Translate

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

GOD AND GREED: PASTOR STEVEN FURTICK’S “HOUSE FROM HEAVEN”

GOD AND GREED: PASTOR STEVEN FURTICK’S “HOUSE FROM HEAVEN”



 
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ… he is conceited and understands nothing… [and] has a morbid interest in controversial questions… out of which arise… constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.”
Paul to Timothy, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, NASB, Emphasis added.[1]
Introduction—A Contrast
Early the morning of February 10, 2014, 12:00 am, Fox News airedThe Fox Files which contained a segment reporting on Samaritan’s Purse’s relief work in various parts of the world, focusing especially on helping the tens of thousands of refugees who have fled war torn Syria to seek safety in northern Iraq. In interviewing Samaritan’s Purse’s President Franklin Graham and its chief operating officer in Boone, N.C., and in traveling to Iraq to observe and report first-hand on the relief organization’s efforts there, Greta Van Susteren brought the heart of the ministry up-close and personal to viewers.

Syrian refugees were shown walking across a make-shift pontoon bridge over the river dividing Syria from Iraq, their only possession being the clothes they were wearing. The scene then shifted to Boone, N.C., where big semi-trucks and cargo planes were shown being loaded with food, water, medical and relief supplies (tents, heaters, water, shoes and clothing, etc.) to be flown to northern Iraq. Little children were shown as they were given their Christmas shoe boxes, the reception of which changed their countenances from the sadness of despair to smiles of delight. Fox Files reported that in most instances Samaritan’s Purse is the first to respond to disaster and refugee crises around the world. At times, it is the only responder. The news program authenticated the ministry of Samaritan’s Purse, the importance of which is crucial in light of recent attempts on the part of the U.S.’s Internal Revenue Service to make life uncomfortable for 501C(3) tax-exempt charities and organizations.

Anyway, my heart was moved to tears as I observed the squalid living conditions of the refugees and the ways in which Samaritan’s Purse was trying to help them, giving something to those who possessed nothing. I point to this legitimate ministry to contrast it with reports that have surfaced over the last months about another ministry in North Carolina located about a hundred miles to the south.
True to the “prosperity-gospel” tenet that God wants his children rich—they are after all, the King’s Kids—a young mega-church pastor (he’s 33 years old) is building a 1.7 million dollar mansion, with reportedly five bedrooms and seven and one/half baths, in an exclusive neighborhood on multiple acres of land. Steven Furtick is the hip, flamboyant and youthful communicator who leads Elevation Church in Charlotte, N.C., a growing 14,000 member congregation with several campuses, even one in Toronto, Canada. Amongst his followers, who claim to be evangelical, he’s not just a rising star, but a risen one. And befitting his stardom, the stylish Furtick is no pauper. His self-indulgence has caused many, mostly outside the realm of his followers, to question his ministerial motives in building the extravagant house. Jesus may have promised us a “mansion” in His Father’s house (really the sense is more of an “apartment”), but for the prosperous young pastor that day can’t wait (John 14:2, KJV). He wants the mansion now. So he’s building it with the money received from other of the King’s Kids.

He claims the capital for building the house is coming from “gains” derived from royalties from book sales and honorariums from speaking engagements. In a classic case of conflict of interest, from his influential platform the young pastor promotes his books to thousands of followers. Yet there’s no way of knowing if these royalty/honorarium sources of money are covering the 1.7 million cost of the house because no outsiders are privy Furtick’s compensation package from the church. I doubt that they do, but that’s what he says.

Though Elevation Church has a governing body, it does not consist of elders, but rather of a “hand picked” Board of Overseers of other mega-church pastors (Wonder who does the “picking”?). Thus, as Furtick, the church’s CFO James “Chunks” Corbett, other of the church’s administration team and “the Board of Overseers” (“overseer” can mean “bishop”) remain secreted regarding the church’s finances, neither the financial integrity nor accountability of the organization can be verified. Furtick promised Elevation “would always be a ministry of integrity.”[2] Yet the message being left amidst all the hazy financial reporting is, “Trust us!” So when the controversy initially surfaced regarding Furtick’s almost 2 million dollar building project, the young pastor apologized the next Sunday to his 14,000 plus followers that he was sorry for any “uncomfortable conversations” they had to have over “his mansion” under construction.[3] Some evangelical leaders, and there’s more than just Furtick, seem to be mimicking the lifestyles of the rich, the famous and sometimes naughty.

Now this scandal can be added to the long list of other scandals that hangover the pale of the evangelical movement in America, both present (Doug Phillips of Vision Forum, and Bill Gothard of Institute in Basic Life Principles) and past.[4] There will be scandals, I guess. Anyway, evangelical Christianity’s losing of credibility appears to be in a free fall. By in large money, sex, and power have corrupted the movement (See 1 John 2:15-17.).


My intention in drawing attention to the controversy over Furtick’s house-scandal is because what’s happening with him and Elevation Church are symptomatic of what is going wrong in evangelicalism. As a whole and for the most part, excepting, of course, Samaritan’s Purse and many other good and godly missions and ministries, the evangelical movement does not have a good reputation among outsiders. As far as the movement’s PR is concerned, rotten apples are spoiling the whole, and millions of followers are allowing it to happen. So it becomes incumbent that these wealth-gospel ministers and ministries be held up to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture to see how God’s word indicts their obvious and blatant spiritual shenanigans.

Yes, pan-evangelicalism has lost credibility amongst John Q Public. From what has happened, outsiders know something “stinks.” But those same unbeliever-outsiders might be surprised to know that Scripture also indicts the legitimacy of much of what passes for “ministry” today. Nevertheless, though many outside the church detect the odor emanating from evangelicalism, how is it, we are forced to ask, that so many in evangelicalism can’t smell the smell? Maybe they’ve just gotten too used to it.

So to determine why evangelicalism has become odious, even to some of us who might be categorized as part of it, we need to perform a simple test—”follow the money.” So let us look at the “money trail” and together survey some of the biblical warnings about money’s corrupting influence, especially as regards the “wealth gospel,” whether that false teaching is being peddled overtly or covertly, brazenly or subtly. To critics of discernment in general (Oh, discerners are unloving and way too judgmental.), I would say that silence is compliance. But about cases like Furtick’s, Scripture is neither silent nor compliant.

Please follow the Bible’s “money trail” with me. We begin with . . .


