, zinger quotes are extracted from a larger citation that is dealing with an entirely different subject matter.  Other times, a quote is simply stretched to infer something it doesn’t actually say.
3. Invalid Arguments (including any number of logical fallacies).  As I looked at some writers, I found far too many arguments that didn’t hold much liquid.  Things like “guilty by association” arguments (person X is a heretic and person Y spoke at a conference with them, therefore person Y believes any number of heretical beliefs espoused by person X).  Here’s a nifty and useful chart of logical fallacies for those that are interested:

In researching Renewal people,  I wanted to avoid misrepresenting them, since bearing false witness is still a sin when you bear false witness about heretics.  Also, if you’re going to tear apart an idea/argument, it’s more powerful to tear apart the idea/argument in its strongest and most accurately represented form.

I may be too cautious for most folks but generally speaking, the internet needs a whole lot more caution.

Those previously mentioned problems (and a few more) are behind some of my reticence of speaking out about certain individuals.  For example, I’ve never written about Beth Moore mostly because I haven’t confirmed anything bad about her.  That’s not to say I haven’t heard a bunch of claims, and watched some rather incriminating video clips.  Still, I haven’t read anything that she’s written and therefore don’t have any official opinions on her outside of “I don’t doubt that she may have a bunch of good stuff, but based on the level and frequency of accusations she receives, it’s probably wise to steer clear of Beth Moore.”

That brings me to Joyce Meyer.  She was once a rather…uh…colorful heretic who said all number of things.  The internet is full of sound clips and sermon quotes from Joyce Meyer, especially from the early-mid 1990’s.  But in 1999, when Joel Osteen inherited Lakewood Church in Houston, several of the big names in Word of Faith circles all concurrently (and suspiciously) decided to change their image in order to reach a far larger target market.  In the first few years of the new millennium, along with Joel Osteen (this was Lakewood when before Joel took over…you may notice a slight change to now) Joyce Meyer went through a rather Oprah-esque change of image.  Not only did she have some serious cosmetic modifications…

…but she also changed from a tongues-speaking, fire-breathing Pentecostal preacher into a glorified life coach who never stops smiling (though that’s also due to extensive cosmetic surgery).  Joyce toned down her image and aimed it for a wider audience.  It worked well as her audience is now gigantic, but she couldn’t leave her various Word of Faith heresies behind.  She toned down her image and message, but some standard Word of Faith heresies still found their way into her printed works.  Stuff like:

A.  The Spiritual Death of Jesus.

“Jesus was taking your sins and those of everyone else upon Him as He felt this absence of His Father’s presence. He said, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (SEE MATT. 27:46, author’s paraphrase). Jesus knew it would happen, but the horror of separation from the bright presence of the Father was worse than He could have imagined, and it caused Him to cry out. He committed His Spirit to the Father and died. So they put Him – that is, His body – in a grave, and His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go.

Remember in the very beginning of this book, I said that when you die, only your body dies. The rest of you, your soul and spirit, goes either to heaven or hell.

There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the debt you owe.”

Joyce Meyer, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, New York: Warner Faith, 2003), 32-33 (bold and italics original)

B.  The harrowing of Hell.

“Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins. God was faithful to Jesus. God did what he told Jesus He would do. He raised Him from the dead. But until that happened, He was alone for three days satisfying the courts of justice and conquering the hosts of hell. He took the keys of hell and death. He preached to the prisoners held captive there about paradise. He led them out victorious.”

Joyce Meyer, The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make, New York: Warner Faith, 2003), 33 (italics original)

Now those quotes are 12 years old, but that book (which is a book specifically laying out the gospel), is still for sale on places like Amazon.com (and both quotes can be read there in the book preview; feel free to verify them yourself).  Joyce hasn’t pulled that book off the market, so it stands to reason that she likely hasn’t renounced anything in it.  Also, both quotes are directly addressing those subjects; they’re not passing allusions.  In the first quote, she clearly and directly says that Jesus’ spirit actually went to hell.  In the second quote, she clearly and directly says that Jesus led people out of hell.  I’d submit both quotes as sufficient and compelling evidence that, theologically speaking, she’s about as reliable as The Muppets.

I won’t get into hammering out the theological (and monumental) significance of both ideas; that would be a rather lengthy post in and of itself (though I’ve already written on whether or not Jesus went to Hell).  Nor will I give a biblical response to both errors.  This post has been sitting in my draft folder for several months, so I’m going to cut it off here and get it online.

