25% Truth (Almost there…)

Posted: 26th July 2014 by admin in Uncategorized
This is post three of four, based on a portion of the sermon, Being Led by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-15), by Robert Williams.

That’s Not God

According to Williams, there are four ways you can tell you are not hearing God’s voice:

  1. God never says anything that contradicts Scripture
  2. God’s voice is not the voice of anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion
  3. God’s voice is not the voice of obscurity – “Clear trumpet”
  4. God’s corrective voice is not one of guilt or condemnation but loving discipline and conviction of sin

Today, we’ll examine number three: God’s voice is not the voice of obscurity – “Clear trumpet”

Williams explains number three, saying,

We preach and teach a lot here about what we call the “Clear trumpet” call. Again, there’s no confusion, there’s no contradiction in the voice of God. When He speaks it will be clear and we will discern and understand and know that it’s the voice of God. If there’s confusion, if there’s a lot of static and a lot of different voices saying different things, that’s not God.

While I don’t necessarily think that number three is wrong, I think it is unclear, no pun intended. I admit ignorance, because I have not heard the specific preaching and teaching about the clear trumpet call to which Williams referred. His listeners likely have a better idea of what he’s talking about. But many readers of this blog have their own ideas about obscurity and clarity and hearing the voice of God. So my aim in this blog post is to clarify and expound on number three.

There are two ideas introduced…

…first, what God’s voice is not (obscurity), and second, what God’s voice is (clear).

obscurity voice of god

clarity voice of god

There’s a paradox in proclaiming clarity.

Intuitively, in order for the statement, “God’s voice is not the voice of obscurity; God’s voice is a clear trumpet” to be true, anyone who hears the statement must possess all the knowledge necessary to conclude its truth. In other words, it must be something that is already apparent to him or her, before he or she hears Williams say so. Williams saying so just affirms what they already know to be true. Think about it. There’s a paradox in proclaiming clarity. If it’s clear, there’s no need to assert that it’s clear, because everyone already knows it’s clear. By proclaiming its clarity, we can assume that for some people (most of us, if we are to be honest with ourselves and with God), God’s voice doesn’t always seem clear as a trumpet.

I’m not saying that Williams is wrong. After all, God spoke, and the universe sprung into existence. Jesus spoke, and deaf people heard. What I am saying is that the clarity of God’s voice and the state of the listener are two entirely different concepts. Ultimately, clarity depends on both the speaker and the audience. With perfect listeners, God’s voice is perfectly clear. And since God’s audience consists of fallible human beings, clarity can and does get lost somewhere between God’s utterance and the audience’s understanding. Variables to consider when God speaks to us include:

  • How receptive are we?
  • How interested are we?
  • How distracted are we?
  • How confused are we?
  • What biases do we have? In other words, how likely are we to discard or embrace what God says before we hear it?
  • How skeptical are we?
  • How hopeful are we?

Something else to consider… if God’s voice is clear as a trumpet, then why should confirmation matter at all? Isn’t confirmation a non-issue to one who has already clearly heard and understood the voice of God? Which leads to a couple more considerations:

  • Do we rely too heavily on confirmation (scripture, preaching, teaching, prophecy, open and closed doors, pastors, teachers, elders, wise counsel, etc.)?
  • Are we likely to assume too much, charging ahead, dismissing confirmation?

Perhaps some would say this blog post does more harm then good, causing readers heads to spin with contradiction and confusion, or leading readers in too many different directions at once. Since my goal is to clear away misconceptions…

Here are a few MISCONCEPTIONS:

  • If you don’t hear God’s voice clear as a trumpet, then it must not be the voice of God.
  • If you hear what you think is God’s voice from an obscure (not mainstream, nonorthodox, somewhat hidden, etc.) source, then it must not be the voice of God.
  • If you experience any confusion after hearing what you believe to be the voice of God, then it’s not the voice of God.
  • If you experience any doubt after hearing what you believe to be the voice of God, then it’s not the voice of God.

If you believe I am mistaken and that these are NOT misconceptions, a cursory reading of Matthew 13 may convince you otherwise.

If you think you are hearing from God, but you aren’t sure, you might want to consider what kind of listener you are during this season of your spiritual journey. There are times when we fully share God’s will, and it is oh-so-easy to accept what God says in the most natural and transparent way. There are times when we accept some social or emotional situation that puts us in oppositional relation to God’s will, and it is oh-so-difficult to understand what God says, so much so, that we think it can’t possibly the voice of God, because it is so unnatural and confusing.

So you think you are hearing from God? Ask yourself, “This thing God is saying to me, does it reflect my own position? Does it fit neatly into my own experiences and interests?” If you answered yes to either of those questions, you might want to ask the Spirit of God to examine your heart and reveal what kind of listener you are. Maybe you are hearing Him clearly, but it should seem a bit suspect if God never ruffles your feathers.

Here are some practical ways to practice being a good listener:

Stop talking.

When you pray, you should be silent sometimes. If you are always talking, then you’re not listening.

Let go of preconceptions.

God might tell you things you don’t expect to hear.

 Ask questions.

If you feel confused, have doubts, don’t understand, or whatever, ask God specific questions. Ask hard questions — the ones you’re afraid to ask. God can handle it.

Write it down.

Keeping a spiritual journal helps you recognize patterns of behavior and thinking that break down communication with God. A spiritual journal also helps you recognize ways that God speaks to you that you never recognized before. A lot of people complain that God doesn’t answer their prayers, but a spiritual journal documents and clarifies God’s answers: yes, no, wait… and the most powerful, life-changing answers He gives are often in the form of questions — invitations to explore the depths and heights and dream bigger. Let Him knock your spiritual socks off.


