P and P shared that they were informed by Rabbi Christopher Frederickson that “Clayton Jennings’ has somehow taken down his website.”
In part, this was sent out earlier today, "Jennings hacked the Rabbi’s website and removed the photo evidence. We’re putting it all up at P&P. Please add an editors note to you article with a link to P&P where we’re putting the evidence back up. That link will be up in an hour on our site."
Please be advise and proceed with caution, the photos are quite graphic.
When Don Jennings was ousted from his last church for helping to
cover up the sexual and spiritual predation of his son, his wife and
Clayton’s mother – Lisa – demanded the church give her the rights to a
longstanding passion play directed by herself each year entitled Behold the Lamb.
Being a major theatrical production for a small Indiana town, seeing
the ‘show biz’ continue was important for Lisa, who used it to help
propel her son into the spotlight.
Pulpit & Pen has spoken to members of Jennings’ former church who
refer to Clayton as being a product ‘made’ by his parents. They
recalled for us how Clayton would come out of his dressing room to play
“hot Jesus,” a term Clayton and his friends used to describe him.
Although this was off-putting to many in the congregation, Clayton’s
parents didn’t seem to mind that their son was capitalizing upon
Christ’s death to take the center-stage of fame. More than a few people
told the Jennings family that Clayton seemed to be using his role as
‘Jesus’ for the wrong reasons – or at least in the wrong spirit – but
they were ignored and shrugged off as critical to their child who, in
the Jennings’ words, was ‘destined to be a star.’
Soon, Jennings’ church – under the pastoral leadership of his father –
began to support the man’s playboy lifestyle, which he characterized as
being an ‘evangelist. In recent days, Jennings has made admissions that
his sexual promiscuity persisted during the time when he was receiving a
stipend from the church to travel and speak so that “he could get his
career started.”
Clayton Jennings, playing Christ
The full weight and influence of Jennings’ father and mother were
thrust into the service of making their boy a star. Their lust for his
fame seems to have rivaled even his own.
When I called Don Jennings in 2016 to make a private allegation
regarding Clayton’s sins in accord with the second step of Matthew 18,
he immediately did what we have also seen consistently from Clayton; he
chided us for being too critical and therefore, not worthy of being
heard. The elder Jennings had argued that because we had written an
article of polite theological disagreement with John Piper, we must be
“hyper-critical.” He did not want to hear anything negative about his
son, claiming that it had been “appropriately dealt with already.”
This
father did not seem to grasp that we knew he already knew about
Clayton’s ongoing victimization of women because some had already come
forward to Don to talk about how she had felt sexually used by Clayton
and recounted what can best be described as clerical sexual misconduct.
Don, Clayton’s father, essentially let Clayton apologize and then
encouraged them to “move on.” Along with Clayton, and Don, Clayton’s own
mother, Lisa also knew of the behavior.
Both Don and Lisa had heard their evangelist son, who their church
was financially supporting, admit to engaging in careless and
promiscuous fornication while being a licensed minister of the church.
Both Don and Lisa Jennings responded by sweeping their son’s sin under
the rug.
It was this information that led Don and Clayton’s church to (eventually) remove both of them.
Pulpit & Pen has also talked to women who as a part of the
process of seduction, met Clayton’s parents during the time of his
engagement (or at least courtship) with the woman who is now his wife.
We have every reason to believe that Don and Lisa Jennings knew beyond a doubt that Clayton’s sexual impurity was not a one-time incident but a pattern of unrepentant behavior.
Whatever becomes of Clayton Jennings, it is absolutely fair to say that it should reflect to some extent upon his parents, who while having
the opportunity to at least attempt to stop his spiritual abuse of
women dead in its tracks, have instead done little more than enable him
and cover up his immoral behavior.
Perhaps the best way to understand the depth of the desire that Don
and Lisa Jennings have for their sons’ fame, is the way they continued
to promote his stardom even after knowing he had abused his
position as clergy for lasciviousness and debauchery. Lisa Jennings, who
had sat in the room that fateful day and heard Clayton admit to sexual
impurity, went on afterward to continue having Clayton play the role of Jesus Christ in the Behold the Lamb production.
Jennings portrayed Jesus in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. Don and
Lisa Jennings certainly became aware of Clayton’s ongoing sexual
immorality in 2015. Countless sources from Noblesville, Indiana,
indicate that it would have been impossible for them not to have known
about Clayton’s repeated pattern of behavior even far, far sooner.
Everyone else, so it seemed, already knew it. It didn’t matter to Lisa
Jennings…the show must go on. Jennings took to the stage as ‘hot Jesus’ even after she heard her son’s belated and inescapable confession.
These were the feet that played Jesus, nailed to the cross.
A screenshot of Clayton’s feet, as he played the role of Jesus in his mother’s passion play production.
These are the feet of a man with his underwear around his ankles, sending a photograph of his genitals to an underage fan.
A photo released by the girl’s pastor and counselor. More evidence in released elsewhere. This is all we felt comfortable sharing (see editor’s note below).
[Editor’s Note: We were going to show all the photos
released tonight by Pastor Fredrickson. However, we made an editorial
decision not to show the photos here because of their graphic nature in
light of Ephesians 5:12. It is however readily available enough, elsewhere.]