Knowing that I have multiple writers (of no small influence) who read my stuff, I’d like to give this closing encouragement:

When writing about people of questionable theological orientation, always do your best to support accusations of questionable theology with verified direct citations related to the topic at hand from accessible resources.

That is a far higher standard than many currently hold themselves to.  It’s a lot more work and it takes a lot longer to do adequate research and write anything of substance.  Still, as a Christian, you’ll have to give account for every word you write, right? (Matt. 12:36-37)  How unfathomably horrible would it be to have your writing “ministry” be the source of missed rewards for all eternity?

Do your best to keep your sticks on the ice folks.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “lying about heretics is still lying” Unger

Hello.

My name is Lyndon.

I have a confession to make:

I have a burden regarding the level of theological schlock that is regularly dumped upon my sisters in the Lord.  Many of my female friends struggle, far too hard, to find reliable theological resources that deal with issues of concern to them.  Because of this, I want to write some women’s ministry literature that has some theological substance.

Sadly, I’m male.

That means, I suffer from typical male proclivities, aptly illustrated in the following:

In other words, I’m not necessarily the best person to write theological literature that women can relate to.

I have a second confession:

I’m not really even going to try.  I’m a theologian who is skilled in biblical interpretation, and I’m going to try my best to stick there.  I’m going to just write as straight-forwardly as I can, and hopefully it will be helpful.

So what is this all about?

Modesty.

That’s right.  I’m going to write some more stuff about modesty.  It’s not like the “modesty” horse hasn’t already been killed and beaten two ways from Tuesday.  What more could we do to it?

Well, I hope you may be surprised.  I’ve written a short series of articles that I’m going to post here, one article at a time over a period of several weeks.  I was going to try to put it together as some form of small  e-book, but seeing that my previous book has yet to surface on Amazon, I decided to just get this out there.  Hopefully it will help sort out some of the confusion that many of us conservative evangelicals have about modesty.  Today, I’m going to lay out four categories of Christian women with regards to the subject of “modesty.”

1. The women who want to be biblically modest.

These woman recognize that the standards of contemporary fashion are abysmal but don’t think the solution involves dressing like someone from the era before electricity.  They are usually well-intentioned but get overwhelmed (or totally annoyed) at all the confusing and contradictory teaching on the subject of modesty.  These women recognize that more often than not, “women’s ministry” books are written by other women who don’t really know what they’re talking about…but they also struggle to find good stuff that sufficiently answers their questions.  These women usually give up in frustration and just try to dress respectably by the standards of the day.

In this series, I hope to give these women a substantial biblical exploration of the issue.  I hope to answer some of their big questions, dig deep into some of the key texts, and give them a framework to deal with the innumerable little questions that follow.

2.  The women who want to be historically modest.

These woman look much like the first group except that their understanding of modesty is far more rooted in history than the pages of Scripture.  They often have arbitrarily selected a standard of dress from a period of time from recent history (i.e. the 1950’s or 1980’s) and used that as the standard of “biblical” modesty.  These women tend to be rather sentimental about a previous time when people acted more “Christian” and want a return to those good old days when women dressed “modestly”…and wore shoulder pads.

In this series, I hope to give these women a similar understanding as the first group.  Also, I hope to give them some freedom to understand that modesty allows a whole lot of diversity of clothing, but also would likely condemn some things that they assume pass for “modest.” I also hope that this any newfound understanding will result in increased influence with younger women who don’t share their tastes in fashion.

3. The women who want to be culturally modest.

These women don’t want to be seen as “immodest” but still want to dress “fashionably” as judged by the abysmal standards of the day.  They tend to react with aggression against the teaching on “modesty” that condemns how they already dress and want to be thoughtful of their brothers in the Lord…but tend to blame hormonal and googly-eyed Christian guys for the existence of the issue in the first place.

In this series, I hope to help these women in similar ways to the first group.  I hope to help them by re-orienting their perspectives on fashion to be more in line with the Scriptures, and to also give them a healthy understanding of just what’s at stake in their fashion choices.  I’m guessing that many will dismiss what I write, but then again, women in this category don’t really read blogs like mine.

4. The women who want to be Christian hotties.

These women are somewhat like the previous group except that they go a lot farther; instead of wanting to dress fashionably, they want to be “sexy”.  For some reason, they don’t seem to clue in that “sexy” means “dressing in a way that purposefully stimulates (in others) a strong desire for sex.”  These women constantly have problems with “Christian guys” who don’t “act very Christian” and end up dating non-Christian guys because “they act more ‘Christian’ than the Christian guys…”  I’m not really addressing the Christian hotties.  They’ll likely dismiss this whole series because it’s written by a guy…and because their main problem involves spelling…

In this series, I still hope that these women will be helped in a secondary way.   They’ll be helped by the women in the first three groups who will possibly talk with them and pass on the biblical information that they’ve gleaned from this series.