Sometimes God communicates, well, inconveniently, and in ways that we least expect. Be receptive. Always. Don’t dismiss His message because it happens to be delivered by someone not in your tribe, for example, a pot-smoking, vegan transvestite.


25% Truth (Wait for it…)

Posted: 21st July 2014 by admin in Uncategorized
This is post two of four, based on a portion of the sermon, Being Led by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-15), by Robert Williams.

That’s Not God

According to Williams, there are four ways you can tell you are not hearing God’s voice:

  1. God never says anything that contradicts Scripture
  2. God’s voice is not the voice of anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion
  3. God’s voice is not the voice of obscurity – “Clear trumpet”
  4. God’s corrective voice is not one of guilt or condemnation, but loving discipline and conviction of sin

Today, we’ll examine number two: God’s voice is not the voice of anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion.

Do the words of God cause anxiety?

If I understand Williams correctly, when one hears what he or she believes to be the voice of God, if the message given by that voice causes anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion, then he or she must assume it can’t possibly be the voice of God. Given the first point Williams made (God never says anything that contradicts Scripture), I’ll begin by examining Williams’ second point in light of scripture.

When Israel found out their “promised land” was already inhabited, they felt anxiety. Their punishment for their lack of faith was to wander in the wilderness for 40 years until their “carcases [were] consumed in the wilderness.” Sounds exhausting to me. When all was said and done, their offspring obtained the promised land under the leadership of Joshua, that is, once kings were hanged, men, women, and children were slaughtered or enslaved, animals were crippled or killed, and cities were burned. And God said to Joshua, “You are very old, but there is still much land to be taken…” Altogether, the conquest took 40 long, anxiety-ridden, exhausting years of unsettledness. And this is just one example. The Old Testament is absolutely loaded with similar examples.

Now here’s the tricky part.

We must either believe that the Old Testament leaders (and/or writers) were not hearing God’s voice or believe that Williams is wrong. I hope that readers take the time to think this through, but for the sake of argument, put that idea on the back burner for a bit.

Here is the question.

Should we dismiss as NOT-the-voice-of-God any message that causes anxiety, unsettledness, or exhaustion? We can find the answer in Christ.

Just prior to His crucifixion, Jesus prayed, “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me…” The voice of God brought a message that caused Jesus to fall on His knees in prayer.  Luke describes the scene:

…and having been in agony, he was more earnestly praying, and his sweat became, as it were, great drops of blood falling upon the ground.

Hematohidrosis is “a condition in which capillary blood vessels that feed the sweat glands rupture, causing them to exude blood,” and can be caused by emotional stress and acute fear. There are documented cases of people sentenced to death breaking out in a bloody sweat. Had God not strengthened Jesus, perhaps He would have fallen asleep like the disciples did:

And having risen up from the prayer, having come unto the disciples, he found them sleeping from the sorrow

John Gill explains the situation:

…he found them sleeping for sorrow; on his account; for he had signified unto them, how exceeding sorrowful he was; and they might perceive by his looks and gestures, the anxiety and distress of mind he was in, which must needs affect them; and besides, he had given them some intimations of his being to be betrayed by one of them, and of his sufferings and death, and speedy departure from them; and because of these things, sorrow had filled their hearts, and this had induced heaviness and sleep upon them…

If God’s voice is not the voice of anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion, then why are Jesus and the disciples behaving in this way? Obviously, God’s message to Christ was to drink the cup, however awful it was, because doing so would bring redemption to the world.

My argument is two-fold.

First, God’s voice can and does, at times, produce anxiety, unsettledness, and exhaustion. Second, if we believe God is speaking to us, and the message we hear brings anxiety, unsettledness, and exhaustion, we need to examine the underlying cause or circumstances of our emotions and respond appropriately. I actually wrote a blog about this a while back, which you can read here.

Earlier I wrote:

Now here’s the tricky part. We must either believe that the Old Testament leaders (and/or writers) were not hearing God’s voice or believe that Williams is wrong. I hope that readers take the time to think this through, but for the sake of argument, put that idea on the back burner for a bit.

Off the back burner…

I propose instead of taking an “either/or” approach, we take an “and” approach. Why? Well, let me put it like this. Suppose God tells you He is going to give you and your family a house (we’ll call it the “promised house”), but when you find the promised house, you discover it is currently inhabited by another family. You think God might be telling you to slaughter every living thing in the promised house — the parents, the two-and-a-half kids, the dog named Spot, and a goldfish. You think God might kill you if you don’t obey Him, but your kids will take possession of the house after you are dead, as long as they obey.

That’s not the voice of God.

25% Truth

Posted: 17th July 2014 by admin in Uncategorized
The previous blog posts in response to a Sunday morning message I listened to online drew so much web traffic (twice as much as normal), I figured people must be interested in critical sermon analysis. So, I’m giving it another go, and will continue to do so, from time to time in the future. This one is based on a portion of the sermon, Being Led by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6-15), by Robert Williams.

That’s Not God

According to Williams, there are four ways you can tell you are not hearing God’s voice:

  1. God never says anything that contradicts Scripture
  2. God’s voice is not the voice of anxiety, unsettledness or exhaustion
  3. God’s voice is not the voice of obscurity – “Clear trumpet”
  4. God’s corrective voice is not one of guilt or condemnation, but loving discipline and conviction of sin

Let’s have a look at the first one: God never says anything that contradicts Scripture.