These are the same feet, so says the pastor who released the
information, the testimony of the victim, and finally, the visual and
digital evidence presented to the world tonight in the webcast.
The second photo is the fault of Clayton Jennings and his alone.
The first photo, however, is the fault of all those who knew he was
unqualified to play the part of Jesus (whether on or off the stage), but
who promoted him anyway. Don and Lisa Jennings are regrettably at the
top of this list.
Like Clayton, when Don and Lisa Jennings left their church under a
cloud of scandal, they attacked that poor congregation for doing what
they – in their own pursuit of nepotistic fame and vicarious living –
refused to do; to hold Clayton Jennings accountable for his sins.
Now, Clayton Jennings is facing some very real consequences in every
conceivable way that consequences can come. He has sown the wind, and
will reap the whirlwind. I’m afraid, however, that the younger Jennings
did not sow that wind alone. He had enabling help and assistance along
the way.
To parents who didn’t do their job of teaching and discipline…for
local churches that winked at his behavior in the name of attracting a
crowd…to wannabe tag-along friends like Blake Whitely and the
clingers-on in his new Dockside podcast, on-and-on… to all of his
Instagram and Facebook fans who regarded his persona above righteousness
and more than his victims…shame on you.
Shame on all of you.
Stop. Repent. Learn. Repeat.
[Note: This article was written by JD Hall and originally published at The Pulpit & Pen. Title changed by Ponderings of a Puritan.]
The Clayton Jennings Files website is designed to
protect young women against this evangelist figure and give them a
place to report the activities they have personally experienced by Mr
Jennings.
It is important to understand we stand both with the
victims of Mr Jennings and we also encourage Clayton to seek mental
heath and drug treatment for the betterment of his life and his family.
If Mr Jennings ever does this, this website will come down. The
Matthew 18 approach has been done with Mr Jennings so religious
obligation has been met, with the Matthew 18 process the job is to
restore a brother or sister to the body of Christ. We want this to
happen. The only way this will happen is through him fulfilling the
points below.
Mr Jennings will have to apologize to his victims through a video and social media posts
Unlike previous confessions he cannot blame others for his own actions he has to take full responsibility
Mr Jennings will have to check into a drug rehabilitation center for more than a month to get off his dependency of drugs
Mr
Jennings will have to take the steps to deal with his perversions he
has engaged in before and during his marriage with other women. In
doing so he will have to seek both religious and secular counseling.
Real change will have to be seen over a duration of time so Mr Jennings can be restored to the body of Christ.
It is important to know this website was not
designed for the reason to disparage Mr Jennings, but rather to warn
other impressionable individuals and to draw Mr Jennings to repentance.
Many organizations have counseled his victims and there are more than
"only a few". The testimonies of these women are devastating and it is
sad to see.
Is it possible that angels can reproduce?It was a question asked during a spirited
debate regarding a good understanding of Gen. 6:1-4.It is an interesting question that was
spawned out of when angels were created, how much do we really know, and can we
know with any certainty.I would like to
look at this briefly in hopes of addressing the opening question.Though it is not the intent of the article to
clarify what Gen. 6 is communicating, I do hope that the answer to the first
question will bring the reader to a better position of understanding.
First, when were angels created?In all honesty, Scripture is unclear as to
when they were created.However, we do
know that they were created during the six days of creation.Reason: Genesis 1:1 speaks, “In the
beginning, God created…”There was
nothing else but God before He created the heavens and the earth.Notice that it did not say, “In the beginning,
God and the angels were there and then God created heavens and the earth.”The next time we see this language used is in
John 1 where it is much clearer as to who was there and was not there prior to
creation.John 1:1-3 states, “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was
in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him
was not any thing made that was made.” (Joh 1:1-3 ESV)Putting these two Scripture references
together, one sees the picture that the only being in existence was God prior
to the creation we see in the six days.This leads to a follow-up question, “On what day did God create the
angels?”The Scriptures do not
specifically address this issue.However,
there may be a few clues we can glean from the Scriptures.
As stated, all things were created by God, Col. 1:16 adds
that all things were created by Him everything that is in heaven and on the
earth including, “whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions,
whether principalities or powers…” (Col 1:16 NET)The ESV is not as clear as to what Paul is
talking about, but in the footnotes one does see agreement that Paul is talking
about the angelical realm.One more clue
as to the timing of their creation rests in Job 38 where we find the “morning
stars” rejoicing at the laying of the earth’s foundation.This would infer that the angelical realm was
created no later than day 3 of Creation.At best, we can surmise that the angels are created sometime between day
1 and day 3 of Creation.
Second, we need to understand that angels are spiritual
beings that are not created in the image of God.This is an important distinction that must
not be forgotten.The question comes
into mind if spiritual beings can reproduce after their own kind.Jesus clarifies this when asked by the Sadducees
regarding a hypothetical question of the seven brothers each dying before
producing a child with the woman of the first brother doing their Levitical duties.They asked whose wife she would be at the
resurrection.Jesus’ response, “"You
are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God.For in the resurrection they neither marry
nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.” (Mat 22:29-30 ESV) One
of the main reasons for marriage is the sexual union that makes a husband and
wife one physically and spiritually as well as pro-creation.This is no longer needed at the resurrection
and we will be similar to the angels that are not given in marriage.Because angels do not marry, we can rightly
conclude that they are asexual beings.Meaning, they do not have reproduction capabilities that would warrant
the need for marriage.