Here’s hoping.

Truthfully, I’m guessing that the third group may have trouble stomaching what I’m going to write as well.  That means I’m mostly aiming at the first two groups with this.  So what’s first?

In the next post (which will be in around a week), we’ll explore the Biblical terms related to modesty.

I’ll do my best to be clear, but be warned: I’m going to dig deep and get into some heavy bible study.  I’ll explain everything as simply as I can, but this will involve a lot more heavy lifting than your average “modesty” talk.

Be encouraged: women can do heavy lifting too!

This is my friend Taunia Stevens. Great Christian woman and gold medalist in the 2015 North American Powerlifting Championships!  We’re going to do what she does, just with Scripture…

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “So how many enemies did I just make?” Unger

Well, is my face red or what?  I was editing some of the future modesty posts and looked up at my stat bar and noticed a rather pronounced spike in my blog traffic.  I was confused at the massive stat spike and went to my stats and noticed that people were reading a post that I had previously been editing…so OOPS!

For those of you who got a sneak peak at the fourth post in the series, I’d like to apologize for the spoilers.  That post hasn’t really received a thorough edit yet, and in order for it to really make sense, you need the context of the second and third posts.

I apologize for any frustration my slip of the finger made, and that post will be up in a few weeks, probably in a fairly different form than it exists now.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “At least I didn’t publish the FIFTH one” Unger

Modesty.

Fewer words in Biblical theology have greater potential of moving large groups of professing Christian women to hate you.

Fewer words in Biblical theology have more diverse associations.

Fewer words in Biblical theology have more associated confusion.

Fewer words get serious exploration, since everyone already knows that it means, right?

Not so fast.

So what does the word “modesty” actually mean, like in the Bible?

If you look up “modesty”in your ESV, you’ll strangely come across only two occurrences: 1 Cor. 12:23 and 1 Tim. 2:9 (there’s zero occurrences of “modest”). Now that doesn’t mean that the concept doesn’t occur more frequently, but rather that the English Bible translates a Greek term as “modesty” only twice.

In case you’re wondering if I’ve stacked the deck because of my chosen Bible version, that’s hardly the case.  The NIV only has those two occurrences of “modesty” as well.  The New Living Translation has 1 Tim. 2:9 and 2:15.  The RSV has all three (1 Cor. 12:23; 1 Tim. 2:9, 2:15).  The NASB and KJV only have 1 Tim. 2:9.  The Message hilariously has none of those but rather has Song of Solomon 2:10-14; Matt. 10:11; Mark 6:10; Luke 9:1-5; John 8:54-56.  Let’s be serious: if your study bible is The Message, you may have confusions about a whole lot more than “modesty.”

Nice coaster…

So let’s look at those two sections of scripture quickly (sticking with the ESV) and unpack the term “modesty” as best we can:

1. Cor. 12:23 – I’m going to set the verse within its immediate context of 12:21-26.

The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” ²² On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, ²³ and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, ²⁴ which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, ²⁵ that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. ²⁶ If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.

So the original language has some related terms in verses 23 and 24.  The term “unpresentable” is translated from the Greek term aschemon and the term “modesty” is translated from the Greek term euschemosyne.  Both of those terms occur once in the entire Bible, but they’re both derived from the term that is translated “presentable” in 12:24; euschemon .  Without knowing Greek you can see the common schem component in all those words.  Aschemon is an adjective (the ‘a’ on the front makes it a negative), as is euschemon .  Euschemosyne is a noun.

The root term of all of these terms is made up of eu (meaning “well“) and schema, which I’d argue  should be understood  to mean “form/conduct” (schema only appears in 1 Cor. 7:31 and Phil. 2:8 and both times is translated “form”, but it carries a far deeper concept than “shape”).  In 1 Cor. 7:31 the root term schema refers to not just the shape of the world, but behaviour.  That behaviour is spelled out in 1 Cor. 7:32-40.  In Phil 2:8 the term expands on the Greek term morphe (form/shape) which appears in 2:7 (“…by taking the form of a servant…”) by adding discussion of Christ’s conduct in the second half of 2:8.  I actually like translating the euschema family of words with either “courtly” (meaning “befitting a royal court”) or “seemly”, even though those words are obtuse archaisms (and come to think of it, the phrase “obtuse archaism” is also an obtuse archaism).  So I’d suggest that the idea of the passage is something along the lines of:

“and on those parts of the body we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our discourtly parts are treated with greater courtliness, which our more courtly parts do not require.”