American Experiment: Protestantism in the 1700s and 1800s (an excerpt from The Bible: The Book that Bridges the Millennia) describes how Protestant Christians, believing they were hearing the voice of God, found biblical justification for the Trial of Tears and slavery:

native peoples of North America found themselves forced off their tribal lands as U.S. national boundaries expanded further westward. Under the Indian Removal Act of 1830, Eastern tribes of Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, and Creek were force-marched along the “Trail of Tears” to the Oklahoma territory. Eventually most Indian nations were forcibly relocated as the U.S. government broke every treaty it made with native peoples. Millions died from disease and genocidal* war. Survivors were confined to “reservations” on the worst lands.

Protestant Christians used the Bible to defend and justify these realities. Slavery was rationalized because Africans were not Christian, therefore labeled “heathens” and considered sub-human. The Promised Land theology of the book of Joshua with its model of military conquest was used to justify the wars against indigenous peoples, the “Canaanites” of the New World. The Puritans who came to the New World saw themselves as God’s elect, called to establish the New Israel. Frontier individualism and the optimism of progress through expansion and wealth led to the political slogan “Manifest Destiny,” which reflected Christian triumphalism, a biblical interpretation that encouraged an attitude of the moral and economic superiority of white Christians over all others, and justified the taking of land.

The oppressors assumed they heard the voice of God. They turned to scripture to validate that assumption, and they found what they were looking for within the writings. We must either conclude that scripture can contradict the voice of God or that using scripture as a means to test whether one is hearing God is, at best, subjective evidence (an oxymoronic word combination), because the concepts contained within its pages become distorted as they pass through the filters of both translation and interpretation.

I propose that we view scripture the way Jesus (“…the Word became human and made his home among us”) taught us. Take, for example, a conversation Jesus had with an expert in scripture. He doesn’t simply ask the man what is written there. He also asks, “How read you?” Our simple English words don’t fully encompass what Jesus asked, but when one examines the Greek, the full meaning becomes clear. Jesus essentially asked, “What is written in the law? In what manner or by what means do you know with certainty?” After some discussion about loving God and loving your neighbor, Jesus told this story:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. “Look after him,” he said, “and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.”

The reason the priest and Levite treated the injured man like roadkill was that commandments in scripture about ritual contamination made handling a half-dead man a personal risk. Should the man die, then they, having touched the man, would not be permitted to perform temple services. Samaritans, in the eyes of Jews and Levites, were heathens to be compared with pigs or dogs. They rejected all of the Old Testament books except the first five. Yet, in Jesus’ story, the Samaritan is the one who heard and obeyed the voice of God. All three of them saw the man, yet only one acted with compassion. Why?

Perhaps the priest and Levite did as most Christians are doing today, that is, using scripture to decide whether they are hearing God, instead of hearing God to decide whether they should use scripture. Jesus not only drew a clear distinction between the word (message) of God and the scriptures (writings) but also associated Himself with the word (message):

Nor have you His word dwelling within you, for you refuse to believe Him whom He has sent. You search the Scriptures, because you suppose that in them you will find the Life of the Ages; and it is those Scriptures that yield testimony concerning me, and yet you are unwilling to come to me that you may have Life.

When I was a kid, I cheated on a test, and I felt so full of shame and guilt that I vomited. During that time, my understanding of the voice of God was continuously filtered through misinterpreted scripture. I not only felt like the sheep that had wandered off but also like the sheep that was being thrown to the wolves by an angry Shepherd. That overused scripture-filter continued to distort much of what I heard from God into adulthood. I loved Jesus, but I didn’t really trust Him the way a sheep trusts a good shepherd. A few years ago, I realized that sometimes hearing the voice of the Good Shepherd and following Him meant rejecting orthodox interpretations of scripture. What a difference that has made in knowing, really knowing Him, and in realizing how He knows me better than I know myself. Of course, I still wander off, I still say or do things that make me feel ashamed of myself. The difference is that I charge with reckless abandon toward the Good Shepherd to rescue me from myself. And as someone who is secure in the knowledge of His boundless grace and love, not just for me, but for everyone, I spend very little time focusing on my failures and a lot more time rejoicing in His victorious message of hope.

(Numbers 2-4 will be covered in upcoming blog posts.)


Ancient Landmarks

Posted: 30th June 2014 by admin in Uncategorized

If you have not yet read Let Us Make It Difficult for You and Disturbing Trends, reading these first will give context to this blog post.

Here’s a quick recap. The first Christian council in Jerusalem produced a letter to Gentile believers in Antioch. This letter demonstrates some disturbing trends that have persisted among believers for almost 2,000 years, including misapplication of spiritual authority, a failure to recognize the extent of God’s nondiscrimination, a failure to understand God’s “over-abounding” grace, and disregard for Christ’s instructions to not exercise lordship or authority over one another as believers.

When it comes to disturbing trends, information that was not included in the letter is as important, if not more important.

4. Omission of Important Information

During the Council of Jerusalem, some discussion had taken place which ought to have been included in the letter to the Gentile believers in Antioch. The letter was only a portion of the Jewish apostles’ and elders’ plan. James is the one who suggested they write a letter.

Here is what James said:

Wherefore I judge not to trouble those [Gentiles] who from the nations do turn back to God, but to write to them to abstain from the pollutions of the idols, and the whoredom, and the strangled thing; and the blood; for Moses from former generations in every city hath those preaching him — in the synagogues every sabbath being read.

Not all of what James said is included in the letter. Along with the four requirements, the council hoped that the Gentiles would eventually conform to the Mosaic Laws by becoming assimilated into the Jewish community (“For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath”).

