Max Lucado – A Sad Demise

While many would long claim that Max Lucado has relinquished his stand on Biblical Christianity years ago, others still find encouragement in the poignant words that he has written down through the years.

However, in the shadows of what has happened with former Christian leaders like Ray Boltz and Joshua Harris, there is a serious question that true followers of Christ must ask themselves and those with whom they choose to fellowship.

At what cost am I willing to compromise?

In November 1605, an anonymous letter alerted authorities to the dangers of a man named Guy Fawkes. This man fully intended to blow up the Houses of Parliament in London, England, and kill King James the First. The plan was to remove the Protestant king and place a Roman Catholic king on the throne again. Thankfully, the plan was foiled and Guy Fawkes paid the ultimate penalty for his treason.

Over 400 years later, there are still those who seek to warn true believers of the dangers that are being faced within evangelical Christianity.

One of these is Alisa Childers.

Alisa Childers writes in her article dated January 13, 2020, about Max Lucado’s glowing endorsement of Jen Hatmaker, who openly endorses the LGBTQ lifestyle as being acceptable along with same-sex marriage. She also affirms the false teaching of men like Richard Rohr.

I highly recommend reading the entire article found at this link.

She continues:

But we are not encountering anything new. Every generation of Christians has been tasked with the command to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3).

Alisa then continues with the following paragraph from Al Mohler. Read these words carefully.

In a recent briefing, Al Mohler noted that when we look at the history of the mainline denominations being lost to liberal theology, it wasn’t because the liberals outnumbered everyone else. Rather, “In almost every case it’s the muddy middle that ends up ensuring the liberal future of the church, because those moderates are unwilling to draw clear doctrinal and moral boundaries and to make them stick. They are far more concerned with holding the denomination, the institution, or the congregation together than they are with keeping a very clear commitment to the historic Christian faith and to its central doctrines and moral teachings.” (emphasis mine)

To conclude, it is imperative that we stand for truth no matter what others may think. In fact, it is right and Biblical that we stand even when others who supposedly claim the name of Christ are willing to back away from historical Christianity and the truths found only in the pages of Scripture.

Judgment and Discipline – Part 4

Part 1 of series here.
Part 2 of series here.
Part 3 of series here.

In light of certain ministers signing The Manhattan Declaration, there are several questions that arise. Is discipline necessary in such a case? How does discipline play a vital part in the integrity of the local church? How do we maintain our roles as pastors in a world that accepts just about everything simply because the name evangelical has been slapped on as a label? How do we instruct our people in the matter of discipline while recognizing that such discipline is for the purpose of restoration? And finally, does discipline really matter when the majority of evangelical believers will either deliberately ignore the matter of discipline or they will fall for the lies of the evil one who was the first to question, “Has God REALLY said such and such?”

It is not my intention to rehash the first three parts of this series, but I want to reiterate one point. The bottom line is this in regards to judgment – NO JUDGMENT = NO HOLINESS. NO HOLINESS = NO PURITY. NO PURITY = NO CHURCH. NO CHURCH = NO LIFE. NO LIFE = NO CHRIST!

When it comes to discipline in the local church, we must remember that the Bible teaches that each local assembly is to be autonomous. They are to govern themselves. There is no Scriptural mandates for a denominational hierarchy that is to set the standards for the church and then ensure those are obeyed otherwise discipline against the pastor and church will be enacted. Simply put, I do not believe there is any Scriptural command that permits one local church to discipline a member of another local church. Therefore, for those who believe that ministers like Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan should be disciplined, I would urge caution because this would be a matter for his own local church to enact against their pastor if they believe that he has crossed the line of doctrinal integrity.

However, I am convinced that the Bible not only teaches independence and self-governance, I am as strongly convinced that the New Testament makes it clear that the early churches were inter-dependent. They made their own decisions, but did not have the liberty to enact decisions which would reflect on a sister church or the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ. With that in mind, how does one local church respond to a sister church that is descending a slippery slope into heresy, false teaching, or even going down the road towards an all-embracing gospel? How do 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17 play a part in the way we deal with others?

We who are true believers are required to follow the commands of Scripture such as found in 2 Cor. 6:14-17, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them And walk among them. I will be their God, And they shall be My people. Therefore, come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you.”