The idea is one of not just form, but demeanor/deportment. The first clause of vs. 23 (“those parts of the body we think less honorable”) suggests that those members of the church whom are not generally deemed as important need to be treated as though they were important.  That means that, in a church, nursery workers and church custodians may not be as important to the operation of the church as the head of the elders, but they should not be treated in such a way.  The reason for this is due to their connection to Christ, not tangible contribution to the church.

The second clause (“and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater  modesty“) deals less with perceived value and more with functional demeanour.  I’d suggest that the idea here is along the lines of treating inappropriately behaving church members as if they were behaving better than they are: being gracious with them and not looking down on their immaturity or lack of church-appropriate decorum.  In other words, when a young “rough around the edges” woman joins the church, treat her as if she was equally befitting of the social graces afforded to the more elegant and stately women of the church.

I’ll say it again: the idea behind “modesty” in 1 Cor. 12:23 isn’t primarily one of appearance, but rather overall demeanour.  To be clear, it includes appearance but is more than just appearance.

Now it seems rather obvious that 1 Cor. 12:23 doesn’t directly talk about women, clothing, fashion, or anything of the sort…except there is an important conceptual framework that comes out when the term is used in other places.  Knowing the underlying Greek terminology, it’s now worth looking at two other passages where euschemon appears but is not translated as some vesion of “modesty”:

Acts 13:50 – “But the Jews incited the devout women of high standing and the leading men of the city, stirred up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and drove them out of their district.“

Acts 17:12 – “Many of them therefore believed, with not a few Greek women of high standing as well as men.”

In both instances, the English words translated from euschemon are underlined. One can see the underlying idea of “seemly/courtly demeanour” coming out in both usages of the term.  For interest sake, the term occurs only five times in the entire New Testament, and two of the five occurrences are describing women.  That’s certainly something worth noticing, and that brings us to our next passage:

1 Tim. 2:9 – Again, I’m going to set the verse within its immediate context of 2:8-15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; ⁹ likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, ¹⁰ but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. ¹² I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

The term “modesty” is actually translated from an entirely different term, but we’re going to look at the blanket category before getting to the specific word translated “modesty”.

The woman that Paul is mentioning is one who has different clothing than unregenerate women.  Their apparel should be “respectable,” and “modesty” is one of two ways Paul explains what he means.  The term translated “respectable” is kosmios and it occurs only twice: once with regards to men (1 Tim. 3:2) and once with regards to women (1 Tim. 2:9).  The term kosmios comes from the root kosmos, which is a very common term in the New Testament and usually means “world”.  In John 3:16 it says “for God so loved the world…” and “world” is translated from kosmos.

Wait a minute.

What in the…world?

Well, the term kosmos has a rather large pool of meanings (semantic range) in the New Testament.  It’s kind of like how terms like “green” have a lot of different meanings in English (i.e. money, rookie, sick, envious, etc.)

Interestingly, kosmos also appears in 1 Peter 3:3 – “Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear…”

Kosmos (in 1 Pet. 3:3) is a noun and kosmios (in 1 Tim. 2:9) is the adjectival form of that noun. The idea behind kosmos in both these passages is one of arrangement.  Without getting into a rather long discussion of the philology and etymology of kosmos, the earliest known common usage of the term carried the idea of arranging and order  and that idea is what’s being transmitted in both passages.  If you’re actually interested in tracking down that information, I can tell you exactly where to look:

– Puhvel, Jaan. “The Origins of Greek kosmos and Latin mundus.” American Journal of Philology [1976]: 154-167,

– Marconi, Clemente. “Kosmos: The Imagery of the archaic Greek temple.” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics [2004]: 211-224,

– Bratcher, Robert G. “The Meaning of Kosmos,“World”, in the New Testament.” The Bible Translator 31, no. 4 [1980]: 430-434.

All three of those articles will provide ample background and further sources that will give a rather meticulous account of the history of the term kosmos (but you’ll need some sort of access to online journal databases to read them).

As a point of interest, the term kosmeo is also derived from kosmos and means “to put in order” or “to adorn.”  It is from kosmeo that we get the English word “cosmetic.”  I once heard a preacher say something along the lines of “when women get ready for church, they apply cosmetics to bring kosmos to their chaos.”