The implications are that the spiritual growth of the Gentile believers would increase, until eventually they would achieve the same level of spiritual maturity as the Jewish believers. In other words, they would not be excluded from salvation, as long as they continued to follow the four requirements and continued in their indoctrination for further requirements of the law. They could technically be called “saved” and attend church (synagogue), but it would take further assimilation for them to hold the same status as Jewish believers who followed the Mosaic law. And they most definitely would not be able to enter into the temple court to do animal sacrifice unless they had fully complied, including being circumcised.

In the institutional church system, this trend continues. For example, McCracken compares the Acts 15 situation to BOTH people who don’t know Jesus AND people who already know Jesus. It is as if people who already know Jesus are somehow considered sub-standard believers until they practice the requirements of Judaism, or in the case of McCracken’s sermon, until they practice the requirements of churchism. There’s a heavy  burden placed on believers by believers. What is that burden? Why is that burden imposed?

Let’s look at his sermon to find out.

McCracken proposes a hypothetical situation, that is, joining the Road Dogs, a motorcycle group and Lifegroup in the church. In order to join, you don’t have to wear a skull cap. You don’t have to get tattoos. “This is a Christian motorcycle club,” McCracken says, but “you don’t have to know Jesus,” or be affiliated with any church or denomination, sign off on bylaws or creeds, and you don’t even have to ride a motorcycle. “They don’t grill you,” on whether you know Jesus.” McCracken explains, “As you get to know them, you get to know the Jesus that’s within them. When you get to know the Jesus that’s within them, they hope that eventually you will want become a Christian.” So far, McCracken is referring to people who do not know Jesus joining a motorcycle club. This Road Dogs analogy is not about people who already know Jesus, and it is not about whether these people should be considered part of the church.

McCracken says that the Road Dogs “don’t make it difficult to join, but this is where the rub is…” Notice how the topic of discussion changes as McCracken continues:

We also don’t cheapen grace. We cannot cheapen grace. Grace came at a very costly price. The blood of Jesus Christ poured out on Calvary. We cannot cheapen that. But at the same time, we cannot make it difficult to join. We cannot make it difficult on the onset. We cannot make it to where it’s a requirement. We are not God. We are agents of the Holy Spirit. We are vehicles, but He’s still the Holy Spirit. What we are yoked to is easy and light, remember? Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you. My yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Here’s His burden. (2 Cor 5:19-21) “He has committed to use the message of reconciliation…”

The topic of discussion dramatically shifted from someone who doesn’t know Jesus joining the Road Dogs (no requirements) to someone who doesn’t know Jesus joining the church, in other words, becoming part of the body of believers. Not only this, but within another breath, the subject changes even further:

Our message is not this: I do not go up to Dana and say, “Dana, are you circumcised? That’s real personal. I realize this. But I need to know, are you circumcised?” Now, when I am mentoring him, when I’m discipling him, you know, maybe some issues of morality and things like that, they need to come out. But I need to give him the message of reconciliation.

So the subject of the sermon shifted as follows:

Someone who doesn’t know Jesus joining the Road Dogs —> Someone who doesn’t know Jesus becoming a believer —> Someone who DOES know Jesus becoming a believer

Dana, as far as I know, has been a professing believer for years. Why should McCracken want to give the message of reconciliation to Dana, who has already been given the message of reconciliation? Look at the context of 2 Corinthians:

If any one is in Christ — he is a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things. And the all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and did give to us the ministration of the reconciliation, how that God was in Christ — a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in us the word of the reconciliation…

If we believe this, then we can say:

Dana is a new creature; the old things did pass away, lo, become new have the all things. And the all things are of God, who reconciled Dana to Himself through Jesus Christ, and did give to Dana the ministration of the reconciliation…

And what, exactly is Dana’s ministration of reconciliation?

…how that God was in Christ — a world reconciling to Himself, not reckoning to them their trespasses; and having put in Dana the word of the reconciliation…

The word, or message, of reconciliation is already within Dana. His easy and light yoke or burden is to tell people that God, in Christ, is reconciling the world to Himself and not counting their sins against them. The word “ministration” in ministration of reconciliation is:

Cognate: 1248 diakonía – ministry; active service, done with a willing (voluntary) attitude. See 1249 (diakonos).

For the believer, 1248 /diakonía (“ministry”) specifically refers to Spirit-empowered service guided by faith (4102 /pístis, “the Lord’s inbirthed persuasion”).

In other words, Dana is Spirit-empowered and guided by the Lord’s in-birthed persuasion with the message that God is reconciling the world to Himself and not counting people’s sins against them.

The yoke or burden that McCracken described is different than the ministry of reconciliation Paul described (that is, once Paul grew some balls and stopped catering to the elders in Jerusalem). McCracken claimed that the burden is light, but if we compare the burden he described to the one above, it proves to be heavy. It’s more like the Pharisee believer’s requirements to be circumcised and follow the Mosaic laws or like the Jewish believer’s requirements to start with a few rules and move toward complete assimilation. McCracken says,

That is the burden that is light that is on us. That’s what we have to say, “Listen, things are wrong in your life. Be reconciled to God. Make things right with your heavenly father.” The same way as if I am in a counseling session with somebody who has something wrong with their earthly father, I would say, “Listen, you need to make things right. You need to talk. You need to have forgiveness in your heart,” things like that. “You need to make things right with God. Be reconciled to God.”

Clearly, McCracken defines “Be reconciled to God” as “You need to make things right with God.” Who is the one initiating reconciliation in McCracken’s counseling analogy: God or the one whose sins are not counted against them? What is the message of reconciliation in McCracken’s counseling analogy: Your sins are not being counted against you or your sins are being counted against you?

Notice how McCracken wavers, like Paul did at first, between law and grace. First grace:

Making it easy…

Then law:

does not mean watering it down or cheapening it. It doesn’t.