The Love of Money is the Root of All Evil
These well known words, incidentally taken from the Bible, are not to be understood as referring to corporate America, but are a warning to ministers and churches, especially those in which ministry has become an industry (1 Timothy 6:10a). Paul words to young Timothy warn ministers and ministries regarding the influence of affluence, of the becoming mesmerized by money. Let’s read them.
“But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires…. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith….(Emphasis added, 1 Timothy 6:9-10).
If Furtick is a rising star in evangelicalism, then he could become, if he’s not already, a wandering one (Jude 13). In these verses Paul warned that already in the apostolic era there were “money-grubbing” church leaders who had strayed from “the faith”; meaning that their chasing after money caused them to wander away from the truth of God’s Word. Invariably, greed spawns heresy as leaders under the spell of wealth attempt to, in contradiction to Jesus’ teaching, excuse the inexcusable. Jesus said:
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot [I think "cannot" means "cannot"] serve God and wealth (Matthew 6:24).
“Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (KJV). How can one reconcile any “prosperity gospel” with Jesus’ clear statement? In serving Christ and like oil and water, greed and God don’t mix. Take your choice. Jesus said it’s either/or. To Jesus, love of money is the litmus test as to where our loyalties really lie, as to whether we’re serving God or our own bellies (Romans 16:18). To run after lucre involves walking away from the Lord and His truth. It’s just that simple. And most of us know the Gospel record of how Jesus with scourge in hand overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple as he uttered these words: “My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves” (Matthew 21:13, KJV). The Lord cleansed His Father’s house of the “business” on two different occasions, one near the end of his ministry and another at the beginning (See John 2:13-17.).

“Godliness” merits Prosperity
Previously in this chapter and context, Paul warns young Timothy (and Furtick, too, is young) that to justify money grubbing Jesus’ plain words must be turned upside down. So to excuse the inexcusable, adherents of the wealth gospel must adopt a self-serving thought process to justify the ruse. They must think or imagine that their religious pursuits deserve reward (Greek, nomizontōn, 1 Timothy 6:5b). Of this “supposing” (KJV), one commentator notes that it refers to a corruption of mind in which,
“It seems… to point to thinking that has settled into an assumption. It is a pattern of thinking that is unexamined because it is presumed true. The present tense sees this as an ongoing and uninterrupted pattern of their thoughts.”[5]
Any presumption of prosperity on the part of many evangelical Christians, no matter how engrained in their mental processes the idea is, does not agree, as Paul stated, with Jesus’ “sound words.” The apostle wrote:
If anyone advocates a different doctrine [like a "wealth gospel"] and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.” 2 Timothy 6:3-5, Emphasis added.
As regards the interpretation of this verse, English translations vary slightly. What do the heterodox teachers suppose? What is so engrained in “their group think” that it goes unquestioned by them and their followers? The NASB translates the Greek phrase (nomizontōn porismon einai tnv eusebeian) as men “who suppose that godliness is a means of gain,” and the KJV as “men… supposing that gain is godliness” (KJV). In the former sense, heterodox teachers think that they accrue wealth though godliness (using God); in the latter sense, they explain wealth as the reward for godliness (excusinggain).[6] Either way, “the buck stops” with God! God either owes me wealth or gives me wealth. But regardless of the phrase’s emphasis, by it Paul communicates that such monetary machinations are feigned scams, and when scams hit the public fan, and as we all know, they become scandals. Peter knew that when he wrote of false teachers that, “many will follow their sensuality” and therefore “the way of the truth will be maligned” (2 Peter 2:2). Even a liberal theologian was quite terse in his opinion of Furtick’s house. “It’s just vulgar. It’s an offense to the Gospel” he is quoted to have said.[7] So what has been severely downgraded amidst the evangelical scandals, both past and present, is the very credibility of the Gospel. And this is just as Peter predicted would be the case.

The financial and moral (the former invariably affects the latter) improprieties being exhibited and tolerated (Remember, silence is compliance.) within the evangelical nation insult the common-sense-virtue of people both inside and outside the church. But there remain those who continue to blindly follow the cause célèbre, the cult of the personality. As Peter said, “many will follow their sensuality.”Nevertheless, perceptive onlookers are compelled to ask, “Hey, what’s the deal, what’s the real scandal going on here?” Is it the manipulative use and abuse of powers and dollars by Christian celebrities, or the ignorance of the masses who uncritically and unswervingly indulge the cult of the personality? Why do so many continue to “drink the punch” of the imposters? Here is Jesus’ warning in this regard.

People who follow unrepentant leaders who continue to scandalize the Christian faith stand as implicated in the scandals as those who perpetuate them. Let me repeat. Followers of charlatans are as guilty as the charlatans. Before God the deceived stand as guilty as the deceivers. For the moment, ignorance may be peace and bliss, but the peace and bliss will not last. To this point, Jesus’ words give warning. Regarding the Pharisees—who by the way also loved money (See Luke 16:14.)—and their followers, Jesus told His disciples, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:15). When following the wrong leader, religion has a way of becoming “the pits.” Just ask recovering and disillusioned people whose lives have been ruined because they banked with the wrong religious leader.

Knowing of Jesus’ statements about money and His example, Paul, unlike so many in both his day and ours, never “peddled” the Word of God for profit (2 Corinthians2:17), never “coveted” anyone’s gold, silver or clothes (Acts 20:33) and never “flattered” to camouflage greed (1 Thessalonians 2:5; See 2 Peter 2:3.). Paul understood that covetousness is “idolatry” (Colossians 3:5). It’s against the backdrop of both Jesus’ and Paul’s attitude toward wealth that Furtick’s excuse for his house must be evaluated.

As reported by the Charlotte Observer, the Elevation Church leader claims immunity from financial misconduct, from accusations of extravagance being leveled against him. In a typical “We-deserve-it!” explanation, he tells the folks,
“It’s a big house, and it’s a beautiful house, and we thank God for it…. We understand everything we have comes from God.”[8]
Regarding such an attitude and any like it, John Stott (1921-2011), in his day a noted pastor and expositor of Scripture, insightfully commented that, “The history of the human race has regularly been stained by attempts to commercialize religion.”[9] Then he continued:
“Of course greed is itself a desire, selfish and even idolatrous [See Ephesians 5:5; Colossians 3:5.], but it breeds other desires. For money is a drug, and covetousness a drug addiction. The more you have, the more you want. Yet these desires are foolish (they cannot be rationally defended) and harmful (they captivate and do not liberate the human spirit).” [10]
Greed breeds! Scandals arise for reason of covetous religious leaders who Paul states are possessed of depraved and deprived hearts and minds (1 Timothy 6:5). The hubris of the exhibited depravity offends unbelieving onlookers, as justifiably it should. For reason of the offense, scandals become more scandalized as coveters attempt to mute their critics as they dupe their followers. Yet all the while, the whole conglomerate, leaders and followers, give every indication they’re oblivious to the obvious as they excuse the inexcusable, as they indulge the lie. After all, how can it be so wrong when it feels so right? Because of pride the leaders won’t admit wrong in their leading, and because of pride, followers will not admit to the wrong of their following. Religious con-artists will not admit to wrong in what “they have” even as their followers will not admit “they’ve been had.” Meanwhile, negative reports continue to surface as indicting pictures continue to circulate. But all of this is so opposite from the standards for genuine spiritual leadership set by the Apostle.