Sometimes makeup makes more chaos…

So the word that is translated “world” in most of the New Testament can also mean “order” or “arrangement” in specific contexts.  Now, back to 1 Tim. 2:9

So what does 1 Timothy 2:9 mean?

Well, let’s break down the passage phrase by phrase:

“likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel”

Adorn themselves – Kosmeo is the Greek term here (another derivative of kosmos).  The idea is “arrange themselves” in the sense of “dress themselves.”

Respectable Apparel – The idea here is one of “orderly” apparel; clothing that is well-fitting or “proper for women who profess godliness” (1 Tim. 2:10).  The Greek term here is kosmios (there’s a clever word-play here by Paul, given the previous term).  This is the overarching category that Paul holds up as exemplary for the women in Ephesus.

So what does “respectable apparel” look like?

Let’s look at the next phrase and find out:

“with modesty and self-control,”

modesty – Now we get to the specific term.  The term here is translated from the Greek term aidos .  The term comes from a (not) and eido (to look/see) and carries the idea of averting one’s eyes from a person of rank/power out of a sense of either shame or honour. It only appears here and in Heb. 12:28, where it’s translated “reverence.”

The idea is not one of being a doormat or some sort of quiet mouse of a woman, but rather being one who shows appropriate honour to those to whom it is due.

self-control – The term here is translated from the Greek term sophrosyne . The term is the noun form of the adjective sophron, which carries the idea of grabbing the reins of one’s own passions and desires; having oneself under restraint.

It’s also worth noting that sophrosyne is the term that appears also in 1 Tim. 2:15 that is translated “modesty” in the NLT and RSV.  To the translators, it seems that aidōs and sophrosyne were closely related, seeing that they translated both as “modesty.”

So when the two terms (aidos and sophrosyne ) are combined, the idea of “order” comes out clearly.  The women that God esteems are women who are marked by restraint and dignity.  They’re honourable women who are not given to wild behaviour.  The contrast that Paul makes shows exactly what sort of “self control” he’s thinking of:

“not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire”

braided hair -literally “woven hair”.  The Greek term is plegma and only occurs here in the New Testament.

gold or pearls – believe it or not, the Greek term for “gold” means “gold” and the Greek term for “pearls” means “pearls.”

costly attire – The term “costly” is translated from polyteles, which only occurs here, Mark 14:3 and 1 Pet. 3:4.  It’s interesting that in 1 Pet. 3:4, the contrast is between external adornment (“ braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire“) and internal adornment (“a gentle and quiet spirit“).  That internal adornment is what’s “costly” (polyteles), but it’s costly to God (“which in God’s sight is very precious“).

Amazingly, the Greek term for “attire” means “a tire.”

Well, not entirely (remember that I warned you that I’m a guy, right?  That joke was too hard to not make…).

So here, we finally get to talk about clothes.  The term “attire” is translated from himatismos and basically refers to one’s “array” or “apparel.”  It occurs fairly infrequently in the New Testament: Matt. 27:35; Luke 7:25, 9:29; John 19:24; Acts 20:33 and here.  The meaning is pretty simple.  It means “attire”, as in “clothes”.

Now we’re getting somewhere concrete, right?

Paul’s basically saying “don’t dress like a skank,” right?

Well, not so fast.

The “costly attire” seems straight-foward: clothes that are expensive.

But what did braided hair with gold and pearls indicate in ancient Roman culture?

I know that there’s an evangelical myth that such things indicated that a woman was a prostitute, but that’s:

a) Totally illogical.

Why would any God-fearing woman willfully dress in a way to knowingly advertise that she was a prostitute, or at least a woman of loose morals, in the early church?

b) Simply not true.

c) The next post.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “about to upset the apple cart” Unger

So I’m clearly not blogging much, but I read an article recently on Charisma Magazine.  It was shared in this tweet:

As is typical of my ways, got a little bothered.  I took a shot off the port bow on Twitter:

One thing led to another and I ended up writing a summary and critique.

Here’s the Charisma article.

I thought I would share my response with you, my readers.  It’s hopefully a little helpful and practical example of sorting through a deceptive argument and recognizing how a deceptive person can say true things in the construction of a lie.

Here’s my summary and critique:

1. Joyner opens with a statement playing up to the typical confusion about the book of Revelation, and claiming that there are “there are some basic keys to understanding it.”

 .

2. He then states that “These are the same keys to understanding all revelation in the Bible.”

 .

3. He states that he first key to understanding the book of Revelation, and the entire Scripture, is to understand that “The book of Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ, period.”

 .