Let’s say that this understanding of angels is just out
there and that most certainly they can reproduce.When God created, He created everything to its
kind and within its kind they can reproduce.This is fundamental to our understanding of the created order.For example, can a dog and a cat mate to
reproduce?No.Why? Because,
they are not of the same ‘kind.’ There is no two kinds that can come together
to produce a new “kind”.Likewise,
angels and humans (only humans bear the image of God) are of different kinds
and therefore could not come together to produce a new “kind”.
Finally, “sons of God” has more than one meaning.The phrase is used seven times outside of the
Gen. 6 passage.Of those seven times,
four times the phrase is best understood as being human followers of God.The other three references are found in the
book of Job that refers to the angelical beings.With the contextual clues of the Genesis 6 passage,
it is not out of bounds to think that the “sons of God” may in fact be men of
the Seth line that did call on the name of the Lord.
Conclusion: Angels are created by God sometime in the first
three days of creation, more than likely on day one.They do not have reproduction capabilities
since no marriage is found in Heaven and even if they could, they would only reproduce
their own kind, which is different from Man who is made in the image of God.
Are you ready for the surprise if Romney wins the nomination. If you do not think the below would ever happen, then you may not have a full understanding of what the MSM and our current president will do to win this upcoming election. Granted, it is hypothetical. However, the facts stated are all found in LDS literature.
The Mitt Romney Interview:
Lauer: Good morning Gov. Romney! How are things on the campaign trail going for you since the last poll has you and the President neck and neck
Romney: Matt, thanks for having me. We have had a great time on the trail and I am looking forward to the election.
Lauer: I want to clear a couple things up with you before we get to the economy of our nation. Now, you were or are a bishop in the Mormon church, correct?
Romney: Yes, but what does that have to do with jobs and our national debt.
Lauer: I was wondering, is there a way you can assure us that the president and twelve apostles of your church will not have a direct line to the White House?
Romney: Now Matt, being Governor of Massachusetts, I can assure you that they never called me or influenced the way that I had govern Mass, and I do not see that being carried forward.
Lauer: You are aware though that there is a difference of being a governor than president. Anyways, isn’t true that Mormons look on our Constitution as a divine document.
Romney: Uh…uhmm, I don’t know, not sure on why that really matters anyway.
Lauer: Isn’t it true that Mormons look on the US Constitution just like the Book of Mormon? Ezra Taft Benson in an article entitled, “Our Divine Constitution,” found in your magazine or newsletter Ensign, Nov 1987 stated that our constitution is divine. Is that not correct.
Romney: I suppose so, but I don’t recall that article that you reference. I will have to check into that.
Lauer: Wasn’t there a time when the Mormon church did not allow African-Americans to become Mormons because it was taught that their dark skin demonstrated that they were cursed by God for siding with Satan?
Romney: Now wait one moment, there was no teaching that prevented African-Americans from being Mormons, that is a bald face lie.
Lauer: But right here (PearlofGreatPrice. Moses 7:8) it states that those of darker skin is not allowed to be a part of the priesthood.
Romney: That is different than being allowed to become a Mormon. It was all just a myth or a misunderstanding that was cleared up.
Lauer: A hundred-thirty year misunderstanding? According to research, on June 8th, 1978, Mormon Church President Spencer W. Kimball, claims to receive a Revelation which grants the Priesthood to all worthy males "regardless of race or color". My question is, if a president of the Mormon church can receive divine revelation in correcting doctrine and the Constitution is a part of that doctrine, isn’t it possible for you to receive a call from your church telling you of a new revelation in understanding our constitution?
And this will be where Romney gets up knowing that he just gave the presidency to Obama for another four years.
Edit for clarification purpose as to where "here" is in Lauer's comment to distinguish that the reference is not the Book of Mormon
Poythress has come out with an excellent review of the NIV 2011 which is worth reading (if the link does not work please go here). I believe that it is important for all to have a solid foundation to our understanding of biblical translations before we make a decision to purchase a Bible whether for personal or community use.
Denny Burk shares some thoughts on the unique resolution that the Southern Baptists took up. One question, "Why did the committee not think it was worth bringing up?" Though, it looks as if the committee seems to have missed the underlying concerns of its members.
Tim Keller does a Q & A, answering the question regarding the histrocity of Adam at the Gospel Coalition blog.
I find this blog post interesting. I deeply respect Tim Keller and his effectiveness in communicating Biblical truth. I found much of his arguments sound, resonating with the idea of upholding the inerrancy and inspiration of God's Word. He essentially argued that Genesis 2-11 needs to be understood as events that had actually happened. With regard to Adam, he succintly tied the idea of federalism of Romans 5 with the understanding of Adam being an historical person.
Sadly, Dr. Keller arguing for the literal Adam because the author of Genesis 2 conveys this, states the following,
"I don’t think the author of Genesis 1 wants us to take the “days” literally."