The admonition is clear. We are not, cannot, must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. In the matter of TMD, regardless of what Mohler, Duncan and others say, this was drafted to be a theological document. Thus, in signing their names to this, they have broken the commands to be unequally yoked with unbelievers. We are called to be separate in every aspect of our lives. We are in the world, but not to be of it. Thus, the remaining problem is how do we respond when evangelicals we respect choose to break the commands of Scripture.

2 Thess. 3:14-15, “And if anyone does not obey our word in this epistle, note that person and do not keep company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

This post is not intended to question whether Mohler or Duncan are true believers. The issue is how to respond in a biblical fashion to those who are brothers, yet failing to follow the “word in this epistle.” The Scriptures are clear that we cannot be yoked with those who are of the world, and it is just as clear that we have a responsibility not to keep company with those brethren who would act and teach contrary to the commands of God’s Word.

Therefore, in the matter of church discipline which is local church specific, the commands in 2 Thessalonians 3 show that we still have a responsibility to perform. It is with the purpose in mind of restoration at all times, not with ostracizing a brother or trying to throw him under the bus. My prayer is that Mohler, Duncan and others will repent of their desire to link up with the enemy and repent of such. My prayer is that they will seek forgiveness from those they are leading astray as men called to shepherd their flocks. If they do not and continue on their current path, then other evangelical leaders/pastors/believers have a responsibility to disassociate with them until they do.

The problem with evangelicalism is that we do not take biblical separation seriously. We will condemn those who cross certain lines, but it is only verbal. Rarely is further action involved. Evangelicals talk a good talk, but that is where it seems to stop. They will continue to endorse one another’s books, invite each other to conferences, share pulpits, and do everything that was done before the offending brother crossed the line. If we are going to be serious about our positions, we are going to have to show to the world that refusing to keep company with a brother is vital to the integrity of each local church. If we are going to seek purity in our churches, we cannot continue to endorse IN ANY WAY those who fail to heed the commands of Scripture. Pastors are called to a high office and to be servants of the Most High God. It is for the sake of the gospel that we stand firm, no matter what the cost to us or our ministry for in the end we will give account before God, NOT to each other.

I challenge my fellow pastors that if we are going to verbally call into question men like Driscoll for his vulgarity, like Piper for his saying that Wilson and Wright do not preach a false gospel, like Mohler and Duncan for signing The Manhattan Declaration, etc., then we must back up what we say publicly. We must refuse to endorse their materials, must admonish our people when they blindly follow these men, must stop inviting them to conferences and sharing pulpits with them, and MUST ABOVE ALL continue to seek full restoration with each other as part of the Body of Christ for whom Christ died. If we do not, then we are being hypocrites. If they are wrong, then they are wrong and pacifying the masses may be good for future book sales or endorsements, but it does not bode well for the future of true evangelical Christianity.

What we underhandedly endorse today will only become the new standards for tomorrow, and the false teachings and ecumenicalism of tomorrow will become the stepping stones towards a greater liberalism than we see today! May God give us strength to stand firm in the face of ALL opposition. May He grant us mercy and keep our feet strong so that we do not waver from the faith once delivered to the saints!

For the sake of the Gospel,

The Desert Pastor

Planned Parenthood to spread its poisoned roots into shopping malls

From Albert Mohler’s blog comes this frightening article about how the wormwood tree known as Planned Parenthood (motto: “We’ve never met a baby we didn’t want to kill, or a profit we didn’t want to make!“) is spreading out its roots into shopping malls:

“It is indeed a new look…a new branding, if you will.” That’s the explanation offered by Leslie Durgin, a senior vice president at Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains. She was speaking of Planned Parenthood’s new “upscale” approach to marketing abortions and other “services” to wealthier suburban women.

This new strategy and marketing plan was described in chilling detail by reporter Stephanie Simon of The Wall Street Journal [article available by subscription only]. “Flush with cash, Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide are aggressively expanding their reach,” she explains, “seeking to woo more affluent patients with a network of suburban clinics and huge new health centers that project a decidedly upscale image.”

Not content to lead poor women astray with the notion that their best option is to kill their child, they are now targeting the wombs of wealthy, upscale women with their product–death.