In saying that, he’s saying that the book of Revelation is topically aimed at revealing new information about Jesus Christ: he’s the direct subject matter of the book.

 .

That’s not a point of argument at all.

 .

4. Joyner sets Jesus up as the primary topic of the book when he says “Possibly the biggest reason why there is much confusion about this book is because people try to see it more as a revelation of the Antichrist or of the events prophesied in it.”

 .

That’s simply not true. The revelations  about Christ (in the book of Revelation) include Christ’s relation to the AntiChrist, as well as all the events foretold therein.  Joyner sets up a false dichotomy as if the main subject matter of the book of Revelation is the only relevant subject matter to the interpretation of the book.  You don’t understand Revelation by myopically focusing on only one element of it.

 .

.

5. He then furthers this with his absurd illustration about “Just as some get distracted from the River of Life by the tributaries that feed it, many get diverted from the main revelation of this book by majoring on minors”.

 .

Now again, Joyner is treading carefully but not carefully enough. It’s true that Jesus is the main subject matter of Revelation, but nobody actually thinks that the “interpretive key” to the book of Revelation is found in the topic of the AntiChrist…or the rest of the events of the…oh wait.  Never mind.

 .

Remember, Joyner opened with talk about the “interpretive key”; the way to make sense of all the confusing details (like the AntiChrist or the other events therein involving bowls, trumpets, dragons, prostitutes, feasts of corpses, etc.).

 .

6. Joyner then says “Even as we seek to understand the sequence of events and different manifestations of evil in Revelation, we see them in relation to the ultimate purposes of God in Christ. This is not just key to understanding this book, but to understanding the Bible, and indeed all understanding.”

 .

So now he’s confusing categories and playing an exegetical shell game. The example he opened with (understanding the confusing details in the book of Revelation) has been tossed aside and now he’s taking his exegetical key and turning it into a key for all knowledge.

.

7. He then quotes Col. 1:16-17 and Eph. 1:9-10 and continues on his changed trajectory when he says “It is all about Jesus. To fully understand the creation or events of history, we must see from this perspective. All things work toward the ultimate purpose of God—the summing up all things in His Son.”

 .

He uses truisms and strings them together in a deceptive way.

 .

Does Col. 1:16-17 or Eph. 1:9-10 state that focusing on the topic of Jesus in the literary work of the book of Revelation will ensure an accurate interpretation of that work?

 .

Not for a second.

 .

Do those passages say anything about Christ being the interpretive key for the entire Scripture?

 .

Not for a second.

 .

Neither passage is talking about Christ in relation to interpreting inscripturated prophecy. Not even close.

 .

Remember, that’s what the article is about.

 .

8. Joyner then even goes back the interpretation of the literary work of the book of Revelation when he says:

 .

“To understand our own lives we must see through this key. Everything in our life was allowed to lead us to the Son and to have our life summed up in Him. All events in Revelation work toward that end. Jesus is the lens we must look through to understand everything.

 .

So why is there so much about the Antichrist and the great evils that come upon the earth in Revelation? As bad as they may seem, they too will lead toward the ultimate purpose of God—the redemption, reconciliation, and restoration found in Jesus alone.”

 .

So he’s conflating categories like a madman.

 .

 .

Sure, Christ is the creator and sustainer of all things.

.

Sure, all events and knowledge find their culmination and ultimate understanding in relation to him.

 .

Neither one of those facts is some sort of direct key to understanding the literary work of the book of Revelation.

 .

BUT, Rick Joyner thinks so, since he then makes an exegetical application of his principles.

.

9. In the sentence directly after the passage I just quoted, Joyner says “The ‘man of sin’ is a personification of the sin of man. In this vision, we see the ultimate result of sin and rebellion, causing us to know that this is not what we want to do again.”

 .

Ah. Now we see what’s going on.

 .

Since “The book of Revelation is a revelation of Jesus Christ”, the application of that is that the “man of sin” is “a personification of the sin of man”.

 .

In other words, he’s not a real person but is rather a metaphor for “human sin”.

 .

What’s interesting is that, being a KJV quoting Charismaniac, Rick Joyner uses the phrase “man of sin”. That phrase occurs only ONE place in the entire KJV: 2 Thess. 2:3.

 .

Let’s ignore the fact that the passage he cites isn’t even in the book of Revelation for a second and press on.

 .

Looking at the greater passage of 2 Thess. 2:3-4 where the “man of sin” is discussed in more detail (I’m using the ESV), we see:

 .

“Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

 .

Hmm.  How do I express my thoughts?

 .

.