Within the very paragraph he makes the statement above, Dr. Keller argues that Paul desires for his readers to understand that he takes Adam and Eve literally and therefore we must take it literally. He closes the paragraph stating,
"When you refuse to take a biblical author literally when he clearly wants you to do so, you have moved away from the traditional understanding of biblical authority."
The question that is being begged is, "If the author did not want us to take the six days literally in Genesis 1, how are we to understand the same author when he refrences back to Genesis 1 in Exodus 20:11?" If Tim Keller rightly argues that we are to take Paul's understanding are we not to take Moses' understanding as well? For Dr. Keller to hold to his belief on Genesis 1, he would need to argue that Moses was arguing for the need of the literal Sabbath based on a figurative one. He correctly disproves such an argument from those who question the histrocity of Adam and yet is willing to overlook a more historical understanding of Genesis 1 from Exodus 20.
A couple of weeks ago, I went to my denomination’s general council out in Kansas City, MO. During one of our general business meetings, one delegate arose speaking towards the acceptance of a motion that our theological committee looks at our doctrinal statement regarding the Christian & Missionary Alliance’s (CM&A) position on End Times. Currently, the CM&A’s stance upholds the premillennial position. The motion carried and I am looking forward to the debate on this issue in future councils.
Let me give you my position before going on with this article for full disclosure purposes. I am open to the dialogue of changing the CM&A’s End Times position, to being more inclusive. I am more Reformed than Arminian in my theology. Yet, as many who know me, I will support and argue for the premillennial position up until the time that the Lord’s return, proving my position correct. Voting on this motion, I voted, “No,” for two reasons. First, being a representative of my church, I need to speak on my church’s behalf. Second, the reasoning to dialogue given is in my opinion unworthy of initiating this conversation.
The CM&A is a denomination that does not come down on either side of the Arminian/Reform debate. From my own informal discussions with others and observations; listening to sermons, reading articles, etc., I believe (but cannot prove) that the CM&A like many of its sister denominations is mostly Arminian. With the discussion of including more than one End Time position within our doctrine, one needs to think about what this change could possibly do to the make-up and identity of the CM&A.
The truism is taught that not all Reformed individuals are amillennialists, but all amillennialists are Reformed. In other words, those who generally hold to the amillennial understanding of Revelations are always Reformed in their theology. Granted, I have not met all the Arminians in the world. However, I have yet to meet one that would hold to the amillennial position. Primarily, this is based on the fact that to hold to the amillennial position, one generally uses the hermeneutics of Covenantal theology (the part that is generally called, Replacement theology where the Church replaces the nation of Israel. Please note that not all amillennialists hold this view rigorously any longer).
Two questions come to the forefront regarding the End Times position for the CM&A. First, is the denomination ready to open the flood gates, allowing more Reformed brothers into the family? Second, is it possible to hold to the Arminian theological positions and hold to the amillennial view of End Times?
I do not know the answer to these two questions. Being more Reformed, I do not sense there will be too much difficulty in answering the first question in the affirmative. However, I have no idea how the second question could be answered in the positive. I look forward to anyone who may be able to bring to light any thoughts on the probability of answering, “yes,” please let me know.
Nonetheless, there will be interesting discussions on this as we approach General Council 2013.
Have you ever wonder why farmers install electrical fences around their horses or even cattle? The use of low voltage fences is to make sure that the animals stay within the boundary. The shock an animal receives when it gets close enough, reminds the animal that they are not to step any further or they may get hurt. Likewise, many who reject the “electric fence” of the historicity of Adam seem to think that his position is not important and has little or no impact on their belief. In the last chapter of Denis O. Lamoureux’s book, Evolution Creation: A Christian Approach to Evolution, asserts, “My central conclusion in this book is clear: Adam never existed, and this fact has no impact whatsoever on the foundational beliefs of Christianity.”
In my last post, I tried to lay out a deep foundational concern for the growth within the Evangelical movement to disregard or underplay the importance of the historicity of Adam. In this posting, I would like to continue down this path and think about the implications of such an idea that Adam is a mythical person more so than an actual, historical being.
First, we must admit that the very idea that Adam is mythical is a new idea in Christiandom. In the two thousand years of Christianity, it has only been the past 100 – 150 years that this seed was planted and started to grow. For most of this development, it was held fiercely by the Liberal wing of Christianity. Evangelicals were amongst the strongest to criticize such a position. Evangelicals defended the simple understanding that Adam was an actual man, created by God in God’s own image.
It has been just in the past decade or less that those who consider themselves as evangelicals start attacking the very notion that Adam was a historical person and are in agreement with the Liberal wing that Adam is simply a myth. Personally, when evangelicals start sounding a lot like those they criticized in the past, a red flag rises in my mind. The growth and strengthening of these attacks on the historical Adam are rooted in the complacency of Evangelicals towards the defense of orthodoxy.