“Greedy After Filthy Lucre”
In his letter to Timothy, Paul also writes that one of the qualifications of spiritual leadership, even among young men (and Timothy was young), is that leaders “not [be] greedy of filthy lucre(from the Latin lucrum, “money or profits”)… ” (1 Timothy 3:3, 8, KJV), be “free from the love of money… [and not be] fond of sordid gain” (1 Timothy 3:3, 8). The character of the leader must be above“must be above reproach” and “have a good reputation with those outside the church” (1 Timothy 3:2, 7; Compare 3:10).

These qualifications of spiritual leadership do not demand perfection because nobody’s perfect. But what the statements do teach is that when assailed, the charges against leaders prove false. Though not perfect, the leader’s character ought to be Teflon-like. When charges are hurled, they do not stick. But at this juncture, the “filthy lucre” charges like those being leveled at Furtick and others of the “prosperity-group-think” are sticking. And when they stick, putting aside all the cheesy explanations for their indulging extravagance, there is no obligation on the part of the foolish to keep following. But of this option, masses of members within evangelicalism seem to be mindlessly ignorant. But there’s another leadership peril to be avoided.

No “Accountability”
The New Testament indicates that “bishops” (Greek, episkopoi, 1 Timothy 3:l) and/or “elders” (Greek, presbuteroi, Titus 1:5) are to govern local churches. The two designations are synonyms that refer to the same governing local church office. But in the case of Elevation Church, such a biblical office of government is absent. Presumably governing the church are the young lead pastor, personally hired church administrators and an appointed but un-local Board of Directors. In such a “set-up,” the right hand—the Elevation congregation—does not know what the left hand—”Furtick and company”—are doing; so much for candor and openness. This self-invented method of church government ought to be a warning signal to the congregation at Elevation that something is amiss.

No “Repentance”
Last fall when the report of Furtick’s construction of his “mansion from heaven” surfaced in the media and the accusations began to fly, the young pastor told his followers he was sorry. Sorry for what, for the extravagance? No. He apologized to his 14,000 plus thousands of followers for any “uncomfortable conversations” they had to have over his big dig. Question: Why were the conversations “uncomfortable”? Were they “uncomfortable” because his constructing the mansion is highly “questionable”? I guess this is the new version of repentance—being sorry to his followers that his big dig has become a big deal. Another question: Where is God amidst all this, other than Furtick’s assertion that He approvingly has given him the house? But to the issue of materialism and ministry, the Old Testament also gives an example.

“Divining” for Dollar$—Balaam and Big Buck$
Balaam was a Gentile diviner from Mesopotamia, someone who could be hired to prophesy for the right fee (Numbers 22:1-24:5; 22:7*), who could be hired to curse a nation’s enemy thereby facilitating victory in war (Numbers 22:6, 17; 24:13). So Balak, the King of Moab, attempted to hire Balaam to curse the invading army of Israel as it threatened to take away his kingdom. But God would have none of it. He refused to allow Balaam do as both he and the king of Moab were want to do.

But with God’s seeming approval, Balaam set out in the company of Balak’s emissaries with the intention of speaking only to and for Balak what God had ordered him to speak (Numbers 22:20, 35). But somewhere along the journey, the double-minded and double-dealing prophet reneged upon his agreement with God. (Perhaps Balak’s men influenced him to change his mind.) He decided he’d speak according to what Balak had bargained for him to speak; that is to curse Israel. He decided to double-cross God, but God would have none of it. So He intervened.

God sent “the angel of the Lord” to intercept the prophet on his mountainous journey to Moab. The angel blocked the narrow path the prophet was traveling on. With the narrow-walled trail obstructed, the prophet’s own she-ass saw the angel as it balked and brayed at the prophet’s commands (just as Balaam was balking at God’s orders). All of this frustrated the unseeing prophet and caused him to whip the donkey with increasing violence until the animal complained to the prophet for how he was treating her. On this point I see nothing odd about God, like a ventriloquist, filling the donkey’s mouth with His prophetic word to rebuke the prophet. After all, God frequently spoke audibly in Scripture (See Luke 3:22).

So suddenly, in an epiphanic moment, the prophet became aware of the angel, realized the error of how he was beating his animal, and was made conscious of his double-dealing intent to turn from God’s word, give in to Balak and curse Israel. So again, he was forced to agree with the Lord to speak only what God commanded; and that was to bless, not curse Israel.

So meeting up with the Moabite king, they journeyed on three different occasions to three different high-altitude vantage points (heights where common pagan belief held that the gods dwelt) that overlooked Israel’s camp and armies. From those heights, three times Balaam defied Balak and blessed Israel. Then the two parted company. But Balaam’s failure did not deter him from his desire to do Israel harm. So he employed another strategy to defeat Israel. Instead of attempting to curse Israel by declaration, the mercenary prophet taught Balak how to corrupt Israel by deception.
The New Testament employs three expressions in reference to this incident: the error of Baalam, the way of Baalam, and the doctrine of Baalam. Jude warned the apostolic church that false teachers had arisen and “for pay” had rushed “headlong into the error of Balaam”(Jude 11). Peter drew attention to the hireling prophet, that his way involved loving “the wages of unrighteousness” (2 Peter 2:15). But the Book of Revelation speaks of the false prophet’s doctrine in which instead cursing Israel, he taught Balak how to corrupt God’s people from the inside, to seduce them into eating “things sacrificed to idols” and committing acts of immorality” (Revelation 2:14; Compare Numbers 25:1-9). The error and way of Balaam refer to the prophet’s willingness to compromise standards of morality and truth to satiate his greed. Interestingly, in the cognate language of Arabic, Balaam (bal’am) means “glutton.”[11] The doctrine of Balaam refers to the tactic whereby the false prophet attempted to destroy Israel by leading them into idolatry and immorality (See Numbers 25:1-9).

In light of the story, it becomes difficult to see how Balaam was a true prophet of God who became corrupted. Rather, the Mesopotamian diviner was a false prophet who, as did the witch of Endor (See 1 Samuel 28:3-25), had a temporary encounter with the true God who prohibited him from speaking a curse against His people. The whole incident shows that false prophets are not God’s prophets. Scripture paints the whole situation to be ludicrous because engaging false prophets and teachers is ludicrous.

Prophets for Profit
Then too, Israel was besieged by false prophets who accommodated their messages for money. To quote a modern paraphrase, the Lord told Micah that, “My people are deceived by prophets who promise peace to those who pay them, but threaten war for those who don’t”(Micah 5:3, TEV; Compare Ezekiel 13:19, “And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread…”(NKJV).