Then a mix of grace and law:

You have to understand that there’s a fine balance.


I am not saying, “Listen, come to Jesus and your life is a bed of roses. All you’ve got to do is say a prayer and you’re good to go, keep living how you’re living and it’s good, it’s good, seriously. God loves you anyway.” God’s love is unconditional…


…but He does not like how you are living. He is still a holy God.


But on the outset, we cannot be telling them what to be changing before they can come to Christ, because it’s not based on what they change, it’s based on what Jesus can do to change them…

A mix of grace and law:

It’s this fine line. And if we talk about anything in this church, we talk about that fine line between grace and law and between lasciviousness and legalism. And there is that fine line.


And we do not want legalism to where everything is checked and you can only wear this, we don’t want that…


…and at the same time we don’t want sloppy agape, either. His grace is too costly. Again, a relationship with Him produces holiness. I want to be like Him when I spend time with Him. And if I’m not spending time with Him, then something is awry in my heart.


But that should tell me that something’s awry in my heart, not somebody pointing their finger at me.

The powerpoint slide says, “Our task at the onset is to make sure God is the one that initiates transformation, not us,” but the sermon is a jumbled mix of grace and law for both believers and not-yet-believers. Several times McCracken refers to a “fine line” believers must walk in order to navigate through the jumbled mix of grace and law. I believe that the institutional church has set up an elaborate framework of doctrines to create a sense of safety in walking a line we were never meant to walk, which leads to the next section…

McCracken’s “Ancient Landmarks”

The council prefaced the letter to Antioch, saying, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” McCracken calls this a “powerful statement” and calls the entire situation “uncharted waters.” From this, he moves to the subject of leadership, the appointing of elders, and the importance of the governance of doctrine or “making sure that things line up.” He references Proverbs 22:28:

Do not move the ancient landmark that your fathers have set.

McCracken’s interpretation of this proverb is as follows:

Something important that we have to realize when it comes to our faith in leadership within our faith. In a local church, such as ours, but also in, we are a non-denominational church as you know, but also within denominations, within Protestantism, within the church as a whole, within our church fathers as a whole, going back to Martin Luther, going back further than him, that they have set landmarks. It’s important to understand we are allowed to question those landmarks, in fact it’s healthy to question. It’s healthy to study to show thyself approved, Paul tells his disciple, Timothy. But we must beware if we start to move it. They’re there for a reason. The Holy Spirit has led them for a reason, collectively. Our whole scripture that we have here is canonized, meaning, many, many godly men got together, and by the direction of the Holy Spirit said, “This, these are the books, these are the writings that God wants put together for us, for all time.” And we trust that that is from the Holy Spirit, that God moved upon man to write, and God moved upon man to combine together. And then we must trust that. This is where leadership comes in. It’s important.


The Holy Spirit appoints leaders in every church, including adoption, teaching, and refuting of doctrine. That’s why it’s so important. That’s why the impact on a teacher is so great. As a teacher, I must be held accountable to a higher standard than somebody who isn’t teaching. As an elder of this church, I am held to a higher degree of accountability before the throne room than somebody who is not, because of this very thing. That’s why we have to depend upon the team and we have to depend upon the ancient landmarks. Not blindly. Please hear me, church. Not blindly. But we have to also realize that the Holy Spirit spoke to them the same way He speaks to us now.

I’d like to point out a few problems with McCracken’s use and application of Proverbs 22:28. First, the meaning of the text does not support McCracken’s claims. In addition, the meaning of the text, ironically, goes directly against McCracken’s use of it. Also, it’s not beneficial to rely so heavily on the “landmarks” of believers in the past. Furthermore, McCracken’s view of canonization is not accurate. And finally, we need to take a closer look at the idea that the “Holy Spirit spoke to them the same way He speaks to us now.”

About Proverbs 22:28

The ancient landmarks were boundary stones to mark property lines. Elsewhere in scripture, the boundary stones are used to describe God defending oppressed people. For example, Proverbs 15:25 says, “The Lord tears down the house of the proud, but he sets the widow’s boundary stones in place.” And Proverbs 23:10-11 says, “Do not move an ancient boundary stone or encroach on the fields of the fatherless, for their Defender is strong; he will take up their case against you.” To move the landmarks was to move the property line, basically robbing one of a portion of his/her rightful inheritance through deception.

The meaning of the text, ironically, goes directly against McCracken’s use of it.

McCracken likens ancient landmarks to doctrine. Suppose for a moment that the ancient landmarks = doctrine. Matthew Henry’s commentary says, “Let not property in general be entrenched upon, by robbing men of their liberties and privileges, or of any just ways of maintaining them.” If God is nondiscriminatory, but people move the boundaries of this doctrine, taking away one’s freedom in Christ, if grace is over-abounding, but people move the boundaries of this doctrine, counting one’s sins against them, and if the law has been fulfilled in Christ, but people move the boundaries of this doctrine, making people work for what Christ has already earned, then those who prevent people from putting boundary stones back where they belong are robbing others of their spiritual inheritance. I don’t see God being very happy about this. McCracken said, “Grace came at a very costly price.” If erroneous doctrines are defended, thereby limiting God’s grace, believers are then robbed of an inheritance, since inheritance and grace are interconnected (“I commend you, brethren, to God, and to the word of His grace, that is able to build up, and to give you an inheritance among all those sanctified”).

It’s not beneficial to rely so heavily on the “landmarks” of believers in the past.