Before we look deeper into the why’s of how this shift in thought has started to seep into the Christian mind like yeast in dough, I will share why the defensive of the historical Adam is paramount to the very foundation of our faith. As James Anderson, Professor of Theology at RTS, says: “…the historicity of Adam is ta thread woven all the way through the Bible’s history, theology, and ethics. Pull out that thread and sooner or later the whole garment will unravel.”[1]
David Murray in his article titled, The Quest for the Historical Adam outlines five doctrines that are weaken if not destroyed if Adam was not a real person. I would like to summarize each one as well as add one or two more to his list.
1. Doctrine of Sin: Hamartiology
If Adam is not the man in which sin came into the world, then the outcome must be that sin was always a part of man’s very existence. Accordingly, those who deny the literally existence of Adam truly believe that the “Fall” is just a symbol for mankind’s imperfection, an imperfection that was always there. If sin always existed in man, how can we be responsible to God for it? Likewise, God had called his creation good; how can God call an imperfection, a sinful being ‘Good’?
The theological idea of Federal Headship comes into question. Those who, Murray calls “Adam-deniers,” believe that Adam is representative for mankind believe the “Fall” is simply a group fall. If true, Paul’s idea of the “one for many” falls flat on its face.
2. Christology
If we are to reject the Bible’s teaching of an historical Adam, why should we not also reject the Bible’s teaching of an historical Jesus? If sin did not come by one man, how would it be possible for one man to redeem mankind? Not only would the historicity of Jesus need to be questioned, but also Jesus’ integrity. When Jesus was asked by Pharisees regarding divorce, Jesus went back to Genesis 1. Matt. 19:4-5 we find this, “He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?” From this text, it is obvious that Jesus believed in the historical creation of man and woman. If not, then what was Jesus referring to? If God did not create the historical Adam, then we must question the veracity of Jesus’ statements. Is it possible that Jesus, the Son of God, mistakenly applied Genesis 1, understanding the creation to be historical?
3. Soteriology
Paul spells out in Romans 5 that all men are either in Adam or in Christ. We are all fallen, declared guilty in Adam. Likewise, all who believe in Christ are justified, declared righteous.
James Montgomery Boice wrote: “You do not need an historical atonement to undo a mythological fall or a mythological transgression. All you need is another myth. But if Christ needed to be real to save us, then Adam was real, too. It is because Adam was real that Christ also had to be real to make atonement.”[2]
4. Eschatology
I will quote Murray’s point in length, “If Adam was not a historical person and the fall into sin was not a historical event, then can we have any certainty about Christ’s resurrection or our own? If Adam was simply a teaching model, how can we be sure that Christ’s resurrection is not also merely a teaching model. In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 44-49, Paul uses the analogy of Adam and his fall into sin bringing us all down, to teach that similarly Christ and his perfect obedience will raise his people up from the dead. Adam’s sin and death do not merely illustrate our condition, they determine it. Similarly, Christ’s obedience and resurrection do not merely illustrate the Christian’s life and resurrection, but determine it.”
In other words, where is our hope to be founded in if there is no historical existence for Adam? E. J. Young comments on Paul’s teaching here, “Remove Adam and his historicity from these verses and all the profound truths that Paul is teaching go by the board. They are then not truths at all and Paul’s words must be abandoned. Adam is gone, but so is Christ.”
5. Practical Theology
Paul’s argument for male headship is dependent upon the historicity of Adam being made first. Paul’s argument and application would fall flat if he erred in such an assumption.
The above five are areas that David Murray touched on. One other that is implicit in this whole discussion though is the doctrine of the inerrancy and infallibility of God’s Word.
6. Inspiration of Scripture
If Adam is not a historical person, then the question of inspiration must be placed on the table. For the Adam-denier to hold firm to the rejection of the historicity of Adam has to declare that the writer of 1 Chronicles, Jesus’ words, Luke, and Paul are all wrong in their application and/or assertions we find in the Bible.
Sadly, the apostle Paul is already under heavy attack by men like Peter Enns. He has emphatically stated that accepting Paul’s understanding of human origins is untenable as members of the human race in the twenty-first century.[3]
7. Evangelism & Discipleship
What is the Gospel if there is no entrance of sin into the world? How is one saved from a myth? Are not our limited resources of time, money, and people better served?
As can be seen, there is much damage that is done when we circumvent the “electrical fence” of the historical Adam. We as Christians if we go down such a path simply are rejecting the Truth, the veracity of God’s witness, His Word.
[1] James Anderson, Was Adam a real historical individual? Analogical Thoughts Blog. http://proginosko.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/was-adam-a-real-historical-individual/
[3] Peter Enns Evangelicals, Evolution, and the Bible: Moving Toward a Synthesis. The Biologos Foundation. He further goes on to assert that rejecting Christianity and accepting evolution is a much more tenable solution than to believe that Paul is correct in his understanding of who Adam is.
Tim Challies had a link to C Michael Patton's article putting into a nutshell the six different views of the Creation/Evolution Debate. The link to his article is here. Four of the six positions seem to be bent towards a more biblical understanding of things. However, Patton defines the Relationship between science and Scripture for the Literal Biblical View (much better than YEC, and will be known as LBV) as follows:
Scientific discovery always submits to Scripture in all matters. Science is interpreted in light of Scripture. YECs see the early chapters of Genesis, taken at face value, as an accurate and authoritative (even scientific) guide to the basic details of the origin of the universe. Science is of great value so long as it starts with the Bible
The difference between this position and the other three (OEC, Time-Relative Creationism, Gap Theory) in regards to this vital relationship is that the three:
Typically sees nature as a complementary guide from God which speaks authoritatively to issues about which the Scriptures are unclear or silent. Whatever source is more clear is the authority in matters of origins. If both seem equally clear, yet seemingly conflicting, Scripture is the final source.