Conclusion—”Cash Cows”
Money can, and most often does, have a corrupting influence upon ministry. Absolute money can corrupt absolutely. Society does scorn and ridicule the scandals plaguing evangelicals today who from appearances, and in contradiction to Jesus’ statement about serving, are putting money first and God second. But Bible believing Christians ought not to be intimidated by “success driven” churches because they understand that the Scriptures also condemn the versions of the wealth gospel that drives them, whether blatant, as with certain charismatic charlatans, or subtle, as with hip communicator-corporate-type-exec-pastors who schmooze with their followers to use their followers.
Some, I know, will accuse this writing as being unchristian. But to be silent is to be compliant. So the beginning of the article calls the scandal going on at Elevation Church a “case study” because it is but a cameo of the bigger picture of what’s going on under evangelicalism’s big tent, of what’s passing for “ministry” these days. Yet few under the big tent are saying much about it. Secular media seem more sensitive in its reporting of the aberrations of evangelicals than evangelicals themselves. At least they call these scams for what they are… “scandals.”

In today’s American religious sub-culture, evangelical practices have for some become a “cash cow,” which “is business jargon for a business venture that generates a steady return of profits that far exceed the outlay of cash required to acquire or start it.”[12] Without a doubt, and whether fair or unfair, the IRS is gearing up to get its share of the “cash cow.” If the flagrant and blatant corruption of religious ministry goes too far, and perhaps it already has, then loss of tax exempt status for all churches may come, and I think it’s fair to say that if and when it happens, mega-ministries-turned-industries will have invited it. The wanton monetary self-indulgence on the part of self-aggrandizing few will have ruined it for the self-sacrificing many. And when the tax hammer falls, some will call it persecution. But really, to stop the nonsense and by God’s providence, maybe a loss of First Amendment rights will serve to promote the genuine purity and charity of God’s true church.[13]
Much of what has been written here has been negative about ministry and money. But along with the warnings in Scripture about mercenary prophets and teachers, the Bible also contains instructions as to how congregations are to take care of their leaders and workers. They ought to be generous, not miserly. Paul told Timothy that those who lead local churches are worthy of the “double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17). Paul told believers in Galatia: “The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him” (Galatians 6:6). And the apostle also made the Corinthians aware that “the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel” (1 Corinthians 9:14). Congregations should not treat their leaders on the cheap. They should not pray, “Lord, you keep our pastor humble and we’ll keep him poor!” But neither should they indulge them. Balance and moderation are key.
Yet in all life’s circumstances, God’s people ought to bless God and be thankful for everything He gives and they have (James 1:17; 1 Thessalonians5:18). We ought ever to live our lives in the knowledge of the words and example of the blessed Jesus Christ who in the presence of His disciples told a scribe who wanted to follow Him,
“The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.”

Matthew 8:20
ENDNOTES
[1] Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the New American Standard Bible: Reference Edition (Anaheim, CA: Foundation Publications, 1996).
[2] Stuart Watson, “NBC Charlotte obtains confidential Elevation report,” November 4, 2013, NBC Charlotte (http://www.wcnc.com/news/iteam/NBC-Charlotte-obtains-confidential-Elevation-Church-report-230557491.html).
[3] “The Prosperity Gospel Of Elevation Church Pastor Steven Furtick: ‘Everything We Have Comes from God’,” The Huffington Post: Religion, October 29, 2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/elevation-church-steven-furtick-prosperity-gospel-_n_4173578.html).
[4] “List of Christian evangelist scandals,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia(http://www.icyte.com/system/snapshots/fs1/3/8/d/4/38d4c9095c0f23e45e3b48941e9b6b6ddee07243/index.html).
[5] John Kitchen, The Pastoral Epistles for Pastors (The Woodlands, TX: Kress Christian Publications, 2009): 259.
[6] Because the word “godliness” (Greek, eusebeian) is prefaced by an article (though not translated in the English, Greek tnv), proper translation would be, “supposing that godliness is a means of gain.”
[7] Quoted in Huffington Post.
[8] Ibid.
[9] John Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy and Titus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996): 148.
[10] Ibid., 152.
[11] A. van Selms, “Balaam,” The New Bible Dictionary, J.D. Douglas, Organizing Editor (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids, MI: 1962): 129.
[12] “Cash cow,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_cow).
[13] “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .” The Constitution of the United States, Amendment I (Washington, D.C.: Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 1985-1992).Graphics in this post are courtesy of Pastor Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries:http://apprising.org/2012/12/18/steven-furticks-elevation-church-planning-20-million-facility-to-house-administrative-staff/ and: http://apprising.org/2014/01/26/financial-questions-surrounding-steven-furtick-and-his-elevation-church/ 

Saturday, March 8, 2014

What’s Wrong With Buying Your Way Onto the Bestseller List?

From the Gospel Coalition Jared C Wilson

. . . or buying Twitter followers or gaming the analytics to inflate website stats, etc.
At least 5 things:

1. It’s dishonest.
No, it’s not illegal. But neither are lots of unethical, dishonest things. The asumption that people make when they see “Bestseller” labeled on a book or 600,000 followers on your Twitter page is that you came by those accomplishments the straightforward way: attracting or impressing enough readers to merit their attention. Many “bestseller lists” are assembled in such a way to prevent certain gamings of the system. It may not be a crime to figure out the workarounds, but it’s certainly against the rules, the spirit of the lists, and the expectations of those who respect the lists. Exploiting the loopholes is a patently deceptive practice. Some may ask what the difference is between this practice and paying for an ad. But the difference should be obvious: when people see an ad, they know it was paid for by the writer/publisher/marketer, but when people see a book make a bestseller list, they assume it was paid for by readers. That the net effect may be the same — influence — doesn’t justify non-transparent means.

2. It’s egocentric and lazy.
Rather than actually write a strong book or assemble a steady body of social media work that people find valuable over time, rather than putting in the actual time and investing the relational capital necessary to build a genuine audience, one opts to leverage one commodity (money) for another (power). And while some may say the system-gaming strategy is simply a way to get “the gospel” into the maximum number of hands, others of us would suggest that the efforts to gin up an insta-hit indicate it’s not so much the gospel that needs a bestseller as an antsy writer who needs one.

3. It may eventually harm your reputation and will bug you in the long run.
It may harm your reputation when people find out. That’ll stink. Then you’ll spend more time defending yourself or owning up to your shadiness than you will enjoying your success and leveraging your influence for Christ’s fame.