McCracken talks about landmarks set by church fathers and names Martin Luther in particular. Church fathers, including Luther, were fallible human beings. For example, Luther taught that if one wasn’t baptized, then he or she was not saved. Whistling Pines doesn’t subscribe to this doctrine. According to “What We Believe” on the Whistling Pines website:

We believe that water baptism (full immersion in water by a believer) and communion (The Lord’s Supper) as ordinances of the church, give outward demonstration of the covenant we have with God through Christ and with one another. These ordinances however do not cause regeneration. (Mk 1:9-10; Matt 28:19; Acts 2:41-47; Rom 6:1-14; Col 2:11-13; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-33; Ti 3:5)

I don’t know how Whistling Pines handles one who has no desire to be baptized, yet professes faith in Christ. If you think about it, baptism is a lot like circumcision. There’s nothing inherently wrong with getting circumcised or baptized as an outward display of what has happened in your heart, but to require it for official inclusion in the local assembling of believers is to agree with the Pharisee believers in Acts 15. After all, if God includes an unbaptized believer in His family, what gives Whistling Pines the right to exclude him/her from being considered just as much a member of the community as one who is baptized? Perhaps baptism is not a requirement for membership. I have no idea. I’m putting just one example of a doctrinal landmark out there for consideration. Remember there are many, many other doctrinal landmarks that ought to be held to open scrutiny.

McCracken’s view of canonization is not accurate.

There’s just too much information to include in one blog regarding how the Bible as we know it now, was compiled, and perhaps even more importantly, who the decision-makers were, and what the political climate and position of the church within that climate was. The idea that “these are the writings that God wants put together for us, for all time,” stands in contrast to:

You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on your hearts, to be known and read by all men; and you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not in a written code but in the Spirit; for the written code kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:2-6).

The Bible is a lot like history. It is useful for teaching, testing, correcting, and training in what we ought to do compared to what we’ve done in the past. It is a tool given to us by God and used by the Spirit of God to reveal the intentions of our own hearts. But it does not in any way compare to the Word living in us, that is, Christ. He is the vine and we are the branches that produce fruit. We must consider the fruits of those who established the Biblical canon and put the writings on the pedestal that they are on today.

For now, I encourage you to watch this video, and then study (using unbiased sources), how the canon of scripture was decided.

The Holy Spirit spoke to them the same way He speaks to us now.

I don’t believe that McCracken or almost anyone involved in leadership positions in the institutional church recognizes the practical implications of such a statement. If the Holy Spirit really does speak to us now in the same way He spoke to believers in the first century, then why are church leaders so afraid of laypeople disagreeing with doctrine or preaching without authorization/permission? Even the apostle Paul had to deal with church leaders appealing to their positions of authority to undermine the message (“wacked doctrine”) given to him by God. Paul wrote, “I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super-apostles.’ I may indeed be untrained as a speaker, but I do have knowledge.” McCracken said, “Leadership is not about lording over… but if you are teaching doctrine, it might be a good idea to at least run it by us the first time, because it might be wacked doctrine.” I would love to be a fly on the wall and report to you, readers, exactly how those conversations go, word-for-word. You will be at a disadvantage before you even walk into the church office, because any doctrine that is not in full agreement with their doctrine will be automatically considered “wacked doctrine.” There is no unbiased third party to whom you can appeal to consider both sides.

McCracken adds, “At the same time, if you feel like something we say that comes out of our mouth is wacked doctrine, please come talk to us, and we’ll talk it through. It goes both ways.”

I can only tell you the words that I heard, when I began to question “wacked doctrine” coming from the pulpit. Words like the subject being “shelved indefinitely,” whispers of “heresy,” accusations of “spiritual rebellion,” warnings like “guard your words,” warnings of “consequences for questioning authority,” and finally, ugly words like “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” “false prophet,” and “heretic.” There was no point-by-point debate and no in-depth examination of the subject. It was ignored until I would no longer allow it to be ignored, and then I was quickly (and publicly) stripped of any title or position and driven from the fellowship.

I truly believe that going to have a private visit with church leadership over disputes with doctrine is an ass-backwards approach to conflict resolution. Let me put it this way. If you suspect corruption in the police department, you don’t call the police, you call an investigative reporter or some outside agency. In the institutional church, there is no investigative reporter or outside agency, there is only a chain of command that ends with people who will not tolerate any serious threat to orthodoxy. If you study church history, you’ll find that reform is almost always accompanied by denominational or local church splits, and reformers are almost always demonized and outcast by orthodoxy. The only way to have a fair and honest conversation with church leaders is in a public manner, and that just doesn’t happen, at least, not within the church walls. When was the last time you heard an announcement at your church for a meeting to hold some long-standing doctrine under the light of scrutiny? I’m not talking about a lecture by an approved talking head on why you should still believe such-and-such doctrine, I’m talking about the scene you see in Antioch in the first few verses of Acts 15. Sometimes, Acts 15 breaks out on Facebook. Watch how quickly your church leaders unfriend those who publicly challenge the doctrines they teach.

The leaders at the Council of Jerusalem were playing God, stepping in and teaching partial-truths that minimized grace by retaining prohibitions (law) under the guise of passive language (grace) like “You will do well to avoid these things.” The council served a purpose. It set a precedent.  Organic, Spirit-led conflict resolution would eventually be completely replaced by church councils where decisions of importance would be made in an official manner by a handful of people in the upper hierarchy. Decisions, once made, would be very difficult to challenge without severe consequence.