Make no mistake about it, Planned Parenthood has an agenda, even as it did when founded by Margaret Sanger and other radicals in the early 20th century. The organization receives hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from killing unborn babies. It wants to extend its reach into the population.
As Simon reports:

[Wall Street Journal artcle begins]: Last spring, the nonprofit — which has 882 clinics nationwide — dropped its crusading mission statement setting out the rights of all individuals, no matter their income, to “reproductive self-determination.” In its place, Planned Parenthood adopted a crisp pledge to “leverage strength through our affiliated structure to be the nation’s most trusted provider of sexual and reproductive health care.” Ms. Richards says the new statement implies expanded services for all — she’s especially eager to draw more male patients — but some outsiders wonder why it no longer mentions affordability or access.

This is not the Planned Parenthood we all grew up with… they now have more of a business approach, much more aggressive,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, who runs abortion clinics in Texas and Maryland.[End of WSJ article]

The article does mention, however, that PP will

offer services just short of abortions

at these storefronts. They may not perform abortions there, but you know they will be talking them up. Kinda like how drug dealers get people hooked by giving them some junk for free, just to get them hooked, so when they’re ready they’ll know where to get their fix.

Now, PP may be claiming that they are moving into malls to attract adult women. But who do they really think they are trying to fool? Who is it that makes up a large percentage of mall population? That’s right! teenagers! Just like beer and cigarette companies market to younger and younger demographics to get kids buying their products early, this is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing.

[WSJ article begins]: The group has always operated some suburban clinics, but some of its local affiliates, which have a great deal of autonomy, have made a determined effort in the past few years to “be the provider of first choice…for people who do have other options,” said David Greenberg, Oregon’s top Planned Parenthood executive. Officials note that health insurance doesn’t always cover contraception and even women with access to private doctors may prefer the confidentiality of buying birth control or getting a herpes test at a Planned Parenthood clinic.

It is high time we follow the population,” said Sarah Stoesz, who heads Planned Parenthood operations in three Midwest states. She recently opened three express centers in wealthy Minnesota suburbs, “in shopping centers and malls, places where women are already doing their grocery shopping, picking up their Starbucks, living their daily lives,” Ms. Stoesz said. [WSJ article ends]

One Planned Parenthood executive went so far as to say, “I like to think of it as the LensCrafters of family planning.”

That’s right! Pick up some jeans at the Gap, grab a half-caff latte at Starbucks, and learn how to kill your child, all under one roof! How sick can a person possibly be? To equate the murder of a child to getting contact lenses? Thank you, Warren Court! Oh, and for all of those who think this is all about “women’s health,” and that Planned Parenthood is just in it to help women, and they have no ulterior motives, look at that line in the above blockquote: some of its local affiliates, which have a great deal of autonomy, have made a determined effort in the past few years to “be the provider of first choice…for people who do have other options,”

It’s a business, folks! To lift the name of an old Megadeth album (yeah, I used to listen to them. Don’t remind me!), “Killing is our business, and business is good!”

Planned Parenthood may try to brush up the organization’s image, but the business remains abortion. In a chilling reminder of the grotesque intersection of baby killing and business, local independent abortion centers are complaining that Planned Parenthood threatens their own volume in abortions. Amy Hagstrom Miller runs abortion clinics in two states, and she is not pleased:

[WSJ article begins]: “Ms. Hagstrom Miller competes with Planned Parenthood for abortion patients — and finds it deeply frustrating. She does not receive the government grants or tax-deductible donations that bolster Planned Parenthood, and says she can’t match the nonprofit’s budget for advertising or clinic upgrades. She has carved her own niche by touting her care as more holistic — and by charging $425 for a first-trimester surgery at her Austin clinic, compared with $475 at the local Planned Parenthood. (Both Ms. Hagstrom Miller and Planned Parenthood say they work out discounts and payment plans for the needy.) [WSJ article ends]

This is about revenue and profit, market growth and competition. It is a horrifying glimpse into the cold hard reality of what stands behind the abortion movement in general and Planned Parenthood in particular — the ideology of death and the love of money. Can we imagine a more lethal combination?

Planned Parenthood may soon be coming to a mall near you, but no matter how much they want to burnish their image and go “upscale,” their business remains death on demand. The Culture of Death creeps on — mile by mile, mall by mall.

King Ahaz burned his children in the fires of Molech. Today we suck them out of the womb.