But maybe nobody ever finds out. Maybe the only ones who know are you and the ones you paid to create your status. Instead, it will start to eat at you. As people congratulate you for your bestselling status or express regard for your widening audience, you’ll know inside it’s a sham, that you didn’t actually earn it but bought it. That’s assuming, of course, you have a sensitive conscience. Either way, it’s just not worth it in the long run.

4. It’s poor stewardship and bad strategy.
Okay, so let’s say you are just trying to “promote” the book. Wouldn’t it have been more efficient to simply pay the same amount for an advertising blitz in key publications? Let’s say you really are just trying to reach people with the gospel. Wouldn’t investing the same amount in an actual ministry endeavor (supporting a missionary, funding a church plant, etc.) be money better spent? If you’re simply trying to expand the audience of the gospel — or your gospel-teaching material — wouldn’t it be more effective to simply purchase thousands of copies of your book and give them away to lost people? Or, alternatively, not to sell your book at all and just give it away for free? (Did Keith Green make any bestseller lists? Has John Piper?) As a ministry maneuver, system-gaming works against its purported aim because it’s non-transparent, but it also seems too complicated and inefficient to effectively accomplish what it means to.

5. It disadvantages those actually gifted.
This is a subtle point but I think an important one. Some people take years to gather thousands of blog readers or Twitter followers by consistently putting out quality content over time and earning readers’ trust and therefore the widening influence this affords. Then someone comes along and buys twice as many fake followers. You may call this sour grapes on the part of the guy who came by his readers honestly, but I think he’d have a genuine grievance about the buyer’s inadvertent cheapening of the earner’s effort and influence. When more and more people get quickly and easily what others worked very hard for over time, it lessens the value of everybody’s influence. This is why the celebrity culture pervading evangelicalism doesn’t advance the gospel so much as it creates a culture of competition and consumerism, and also distrust.

Additionally, authors who buy their way into sales and accolades disadvantage their brothers and sisters who are actually gifted to write. Yes, I know some of the bestselling Christian authors have actually written their own books, but too many have not, and adding the dishonesty of system-gaming to the dishonesty of ghostwriting further hinders the work of real artists who are getting crowded out of the marketplace.

And the disadvantage is a real one, if only because the “horning in” can’t run the other way. There are no ghost-preachers, after all. Many talented preachers are not talented writers, and vice versa, but talented writers can’t pretend to be talented preachers. But talented preachers can sure pretend to be talented writers. When we let them, we diminish the writer class in evangelicalism. We do a disservice to the Body, actually, because we let the preacher class cannibalize the writer class. They used to coexist harmoniously. But that was before the preacher got envious of the writer. And one of the awful results is that evangelicals don’t have very good literary taste. What if we let our gifted preachers preach to us and our gifted writers write to us? And when the twain meet, great, but when they don’t — also great.

Why earn it when someone elses tithe money can buy it - getting on the NYT bestseller list

The Signed Contract That Helped Get Mark Driscoll’s Real Marriage on the New York Times Best Seller List

Yesterday, World Magazine published an article by Warren Cole Smith which described a contract between Mars Hill Church (MHC) and ResultSource, Inc. (RSI) for the purpose of elevating Mark Driscoll’s book Real Marriage to various best seller lists.  The arrangement was successful, leading to a week atop the New York Time’s best seller list for advice books. Mars Hill Church does not deny this but spun the arrangement as a means to spread the gospel.

I have a copy of the contract signed by Mars Hill executive pastor Sutton Turner and Mat Miller at RSI. In 2013, Jeffrey Tractenberg investigated RSI for the Wall Street Journal and interviewed various people who had worked with RSI. In that article,  author Melissa Wilson described the RSI strategy as “the secret sauce.” With World’s reporting, the sauce isn’t so secret anymore.

Initially, the contract spells out the numbers of copies needed for individual and bulk sales.

Note that RSI uses “over a thousand different payment types” to evade detection. Somehow RSI knows that the NYT bestseller list “requires a minimum of 90 geographically disperse (sic) addresses.”

Apparently, the publisher must be on board with this arrangement as well since the contract requires the publisher to supply the proper number of books. I have asked Harper Collins Christian for comment but they have not replied as yet.

The names and addresses are apparently very important in making sure that these purchases escape detection by those who compile the best seller lists.

This method seems consistent with my speculation from yesterday. MHC got donation and addresses from people who wanted a “free” copy of the book. I suspect that some of the people at those addresses then got books from Amazon or some other book seller.  Via the pre-release solicitation or by some other manner, those names and addresses were given to RSI to use with their payment methods to purchase books via online or other sellers.

I spoke to a former Mars Hill pastor last night who told me that some MHC locations had hundreds of books just gathering dust. Some of those bulk orders might still be sitting in MHC storage room.
At least one former ally of Driscoll has denounced the practice of buying one’s way on to a best seller list. Justin Taylor at Crossway Books and the Gospel Coalition tweeted a link to an article by Jared Wilson on the Gospel Coalition website titled:


With some private information excluded here is the entire contract.

Cheating your way to the Top by known plagerist Mark Driscoll


Unreal sales for Driscoll’s
Real Marriage 

RELIGION | Document suggests Mars Hill Church bought its pastor’s spot on the New York Times best-seller list 


Seattle’s Mars Hill Church paid a California-based marketing company at least $210,000 in 2011 and 2012 to ensure that Real Marriage, a book written by Mark Driscoll, the church’s founding pastor, and his wife Grace, made the New York Times best-seller list. 

According to a document obtained by WORLD, ResultSource Inc. (RSI) contracted with Mars Hill “to conduct a bestseller campaign for your book, Real Marriage on the week of January 2, 2012. The bestseller campaign is intended to place Real Marriage on The New York Times bestseller list for the Advice How-To list.” 

The marketing company also promised to help place Real Marriage on the Wall Street Journal Business, USA Today Money, BN.com (Barnes & Noble), and Amazon.com best-seller lists.
Mat Miller of ResultSource and John Sutton Turner of Mars Hill signed the letter of agreement, dated Oct. 13, 2011. Turner was then and remains today the church’s executive pastor and an executive elder. 

Repeated phone calls to ResultSource by WORLD went unreturned. When WORLD contacted Mars Hill about its relationship with ResultSource, church spokesman Justin Dean responded via email, saying, “Mars Hill has made marketing investments for book releases and sermon series, along with album releases, events, and church plants, much like many other churches, authors, and publishers who want to reach a large audience. We will explore any opportunity that helps us to get that message out, while striving to remain above reproach in the process. Whether we’re talking about technology, music, marketing, or whatever, we want to tell lots of people about Jesus by every means available. That’s what we’re all about and have been since 1996.”
 