So the “man of sin”  is actually “a personification of the sin of man” (according to Joyner), but apparently this “personification” (i.e. a literary device as opposed to an actual flesh-and-blood person) will:

 .

a. Oppose and exalt himself against every so-called god (which sounds like opposition to idolatry…which would be a strange thing for “sin” to do)

 .

b. Take his seat in the temple (which must also be some sort of metaphor for…WHO knows what?)

.

c. Proclaim himself to be God (which is utterly nonsense on the level of a zen cone. How does a literary device that refers to the sinfulness of mankind proclaim himself to be God…in “the temple”…).

 .

I mean, what in the WORLD does that mean if it’s a metaphor?

.

Sin will oppose idolatry in the hearts of believers (since we’re the “temple” of the Holy Spirit, right? Or is “the temple” something else?) until it causes believers to commit idolatry?

 .

That’s nonsense on the level of Steve Munsey’s lobotomy-induced ramblings.  Don’t think that you have to watch this all…in fact, it’s likely dangerous to expose your mind to more than a small amount of this level of insanity:

 .

 .

So when you look at what Rick Joyner is saying, and consider his words with his examples and his own application of the principles that he pulls out, he’s just making stuff up.

 .

Such is the case with eisegesis like this.

 .

Googly-eyed Charismaniacs like Rick Joyner deceive innumerable amounts of people by weaving together truisms (Revelation is topically about Jesus + Jesus is the center of everything + Jesus is the culmination of all knowledge) into a braid that is ultimately a lie (“the ‘man of sin’ is a personification of the sin of man”).

 .

Rick Joyner doesn’t have a SINGLE interpretive key to the book of Revelation.

 .

His misapplied but true principles ultimately have no application in his exegesis other than distracting the gullible from the fact that he’s absolutely making up nonsense and trying to pass it off as biblical exegesis.  Like all frauds, he just robs ideas from others and reveals himself as a charlatan when he tries to show off his ideological spoils.

 .

.

Sadly, on the way to reading 2 Thess 2, Rick apparently missed the right interpretation of 2 Thess. 1:5-10.  Unless Rick repents of his lifelong career of spiritual deception, Jesus will get his revenge.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “the key to exegesis is learning how to do proper exegesis” Unger

P.S. – I also commented on this article; I am shocked at how many Christians get suckered by “healthy living” bandwagons with promises of adding years to your life.

Like my comment if you agree.

In the previous post, we looked at the word “modest” in the New Testament and walked through 1 Cor. 12:23 and 1 Tim. 2:9 and ended up closing the post with a little discussion of what “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire” meant.  The question arose as to what braided hair with gold and pearls indicated in ancient Roman culture, and the comment was made there is an evangelical myth that such things indicated that a woman was a prostitute.  I suggested that such was not the case, and today’s post will be the first part of a two-part answer to that question.  In this post we’ll take a look at women’s clothing in Roman culture, and the following post will take a look at women’s hairstyles.

In Roman culture, one didn’t find the same sort of wild variety in clothing, and little changes in style. Dr. Kelly Olson (expert on ancient Roman fashion and Professor of Classics at the University of Western Ontario) writes, ” Rome was a sartorially conservative society, and the basic shape of female clothing…did not change for centuries.”[1]  All people, men and women, had clothing that was some sort of long tunic, though “women’s clothing was recognizably female”.[2]

Women had a fairly basic variety of wardrobe choices in ancient Rome.  It seems common knowledge that typical Roman men wore (essentially) one thing: the toga.

This wasn’t the case of Roman women (or at least, respectable ones…but more on that in a moment).

Instead of the toga, Roman women typically wore a stola.  Writing of female Roman clothing, Olson writes,

“Matronae, the wives of Roman citizens, are said to wear the stola (a long slip-like garment worn over the underdress or tunic). The stola first and foremost indicated that the wearer was married in a iustum matrimonium (a legal marriage between two citizens) and it was therefore a mark of honor, a way to distinguish sexual and social rank in broad fashion. Literary sources also tell us that Roman women wore the palla or mantle, which was drawn over the head when out of doors, and bound their hair with woolen bands or fillets.”[3]

The stola is the garment and the palla is over the head

Though the core style of garment was relatively the same, Roman women could differentiate themselves from other women in various ways. The first way was in the fabric they used. Women would make their stolla and palla out of costly fabrics that dyed various colors.[4] Women could also have their stolla or palla decorated with jewellery and other ornaments.[5] The dying and decorating of the toga was an activity seen as unbefitting of men; Tertullian wrote that the “instrumental mean of womanly ostentation, the radiances of jewels wherewith necklaces are variegated, and the circlets of gold wherewith the arms are compressed” was peculiar to women.[6]