Comparing these two statements regarding the relationship, it would seem that for the latter positions, nature is not equally weighted but heavily weighted. At the same time, none of these three positions seem to clearly agree with one another so would it be fair that by this definition that Patton is using would disqualify science in regard to origins? Would it not be obvious that if nature is so clear that there would be overlap in such a way that the differences would be minimal? Yet, this does not seem to be the case. At the same time, one would think that the proposed definition would raise a red flag in regards to biblical inerrancy and inspiration. For the definition, Patton is arguing for the specific case of origins which would seem to be quite clear from Scripture as to where we have come from.
I propose that the definition given for the latter three positions grant the following freedoms: 1) they can simply ignore the hermeneutic argument; 2) gives them liberty to question the veracity of Scripture; 3) have a common enemy, the LBV position.
Reading comments and original arguments, those who seem to hold to the latter three positions have a hermeneutical problem inherent with their position. When one decides that the historical position of a more literal understanding of the creation story is wrong, one would suppose that they must demonstrate a strong argument to jettison the older understanding. Instead, they reframe the discussion around their interpretation of the "scientific evidence" regarding the origins of man. No longer is the Bible the starting and ending point, it is on the sidelines and will be called upon when it is necessary. The hermeneutic argument seems to go along the lines of a) the term "day" in Hebrew is not clearly define and b) apparent age is a deception that God cannot use for that makes God a liar. Then the positions move quickly to all of the "scientific evidence."
The second freedom is the most problematic. Carl Truman mentioned recently that one of the two major issues that Evangelicals will be facing in the next ten years is the positioning on the historicity of the first man, Adam. As David P. Murry stated,
Not everyone who denies literal-six-day-creation ends up denying the literal Adam. However, from what I've read, everyone who ends up denying a literal historical Adam began by denying a literal-six-day-creation.
This should shake the foundations of evangelicalism. We see Biologos writers denounce the existence of a historical Adam, and pushing the envelope by essentially arguing that Paul errs in believing that Adam was a historical person when he wrote 1 Cor 15 and Romans 5. In fact, Biologos seems eager to support that Adam & Eve is a story of Israel's origins or just stereo typical figures representing the human race as a whole.
In essence they are saying, "Let us brush aside the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture. It is obvious that not all Scripture is useful for teaching and training a person for the authors are wrong in their understanding of the historical Adam." We must not forget that it is not only the Apostle Paul that they are willing to challenge but the great historian, Luke and our Lord Jesus whom believed in the historicity of Adam as well.
The other attack on the veracity of Scripture goes along the lines that God would never create an earth with apparent age because then God would deceive us. Yet, if one wants to attack the historicity of Adam, they would have to advocate that God deceived the very authors of Scripture to believe an error (a lie) and still write it into Scripture. One cannot have it both ways.
In my next post, I will dive further into the theological problems that occurs when one desires to make Adam and Eve: a myth, or a symbol, and not historical as the Biblical writers argue for and believed.
In my last article, I raised the question as to whether women should preach.Now, I did write that I am looking at this question in a very narrow sense.I will not be raising the egalitarian arguments nor address them here. If you would like more information regarding this movement and the damage they are causing, feel free to go here.My intention is to raise a concern that seems to be more popular amongst complimentarians.
Today, there are many complimentarians who acknowledge that Scriptures limited the leadership, the elders, to men.Yet, they want their cake and eat it too in this sense: they argue since the elders are in the position of authority, the elders have the right in exercising their authority to invite any person to preach for the primary service of worship for their church.Raising the question, “Is it Biblical for the elders of a church to permit a woman to preach during the gathering of the saints in their public worship?”In other words, is it legitimate for elders, today, to permit something that Paul seems to clearly state that he does not allow?
Here is what Paul states, 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)All modern English translations read the same in regard to this verse.Within chapter two, to young Timothy, Paul is outlining how the church is to conduct itself in corporate worship.Prior to this chapter, Paul shares with Timothy why he has placed him there in Ephesus to maintain sound doctrine in the face of many who are false teachers even naming two who are blasphemers of the Lord.As he finishes these instructions in chapter 2, he moves to the qualifications for overseers/elders and deacons in chapter 3.