Dean added that Driscoll’s books have generated more than $200,000 in income for the church. “Pastor Mark’s generosity has never been in question,” Dean said, “and both our board and senior staff [are] convinced that the church benefits both spiritually and financially from this writing ministry.” But since neither the church nor Driscoll make available the details of their financial arrangements, it is impossible to verify Dean’s claims. 

The details of the agreement between Mars Hill and ResultSource are complicated. ResultSource received a fee of $25,000 to coordinate a nationwide network of book buyers who would purchase Real Marriage at locations likely to generate reportable sales for various best-seller lists, including the New York Times list. Mars Hill also paid for the purchase of at least 11,000 books ranging in price from $18.62 to $20.70, depending on whether the books were purchased individually or in bulk. The contract called for 6,000 of the books to be bought by individuals, whose names were supplied by the church. Another 5,000 books were bought in bulk. 

Mars Hill would not say whether the funds for the purchase of these books, which would total approximately $123,600 for the individual sales and $93,100 for the bulk sales, came from church funds. 

According to the terms of the contract between ResultSource and Mars Hill, “RSI will be purchasing at least 11,000 total orders in one-week.” The contract called for the “author” to “provide a minimum of 6,000 names and addresses for the individual orders and at least 90 names and address [sic] for the remaining 5,000 bulk orders. Please note that it is important that the make up of the 6,000 individual orders include at least 1,000 different addresses with no more than 350 per state.” 

The purpose of this instruction appears to be a way to outsmart systems put in place by The New York Times and other list compilers to prevent authors from buying their way onto best-seller lists. ResultSource apparently uses other techniques to work around the safeguards of the best-seller lists. According to its agreement with Mars Hill, “RSI will use its own payment systems (ex. gift cards to ensure flawless reporting). Note: The 
largest obstacle to the reporting system is the tracking of credit cards. RSI uses over 1,000 different payment types (credit cards, gift cards, etc).” 

What ResultSource does is not illegal, but organizations that publish best-seller lists discourage such practices. Most best-seller lists receive their raw data from Nielsen BookScan, which tracks sales at thousands of bookstores and through online retailers. Nielsen, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times did not respond to WORLD’s request for interviews, but in a 2013 Wall Street Journal about ResultSource, Nielsen BookScan general manager Jonathan Stolper said, “Stringent rules and controls exist to help validate consumer sales, and confirmed bulk sales are always flagged and pulled from BookScan’s best-seller chart-making process.” 

Whatever you think of the means, Mars Hill Church and ResultSource did achieve its end: In early 2012, Real Marriage spent one week on the New York Times best-seller list. It immediately fell off the list, but ever since, Mark Driscoll’s official biography says, “Pastor Mark is the author of over 15 books, including the #1 New York Times best-selling Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together, coauthored with his wife, Grace.”

Thursday, March 6, 2014

'Son of God' Movie Is Most Certainly Not The Son of God

Christian Post: 'Son of God' Movie Is Most Certainly Not The Son of God - Sunny Shell

Fri, Feb. 28, 2014 Posted: 10:47 PM

Today, "Son of God", a new movie produced by Roma Downey and her husband Mark Burnett opened in theaters across the country. Individual Christians and well-known Christian churches, organizations and even schools are raving about seeing Jesus on the big screen.

Many Christian groups bought out multiple screens at theaters or purchased mass quantities of group tickets for this epic film...or rather, epic fail of the true and biblical story of Jesus, the Son of God.
Last year I was contacted by a media group for The History Channel. They emailed me requesting my help in promoting their upcoming 10-episode miniseries called "The Bible". After reviewing their material, Bible studies based on the series, and clips of every episode, I responded kindly telling them that due to the unbiblical nature of the series, I was unable to help promote it. After watching the entire miniseries I wrote and published my review and I haven't heard from them since.
Prior to entering the theater today, I went in with an open-Bible-mind and open-Spirit-heart. I hoped that this movie was better than the miniseries, but alas, it was not. The majority of this film was simply scenes taken from the heretical and blasphemous miniseries. Please know, I don't take these two terms lightly, and you neither should any professing Christian.

I won't go point by point on all the biblical errors in this movie because honestly, there's just not enough room in one review, nor time in one day to cover the ineptness of the writers and producers of this film. I will only cover some of the topics and scenes that are fundamental to God's holy precepts and His loving relationship with His people which include God's:
 
 As a movie, it was gripping, emotionally engaging, well-performed and the cinematography was good. I'm not an emotional person, but even I found myself tearing up when Matthew was called away from his tax collecting table to follow Jesus. Unfortunately, the way this scene is portrayed (as many others) is not actually how God inspired it to be written in His Word.

Jesus Asks Peter To Go Fishing
When Jesus comes to the Sea of Galilee, rather than call His first four disciples (Peter, Andrew, James and John), He only calls one disciple—Peter. But rather than call Peter and Andrew from their boat while they were fishing, Jesus pleads, "Peter, just give me an hour and I'll give you a whole new life." After sassing Jesus, Peter takes him fishing where Jesus works a miracle and provides him with an abundance of fish. When Peter asks what they are going to do, Jesus says, "Change the world."
In the real Bible, Jesus doesn't beg anyone to spend time with them. After all, He is the Lord and has all authority to command who He wants and what He wants. Therefore, He commands Peter and Andrew to follow Him and they immediately leave their boat and nets and obey Jesus' command. Just as all the Apostles who were commissioned by Christ to go into all the world and make disciples, that is, learners. He didn't tell anyone that He came to "change the world" nor did He ask for their help to do so.

Christ came into the world to save sinners from the righteous wrath of God, which is the just penalty for our sins. He never said He came to change the world. He said He came to transform people by giving them new hearts and new minds through repentance and faith in Christ alone.

The 13 Disciples/Apostles
Yes, you read that right. I know in Scripture there are only 12 apostles...all men (Peter, Andrew, James and John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James, Thaddaeus, Simon and Judas Iscariot). But in the film, there are 13 apostles, and the thirteenth apostle is a woman named Mary. Not only is she always with them, but she's with them in the boat during the storm when Jesus walks on water; she's with them when they travel privately, though in the Scriptures, Jesus pulled aside and taught only The Twelve...men. Mary is also very outspoken and often reproves the male apostles to have more faith as it is very apparent her faith is stronger.

During the crucifixion scene when Jesus is being jeered at by the crowd, Mary defends Jesus and shouts "Leave him be!" Wow, brave gal, huh? Braver than the male apostles who never speak up or do anything heroic or faithful. Then when Jesus is resurrected, she's the first (and only woman) to enter the empty tomb. She also accompanies Peter and John who later come to the empty tomb to see for themselves. In Scripture, three women go to the tomb early in the morning and are greeted by angels who remind them that Jesus said He would rise on the third day. In the movie, she and the apostles remember all this on their own.