The issues being discussed were important. But much of the growth and development of spiritual understanding in the early church took place outside of councils. The growth and development that took place as a human institution began with the first council and evolved (went from simple to complex, growing geographically and politically in influence, etc) from there. For example, councils were held to decide whether people who renounced their faith under persecution should be received back into fellowship with other believers, whether people who were baptized by unapproved others should be rebaptized, whether some bishops should have authority over other bishops, what should be considered the Bible canon (which is different from the one accepted today, BTW), arguments over jurisdiction of apostolic authority, the minimum age for ordination, the minimum number of deacons for each city, etc. These councils were more localized, so decisions made were only considered as official decisions for the immediate area.

As time went on, the councils became more political and the decisions made there were considered official decisions for the entire church (all believers, everywhere), not just a local group of believers. Christian Roman Emperors convened, and decisions were enforced by the state church of the Roman Empire. During this shift in decision-making, the idea of the Infallibility of Church and Papal Infallibility arose, along with a new and darker meaning for the word “anathema,” excommunication (de-salvation) for those who did not abide by ecumenical council decisions, and canon law. The Word of God was considered to be both scripture and tradition, each considered equally divine revelation. The goal of the councils was to unify the Christian church, but this unity was to be imposed by force, and stood in contradiction to unity accomplished by the Spirit of God.

Today, we are witnessing the slow fall of the kingdom or reign of God that believers have built for God. This kingdom is one you can see. It is built on fear and forced upon people from without, an attempt to transform the world into something it is not. This is different than the Kingdom or Reign of God, in which Jesus Christ “conquers,” all social, political, economic, and religious institutions, not by fear, but by His authority and power of love over hearts and relationships. It is the Reign of God that is built on the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, beginning within individual people and spreading in influence until He is all in all.

Related blog posts: Reign of God / Reign of HumanityRebranding ReligionEvery Day EasterOn Abortion, Homosexuality, and ObamaOrthotomeo (aka, Rightly Dividing)Whistling Pines’ Barbie God: A Response from a Believer Who Has a Voice5 Ways to Build the Church of Your Dreams & 5 Ways to Destroy ItAbundant LifeThe Light of ScrutinyThe Church Has Left the BuildingYou Can’t Kill God’s Idea, and Aion, The Eternal Torment Four-Letter-Word

Disturbing Trends

Posted: 29th June 2014 by admin in Uncategorized

If you have not yet read Let Us Make It Difficult for You, reading it first will give context to this blog post.

Here’s a quick recap. The main problem McCracken seeks to resolve in his sermon is how we, as believers, put a yoke, or heavy burden, around the necks of people who do not know Jesus. McCracken refers to Acts 15, which is not about people who do not know Jesus but about Gentile believers. I wrote:

Ironically, the main problem the Spirit of God seeks to resolve through McCracken’s sermon, the main subject the Spirit of God seeks to introduce, finds its way to the surface, despite McCracken’s intended subject.

This sermon is not about believers placing heavy burdens on those who I like to call not-yet-believers; the real subject of the sermon is believers placing heavy burdens on one another.

I asked, “What purpose does the first Christian council in Jerusalem in a.d. 48 serve?” We can answer this question by examining the letter written to Gentile believers in Antioch. The letter effectively demonstrates some disturbing trends that have persisted among believers for almost 2,000 years.

1. Misapplication of Spiritual Authority

The apostles and elders of the community of Jewish believers obviously believed they had the spiritual authority to declare whether the Pharisee believers were teaching accurate doctrine and/or whether the Gentile believers were living according to accurate doctrine. Perhaps they mistook their positions of influence in the subculture of Judaism (big fish in a little pond), their knowledge of scriptures, and their conformity to orthodox practices as signs of their spiritual authority in this matter.

We must remember the underlying reason they convened: To determine the extent of God’s grace to the Gentile believers. We must also remember the words of Jesus Christ, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

The “log” in the eye of both Pharisee believers, who said Gentile believers should be circumcised, and the Jewish non-Pharisee believers, who said Gentile believers should just follow a handful of rules, was their underestimation of God’s grace. Instead of examining their own hearts and their own doctrines, they focused on the “speck” in the eye of Gentile believers — that they might be overestimating God’s grace.

For decades many Jewish believers continued circumcising their sons, going to the temple, participating in the sacrificial system, following dietary restrictions, and the like. According to Eusebius’ History of the Church, the first fifteen bishops of Jerusalem were “all of them belonging to the circumcision.” Grace, to them, was more like a back-up plan to provide whatever righteousness the observance of customs and the works of law did not cover. Sure, they talked about salvation by grace, but their practices demonstrated otherwise. Had they humbled themselves and not thought so highly of their own spiritual authority in matters of doctrine, they might have learned a thing or two from the uncircumcised believers.

This trend continues today. Many believers, especially believers in positions of authority, still try to define the boundaries of God’s grace, and they rarely ever consider learning a thing or two from the modern-day equivalent of “uncircumcised” believers.

2. Failure to Recognize the Extent of God’s Nondiscrimination

Although the apostles and elders of the community of Jewish believers professed and agreed in theory that God gave “the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us,” their practices reveal how little confidence they had in the Spirit’s ability to lead the Gentile believers apart from Judaism. The decision-makers in this situation were circumcised and therefore permitted to enter the temple court or participate in the sacrificial system. The letter to Gentile believers in Antioch wasn’t a random list of suggestions; the rules were designed to discourage uncircumcised Gentile believers from participating in pagan (non-approved) sacrificial systems. Regardless of how one views the intentions of the council’s letter, this is certain: The first council created a double-standard of regulations and privileges, one for Jewish believers and one for Gentile believers.

The institutional church still creates a double-standard. There are stricter regulations and more privileges for people with titles. There are other less imposing regulations and fewer privileges for people without titles.