Within this context of corporate worship, Paul outlines this instruction regarding women.The first concern for us is epitrepw, (epitrepo) which is argued a temporal limitation and limits the prohibition to just Ephesus.As Knight points out, “An examination of other occurrences of Paul’s use of first person singular present indicative demonstrates that he uses it to give universal and authoritative instruction or exhortation.”[i]Dr. William Mounce concurs with this assessment in his own commentary on this epistle through Word Bible Commentary Series, stating,
While at times it does refer to a specific situation, it is the context that limits its scope and not the intrinsic meaning of the word.The point is that if the semantic force of the word is authoritative, the use of the indicative does not lessen its force.The imperative in v 11 has already established the tone of the passage.It can also be argued that the shift from “I desire” (v 8; itself a strong term), to the stronger “I permit,” signals an increasing sense of authority.[ii]
Paul is not making a temporal statement but one that is to be binding on the church.If church leadership, the elders, are not allowed to exempt the church from Jesus’ command to love one another, why should they have the authority to ignore this one in 1 Timothy 2:12?Where does Scripture inform us that it is okay to pick and choose what to obey as long as the elders say so?
Though I had promised to get at the heart of “to teach” and “authority,” this post is already at a great length.Sadly, this part of the discussion will have to wait for part 3 of “Should Women Preach.”
PuritanD
[i] Knight III, George W., The Pastoral Epistles: The New International Greek Testament Commentary; Eerdmans 1992 p. 140
[ii] Mounce, William, Pastoral Epistles: Word Bible Commentary vol 46; Thomas Nelson 2000 p. 122
Moving from one state to another, you learn what makes people tick in comparison to those whom you have left. For those who reside in Indiana, if you want to strike up a heated conversation, one just has to mention “time zone,” and you will receive an earful pro/con on being Eastern time and pro/con to daylight savings time. It would seem that you would have walked into a minefield without knowing it. Likewise, there are topics that are treaded lightly in Evangelicalism for fear of the storm that might arise. Though there are many such topics, women’s roles seem to take top notch, especially in the culture we live in today. It is a discussion that can be lively, we have churches that demand adherence to their viewpoint if you want to be members no questions can be raised on their beliefs, Christian publishing refusing to print from authors who may align on the “other side” of this issue.
After so many years, one would think that this issue has been resolved. Yet, it is still provoking angst amongst many a Christian. In this article we will not be going over the old ground of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism. To better understand my position, the egalitarians are busy trying to find new and improved ways to “interpret” the Scriptures towards their “view point” trying hard to find that silver bullet. As one colleague commented, “the burden of proof was on the part of egalitarians to prove that the complementarian position was wrong, because the plain reading of the text is clearly complementarian.”
Instead, I would like to work on the issue that is becoming a wedge between complementarians. The disagreement comes from an idea that as long as the eldership/leadership is male, it is okay for a woman to preach the sermon on Sunday morning. The argument goes like this: The elders are in the position of authority and therefore they may permit a woman to preach. By authorizing this, the elders can sanction a lady to step behind the pulpit, open the text, and preach and yet still maintain that since the elders are in charge, no harm no foul done in light of 1 Timothy 2:12-14.
Before going further, I need to define a few terms: preaching, teaching, and authority. I was at a conference recently where one preacher preached on preaching (I know, a mouthful). He stated that simplistically, preaching is none other than heralding or proclaiming and a preacher of Christ is one who heralds the good news or the gospel of Jesus Christ. According to such a definition he challenged the audience that in this sense we are all to preach, both male and female. Men and women are to proclaim or herald the gospel message to all. I am not aware of a single person who would argue that a woman should not proclaim Jesus to an unrepentive soul no matter the gender. I was also encouraged that he saw that proclaiming the gospel to others of the same gender was of great importance. I am not aware of any complementarian who would state that a woman could not preach evangelistically to nonbelievers or to other women. With regard to whether a woman’s proclamation to a mix gender group of believers, the speaker left it open and never address this issue in light of Paul’s admonition for restraint found in 1 Timothy 2:12-14.
It is when we come to the church setting; the setting of public worship; the gathering of the saints that the problem arises. Should, in this context, a woman be able to preach? The preacher at the conference did not answer the question directly. Indirectly, one may presume that he would have answered this question in the positive. Yet by keeping silent, this may cause more harm to complementarian denominations than good if we do not wrestle and apply Paul’s teaching on this particular question in reference to the restriction that Paul placed on the female gender in public worship found in the above text.
In part two of this series, I will define, ‘teaching,’ and ‘authority,’ and answer the question, “Should a woman be able to preach?”
A few weeks back, I came across a web resource called “Daily Audio Bible” (DAB) which does daily Bible readings. This is a fascinating use of modern technology. Personally, I think that this can be a very beneficial tool for the church, as we desire a deeper relationship with the Lord. Having so many resources at our fingertips, we would be foolish not to take advantage of what the Lord has given us.
At the same time, there raises a deep concern within my soul for such ministries. Listening to the introduction, there is Brian, the founder, a couple of testimonials sharing what the DAB is about and how it came into existence. Brian adds on a devotional at the end of the reading clarifying what was being read. Now, according to Brian, the Bible has a voice and if given a chance to speak it will. Brian is just the vessel for that voice to speak. Yet, he freely admits that he started a virtual community, becoming ordained and shepherding this “flock.”
Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, I am glad to hear about someone taking on such a wonderful task. The concern is based on a few items. First, the usage of many translations should be a yellow flag to any person. Not all translations are equal and some do an extremely poor job of translating the Hebrew and Greek text. Second, by Brian stating that it is not his voice, he seems to misunderstand the value that reading the text aloud is inferring one’s own understanding of the text. The way one emphasizes a word, to their breathing, to the speed at which it is read all inflect that person’s understanding of what God’s Word is saying. Third, it is obvious that this is bigger than “just reading” the Bible, especially if he felt compelled to become ordained and attached daily devotions to explain what is being read.