Generally speaking, female clothing also was a way of displaying one’s recognition and embrace of a woman’s sexual and social status. Olson writes, “A woman muffled in certain kinds of all-enveloping clothing, for instance, showed herself chaste and upright.”[7]  Women could utilize their clothing to express their sexual and social status in a morally-virtuous way, but also in an immoral way.  In fact, there was a very distinct  way that a woman could advertise her penchant for immoral behavior.  Olson writes,

“In Roman antiquity prostitutes and adulteresses too were presumably immediately identifiable from their clothing: both wore the toga. By this ‘exclusion’ from the sartorial distinctions of the chaste matronae, such women could ideally be identified as those who rejected the moral code bound up in those clothes.”[8]

As one reads through the literature, it becomes clear that the wearing of the toga was the most distinctive mark of a woman of low moral fiber.  Some low-class prostitutes were known for various gradations of nudity, but that sort of nudity was seen as characteristic of barbarians.  Roman culture was incredibly proud of it’s civilized nature; acting like a barbarian wasn’t what people of cultural refinement did.  Prostitutes who worked in “more cultured” establishments (i.e. brothels) were women of means; they were known for having elaborate hairstyles, expensive clothes and jewelry.[9]  As is the case in modern times, a moral cesspool requires a lot of cosmetic whitewash, and the most whitewashed people were sadly considered “fashionable” and emulated.

In fact, some women of ill-repute became well known enough that they even influenced fashion trends.  There are numerous citations in ancient literature of both young women and women of respectable status wearing revealing garments made of Coan silk, which was “diaphanous stuff that apparently left little to the viewer’s imagination.”[10]  It was a type of fabric that, due to its thin and transparent nature, was mostly utilized by prostitutes.  Yet, some women copied the style established by prostitutes and were mistaken for prostitutes, much to their chagrin.  Apparently mistaken identity is a really old problem!

I can’t tell you HOW many times I’ve confused these two…

Though there are a few examples from ancient literature of women being wrongfully thought a prostitute due to the fact that they were wearing a Coan silk stola [11], the real mark of an adulteress or a prostitute was wearing a toga.  No remotely respectable woman would do that.  Alexandra Croom (ancient Roman cultural expert and Keeper of Archaeology: Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums) writes, “There seems to be no evidence that prostitutes had to wear the toga, only that they were the only women who could.”[12] This doesn’t mean that prostitutes and adulteresses only wore togas, but the only women who wore togas were prostitutes or adulteresses.[13]

This lays a serious blow against the myth associated with the “modesty” passages in the New Testament that says specific hairstyles were the definitive mark of  a prostitute.  It’s hypothetically possible that such was the case in specific geographic areas (i.e. Corinth).  That being said, there’s no surviving information that I’ve been able to uncover that would suggest so.  Also, the relevant experts in the field don’t mention such an idea anywhere.

Over the years, I’ve heard many a pastor or professor wax eloquent about how wearing “braided hair and gold or pearls” (1 Tim. 2:9) was clearly dressing like a prostitute, and that was the problem in Ephesus.  My research into relevant historical sources shows that this idea lacks even a shred of evidence to support it…but that leads to two obvious questions:

1.  What did ” braided hair and gold or pearls” indicate?
2. What was going on in the early church if the problem wasn’t one of women  dressing like prostitutes?

That takes us to the next post: gaining an understanding of the significance and meaning of ancient Roman female hairstyle.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “hair’s the facts” Unger

[1] Kelly Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman: Self-Presentation and Society (Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2008), 11.

[2] Ibid, 10

[3] Kelly Olson, “Matrona and Whore: Clothing and Definition in Roman Antiquity” in Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (ed. A. Faraone and Laura K. McClure; Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2006), 189.

[4] Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman, 11.

[5] Ibid, 10

[6] Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum 1.2.1 [cited 3 January 2016]. Online: http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf04/anf04-06.htm

[7] Olson, Dress and the Roman Woman, 11.

[8] Olson, Matrona and Whore, 192.

[9] Ibid, 195.

[10] Ibid, 197.

[11] Olson provides a few citations and writes ” These passages indicate that matrons and whores were supposed to be satorially distinct from one another but also strongly imply that such was not always the case.” Ibid.

[12] Alexandra Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (The Hill, Stroud, Gloucestershire: Amberley Publishing, 2010), 48.

[13] Olson, Matrona and Whore, 195.