Lazarus Rises With More Than a Command
In Scripture Jesus purposefully delays from going to see Lazarus when he was ill, allowing him to die. Then He purposefully goes to see Lazarus after he's been dead four days. When Jesus arrives, He is greeted by Martha (one of Lazarus' sisters) who says, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died." Martha confesses that Jesus is the Christ and that she believes she will see her brother on the last day, the resurrection. Then Jesus tells her that He is the resurrection and the life. Shortly after telling her this, as He comes to the tomb He weeps. Then from outside the tomb, the Lord Jesus commanded, "Lazarus, come out." With his face wrapped in a cloth and the rest of his body wrapped in linen strips, Lazarus obeys Christ and comes out of the tomb.

In this unbiblical portrayal of the true Son of God, while the fake Jesus and his disciples are walking through a crowd, Mary (the thirteenth disciple) just happens to see Martha weeping and asks her what's wrong. When Martha says that Lazarus has died, Jesus is surprised (which he often is throughout this film) and asks to be taken to the tomb. Once Jesus arrives at the tomb, he actually goes in...with Martha! Then he touches Lazarus (who's face is not wrapped), gently cradles his head, weeps, kisses the back of Lazarus' head, quotes some Scripture and gently suggests that Lazarus rise; and he does. Martha and Lazarus embrace and the three of them emerge from the tomb as the crowd cheers. This scene was performed more like football players exiting a tunnel and onto their home field, than the truly majestic and awesome scene that is depicted in Scripture.

This scene (along with the entire movie) was bankrupt of Jesus' power and authority over life and death.

Not One Stone Left
In Scripture, when one of the disciples are marveling at the architecture of the temple, Jesus says, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." But in the movie, no one is marveling at anything. Rather, when Jesus sees a little girl in the crowd He kneels down to her, smiles, chuckles and playfully pokes the little girl, who giggles as Jesus' quotes Scripture.

The filmmakers take this powerful and frightening prophecy and turn it into a light and impish exchange with a little girl.

Pharisees Care About God's Name and His People
In Scripture, the Pharisees and Sadducees are clearly jealous of Jesus' popularity and despise Him to the point of wanting and plotting His death. But in this unbiblical adaptation of the Pharisees relationship with God and His people, they want Jesus dead because they truly believe Jesus is a blasphemer and they are concerned for the Jewish people's welfare under the tyranny and oppression of the Romans. In the movie, the Pharisees want Jesus dead, not out of sinful hatred and jealously, but out of deep concern to spare the people of Israel any further harm from the Roman Empire.

Jesus Convinces Judas to Betray Him
In Scripture, Judas willingly betrays our Lord for a mere 30 pieces of silver. In the Bible, Judas is clearly depicted as a thief and someone who loves money more than people. None of the other disciples are aware of this impending betrayal while they're eating their last supper with the Lord. Rather than being consumed with His predestined suffering and death, Jesus once again portrays the humility of a servant (contrasting the disciples lack of humility and care for one another) as He removes His outer garment and wraps the towel of the lowliest servant around His waist, and begins to wash the filthy feet of His disciples—loving them "to the end". While Judas is lolly gagging and enjoying this meal, Jesus turns to him and tells him "What you are going to do, do quickly." And he does.

In this movie, Jesus is never shown humbling himself and serving the disciples as one of the lowliest servants in a household. But he doesn't have to since throughout the film the Lord is depicted as more of our buddy than our glorious Master and King. So here, the Lord is shown laughing and enjoying this meal with his disciples when suddenly he has a vision of being betrayed by Judas. Then pretend Jesus has a look of surprise and defeated sadness as he tells the disciples, for the first time, that he is going to be betrayed, suffer and die. Though in Scripture the Lord foretold His suffering and death three times prior.

After Jesus has this surprising and upsetting vision of Judas betraying him, he turns to Judas and convinces Judas to betray him. With tears, Judas adamantly refuses. But Jesus endearingly holds Judas' face, then gently and lovingly insists that Judas do it, and do it quickly. Reluctantly, Judas does as Jesus says. In this false adaptation, the other disciples are aware of Judas' betrayal and Peter tries to stop him, but Jesus tells Peter to let him go.

The Great Commission Has a Great Omission
"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw Him they worshiped Him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age...And He said to them, 'Go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
~Matthew 28:16-20, Mark 16:15-16 (ESV)
The Gospel, that is, the Good News of Jesus Christ is essentially in John 3:16-21. This passage proclaims why Christ came into the world—to save sinners from the full penalty of our sins. Which is why the Good News is the greatest news any human being can receive. For there is only one Mediator between man and God Almighty; Christ the Lord, the only Son of God.
However, in the movie, Jesus never mentions the just penalty of sin, or that we need to be made into new creations through repentance and faith in Christ; which alone equips us to go forth into all the world and make disciples—not converts to a new way, a better world or just a happier and more peaceful life.

Jesus Visits The Apostle John on The Island of Patmos
In the very beginning of the film and throughout the film, the Apostle John is narrating from the Island of Patmos as he reminisces his time with Jesus. At the close of the movie, John's narration is interrupted by Jesus who appears with a reassuring smile saying, "There will be no more death, pain and crying...I am coming soon." Then with a twinkle in his eye and calming gesture, the fake Jesus disappears.

In Revelation 21, the real Jesus says, "He [God] will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away." The Lord says this to the Apostle John after showing him the new heaven and the new earth that only Christians will see and dwell in. This delightful promise is not generic nor is it all inclusive as the filmmakers try to convey to the audience. This great and awesome promise is only for those who have repented of their sins and trusted in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the only Savior for all mankind.

Conclusion
If someone called to you, suggesting that you come out of your comfortable home to take you to a more comfortable and elegant home, you may think they're nice, but you wouldn't consider this to be great news or even an impossibly generous gift. Which is the essential message of this film. But if you were in a burning inferno and someone called to you with instructions on how to be saved from a horribly painful and terrifying death, you would consider this person a great savior with the greatest news you've ever heard, and you would listen to him. This is the Gospel—the true Good News of Jesus Christ.

The truth is, we're all in the burning and destructive inferno of our sins until we are washed by the pure and precious blood of Jesus. We are all covered with the ash of our sins until we are baptized into Christ and made new creations, with new hearts and new minds; no longer darkened and depraved but enlightened by the Gospel and credited with the righteousness of Christ.
There is no evidence of this glorious truth anywhere in this movie. There is no evidence of God's authority, righteousness or saving and powerful love that continually conforms us into the likeness of Christ.

This film does a great disservice to anyone who is infected by it's anemic and sclerotic message of false hope in a false christ.