3. Failure to Understand God’s “Over-Abounding” Grace

Uncircumcised Gentile believers were the first ones to understand the irrelevance of circumcision and following Mosaic laws in light of salvation by the grace of the Lord Jesus. This is evidenced in the fact that they were disturbed after hearing the teaching that circumcision and law-following was a requirement of salvation. The Spirit of God was already at work in them, teaching them that the message they were hearing didn’t jive with the message of grace they first believed. The Jewish believers had a long, long way to go in their understanding of God’s grace.

The apostles and elders of the community of Jewish believers had confidence in their religious heritage, which delayed or prevented them from being led beyond the boundaries of their current system of belief. The Gentiles, who were also led by the Spirit, held the distinct advantage of NOT belonging to a long-standing, formal religious heritage. They had less to unlearn.

Anyone who has been following this blog knows how a failure to understand God’s over-abounding grace is an overarching theme on WhatGodDoes. I invite you to read through the related blog posts at the end of this blog post for how the institutional church systematically supresses any teaching about grace that does not fit within the boundaries of its current belief system (officially approved doctrinal boundaries).

4. Disregard of Christ’s Instructions

Believers are gifted in different ways, with a wide variety of skills and interests. It follows that in certain situations, some of them will have more authority than others to lead and direct. Then, in different situations, these others who were looking for guidance will be the ones to step up and give instruction. It’s an organic, Spirit-directed, beautiful way of relating to one another with love and respect. This kind of authority is humble and does not use fear or intimidation to elicit compliance. Unfortunately, we are fallible human beings, and pride gets in the way. That’s why Jesus instructed,

Ye have known that the rulers of the nations do exercise lordship over them, and those great do exercise authority over them, but not so shall it be among you…

In the Acts 15 conflict, what happened at first was appropriate and beneficial:

  • People talked about it.
  • People sharply disputed.
  • People debated.
  • Both sides of the argument were represented.
  • The conflict was not hidden.

To talk, dispute, debate and argue openly with each other as equals in a setting where anyone can have a voice is good.

What happened next was inappropriate and prejudicial. Think about it. A handful of believers were making an official decision about whether other believers should be required to cut the foreskins off of their penises and kill animals in order to be saved. The hubris of assuming any kind of official decision they made would hold more weight than the moral freedoms/convictions the Spirit of God had already given to the Gentile believers is astounding.

Perhaps some readers think I’m overreacting…

Even Paul, considered by many to be a “pillar” of the church, lets these elders “exercise lordship” over him. He ends up practicing the very things he had already begun to preach against.

The following story, in which the same elders from the Jerusalem council confront Paul, is an example of believers’ disregard for Christ’s instructions, “…not so shall it be among you.”  As you read, first consider the oppressive and threatening tone the conversation takes, then notice what emphasis is placed on not only following law but also making a great show of following the law, and finally, pay close attention to the official way the letter to the Gentile believers is framed in the conversation with the elders:

Paul was going in with us unto James, all the elders also came, and having saluted them, he was declaring, one by one, each of the things God did among the nations through his ministration, and they having heard, were glorifying the Lord.

They said also to him, `Thou seest, brother, how many myriads there are of Jews who have believed, and all are zealous of the law, and they are instructed concerning thee, that apostacy from Moses thou dost teach to all Jews among the nations, saying — not to circumcise the children, nor after the customs to walk; what then is it?

Certainly the multitude it behoveth to come together, for they will hear that thou hast come. This, therefore, do that we say to thee: We have four men having a vow on themselves, these having taken, be purified with them, and be at expence with them, that they may shave the head, and all may know that the things of which they have been instructed concerning thee are nothing, but thou dost walk — thyself also — the law keeping.

And concerning those of the nations who have believed, we have written, having given judgment, that they observe no such thing, except to keep themselves both from idol-sacrifices, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom.

Then Paul, having taken the men, on the following day, with them having purified himself, was entering into the temple, announcing the fulfilment of the days of the purification, till the offering was offered for each one of them.

Not so shall it be among you. Jesus’ instructions are clear, but I can tell you after spending three decades in the institution that His instructions are regularly disregarded there. It is that way among you. Outside, thank God, it’s a different story. When believers have titles and positions and paychecks or little kingdoms to lose, the Spirit of God is quenched and grieved systematically.

In his sermon, McCracken pointed out the Paul and Barnabus and others came together as a team in Acts 15. McCracken said, “They did not just unilaterally say, ‘Stop it. Shut your mouth, right now. No, it’s not that. Just keep moving along.’” The implication is that the modern-day institution operates the same way. I say bullshit. There are some conflicts that are settled together as a team, but when long-standing doctrine is challenged? No, sorry, that’s complete crap. The response is, indeed, “Stop it. Shut your mouth, right now. No, it’s not that. Just keep moving along.” When it comes to conflicts about doctrine in institutional churches that have doctrinal statements:

  • People don’t talk about it.
  • People don’t sharply dispute.
  • People don’t debate.
  • Both sides of the argument are not represented.
  • The conflict is hidden.

The next blog will address another disturbing trend: Important information from the council discussion that never made its way into the letter. Also, McCracken’s “ancient landmarks of the fathers,” preaching without authorization, “wacked” doctrine, and more…

Related blog posts: Reign of God / Reign of HumanityRebranding ReligionEvery Day EasterOn Abortion, Homosexuality, and ObamaOrthotomeo (aka, Rightly Dividing)Whistling Pines’ Barbie God: A Response from a Believer Who Has a Voice5 Ways to Build the Church of Your Dreams & 5 Ways to Destroy ItAbundant LifeThe Light of ScrutinyThe Church Has Left the BuildingYou Can’t Kill God’s Idea, and Aion, The Eternal Torment Four-Letter-Word