With these in mind, one could see a possibility that people will stop reading the Word all together. In fact, one testimonial states that she was unable to stay consistent in reading her Bible, when she fell behind it would become a checklist and not really absorbing what she is reading. The devotion at the end clarifies what is being read and really helped her see the “picture” of what the Bible is saying. There was no thought of reading along as Brian read the text of the day. We Americans are prone to doing whatever comes the easiest. We do not desire nor entertain thoughts of hard work. If someone has already done it, why should we? We want to multi-task of doing something and listening at the same time. How well do we truly listen?
The value of this ministry is to help supplement one’s own reading of God’s Word not replace it. If a person replaces their responsibility to read, they can no longer be able to attest to what is being taught. They would take the reader at his/her voice as to what is in the text. It just becomes another avenue of just getting by in our walk instead of being a resource to deepen our faith, supplementing our own reading.
Paul was encouraged when the Bereans search the Scriptures and John commands us to test the spirits. How can we do either, if we surrender such responsibility to the need of convenience? If our Bibles are collecting dust, doesn’t our souls as well?
The biggest concern is whether government school is solely a place for education or indoctrination. If it is the former, then the Christian has no need for concern. However, if the school is for indoctrination, then what is it indoctrinating our children with, especially when Christianity has successfully been taking out of government school. It all boils down to the issue of world-view.
Listen to what some prominent Christians are saying regarding the crises we have with government run education. Dr. Tim LaHaye states, “One of the big problems we have today, I think is the Church…. The church is facing a serious problem of losing its young people to the world by the time they graduate from high school, and what is the reason? Twelve thousand hours of secular humanist brainwashing….It is time we parents get our kids out of the public school.”[i] Dr. LaHaye may not have known this but the most recent of research supports his main thesis in his statement.
Dr. Charles Stanley argues, “When you send that child off to school today, you’re sending them into a pagan society because…the school system is not going to teach them to believe God-not going to teach them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ-or to honor Him. But they’re going to, by the way they teach, little by little, do what?… Attack their faith…teaching them ethics that are unethical according to Scripture, teaching them to be willing to participate in immoral, ungodly, sensual practices that are acceptable to the world but condemned by Almighty God…”[ii] He continues to comment that they may not acknowledge that it is what is happening but it is not what they say but what they do.
The late Dr. D. James Kennedy wrote, “Of course, one of the most important concepts to remember is that God gave the job of rearing godly children to parents, not to the state or the National Education Association….The ones who will eventually pay the heaviest price are the children who are left to be trained solely by a false and empty humanistic education system which not only fails to educate, but fails to prepare them to become the moral leaders God intended them to be!”[iii]
If these men are not enough, consider Charlotte Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, US Department of Education. She was also a local school board member and is the author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. She described our governmental school system as follows:
You think the purpose of education is reading, writing and arithmetic? The purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students. Hitler wanted to control the educational system in Germany, Stalin did in Russia, Mao Zedong in China. You have to get a hold of the minds of the young, where you break the person’s values; you break their understanding of their individuality. You bring them to a consensus with the group; they become a member of the collective. It’s Soviet education, basically-might as well say it- it’s Soviet education. You cannot expect to have a smoothly running, world socialist system if you have people out there who are going to object to what you’re trying to do, so you have to brainwash them.[iv]
The sad truth is that all the information, the facts, leads to the conclusion that the US educational system is more interested in indoctrinating our children into secular, immoral, and godless ways of thinking and behaving than truly educating them. Granted, there are Christian teachers in the government school system, and I would encourage them to continue teaching. However, neither you nor I can be guaranteed that every teacher our child will be under will be of the same worldview.
Unmistakably, we Christian parents are aghast when we see the problems, from the local bullying at the high school to diminished patriotism to a lack of moral standards. Yet, we are as much the problem as the answer. We just continue to give our government schools our kids, literally authorizing them, telling them that it is fine with us that you teach them secular humanism, that God is dead. According to one study, more than 85% of Christian parents apparently believe their children are safe under the tutelage of public school. We believe that since we turned out “okay” then they will too.
It is time though for each Christian to examine the Scriptures. Before we send our children to the school down the street, we need to step back and take the time to weigh the pro’s and con’s of this important decision. There are other options available today for the Christian parent. Government school no longer holds the monopoly in regard to equipping our children. There is the private school, co-op’s, home schooling, and probably something in-between that no one has yet dreamt. We are responsible for the training of our children. It is time we take this responsibility seriously.
[i] Interviewed on DVD Education in Today’s Culture: A Biblical Perspective 2004
[ii] Dr. Charles Stanley, “A Mother’s Greatest Gift,” Part 2 (DVD), In Touch Ministries 2007
[iii] Dr. D. James Kennedy, Truth in Education, Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc. 1996
[iv] Charlotte Iserbyt, as quoted in One Nation Under Siege, a William Lewis film, 2006
Posts