Sunny Shell

Saturday, March 1, 2014

UnHoly Rome & its CONDEMNATION OF THE GOSPEL

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH HASN’T CHANGED ITS CONDEMNATION OF THE GOSPEL

Apprising Ministries will show you in this piece that the subtitle would be: Nor can she; not without admitting her popes are but fallible men, not vicars of Christ, and that her dogma asseverated at the Council of Trent was wrong.
I have already covered this further in Has The Roman Catholic Church Really Changed? Here I’m going to point out a rather huge fallacy that’s being perptrated by Roman Catholics and spiritually obtuse evangelicals right now.
Take for example this lunacy in the Lord’s name, Southern Baptists Assist The Roman Catholic Church To Infiltrate Evangelicalism. The fallacy is that the Church of Rome has somehow actually become orthodox.
However, it can’t; not without destroying itself as an institution. Let’s take a moment to consider the following from the Second Vatican Council, which was held by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) in the early 1960’s.
Please look very carefully at the following quote from Lumen Gentium – “Solemnly Promulgated By Holiness Pope Paul VI On November 21, 1964.” I have added emphasis:
just as the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors, so also the apostles’ office of nurturing the Church is permanent, and is to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops. (14*)
Therefore, the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, (15*) as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ. (149)(16*) (source).
Click the source and you’ll see I quote this right from the online Vatican Library itself. Note: “the office granted individually to Peter, the first among the apostles is permanent and is to be transmitted to his successors.”
We must ask ourselves an important question here: In all its ecumenical dialogues, do we really think that the RCC ever had any actual intention of changing that dogma, which is the very reason the Church of Rome exists?
No, it can’t and still remain the RCC. It doesn’t matter what individual Roman Catholics or RCC theologians believe; it matters what the RCC itself set in stone. Here is her official position concerning herself and her pope.
From the Code of Canon Law, again my emphasis:
Art. 1. THE ROMAN PONTIFF Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. (source)
Again, individual Romans Catholics might disagree; but it doesn’t change the fact that the RCC sees its pope as the head of the Body of Christ on earth. Next let me show you a critical part of the document Unam Sanctum.
This was “a Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302.” And it’s never been rescinded even to this day; nor can it ever be. Pope Boniface the VIII said:
Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,… she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5].
We venerate this Church [of Rome] as one,… Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, [the Pope]… For since the Apostle said: “There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God” [Rom 13:1-2],…
Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal…This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine,granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, ‘Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven’ etc., [Mt 16:19].
Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by Godresists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2],…Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (source)
Certainly, this is a Roman Catholic pope speaking concerning faith and morals. The late Dr. Walter Martin, who founded the Christian Research Institute, was a recognized authority in the field of Comparative Religion.
He informs us that this papal decree Unam Sanctam was declared by Cardinal Henry Edward Manning—himself “an authority on papal bulls and decrees”—to be “infallible and beyond all doubt an act ex cathedra.”[1]
Ex cathedra is an RCC term which refers to when the Roman Pontiff—the pope—speaks “from the Chair of Peter,” with his alleged supreme apostolic authority as the supposed Vicar of Christ—Head of the universal Church.
It’s important at this point to consider the following from the First Vatican Council of the RCC:
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
  • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
    • that is, when,
    • 1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    • 2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    • 3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
  • he possesses,
    • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
  • that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
  • Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. (source)
The meaning is crystal clear: When the pope makes a decree on faith and morals, this statement would therefore be considered an infallible decree. And as such then, Unam Sanctum also has to be considered as irreformable.
So also the Canons from the Council of Trent; they cannot be changed[2], so leading RCC apologist Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers is correct when he tells us:
An infallible definition, by its very nature, can never be undone.” The [Roman Catholic] Church still believes and teaches all the definitions Trent issued
Many of Trent’s definitions concern articles of faith, and for a Catholic to doubt them culpably or to deny them constitutes heresy (CIC 751), which in turn incurs excommunication (CIC 1364 §1) (source)
This now properly positions you upon the battlefield to better understand what’s being discussed by John Ankerberg, R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur, and the late D. James Kennedy in the video to follow below.
You’re about to see the second of six programs by The John Ankerberg Show entitled Protestants and Catholics: Do They Now Agree? on Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium.
Even though that ecumenical document came out in 1994, what they talk about on this edition of Ankerberg’s show is crucial for people to understand as the spread of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism continues.
With it has come a romanticizing of apostate Roman Catholic mystics and a sappy sentimentality that somehow the RCC is now to be considered part of the Body of Christ. However, our difference involves the very Gospel itself.
And as you’ll hear Dr. R.C. Sproul say below:
The Roman Catholic Church condemns “sola fide! (L.)” Now if, please understand this, if “sola fide (L.)” is the gospel, then the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, nobody who went to the Council of Trent, as a delegate, went there with the intention of condemning the gospel. The theologians of Rome really believed that they were defending the gospel and that the Protestants had in fact committed apostasy.
And I admire the Church, the Roman communion of the 16th century for at least understanding what apparently people don’t understand today, and that is what is at stake here. That they understood that somebody is under the anathema of God! And we can be as nice, and as pleasant, and as gentle, and as loving, and as charitable, and tolerant as we can possibly be, but it’s not going to change that folks.
Somebody is preaching a different gospel! And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of “Justification by faith alone” I believe, Rome, when placing the anathema on “sola fide (L.),” placed the anathema of God upon themselves. I agree with his [John MacArthur] assessment, that the institution [Roman Catholic Church] is apostate!

JOHN ANKERBERG: Welcome. We’re here in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at the beautiful Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church with this wonderful audience tonight. And my guests are Dr. D. James Kennedy, who is the pastor of this beautiful church. The well known and popular Dr. John MacArthur and Dr. R.C. Sproul. Now our program is about a document called Evangelicals & Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. We’re also going to be talking about a new clarifying statement that was just written by the evangelical signees of this document. You may not know, but the Evangelicals & Catholics Together document was written by evangelicals and Protestants and signed by twenty well known leaders in the evangelical world and twenty well known Roman Catholic leaders. Now Chuck Colson, who helped to draft this document, has acknowledged that it has caused a lot of controversy.
And he has admitted that it raised genuine concerns over whether this document clearly represents what evangelical Christians believe. So just a few weeks ago we met with Chuck, at his request; we had ten evangelical leaders there—the for of us were there. And Chuck expressed his concern over the confusion the document has caused—the lack of clarity concerning what evangelicals believe. And he wanted to resolve and remove any contentious issues, so that there would no longer be any doubt as to where he and the other Protestant signees stood. To this end—together—we all composed a statement that clarifies, and clearly defines, our evangelical distinctives. Not all of them, but some of the primary ones.
Now, Dr. John MacArthur, when we met together, we agreed that the ECT document, the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document was attempting to join Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants together as “cobelligerents,” the word the Francis Schaeffer coined “working at the grass-roots level” in terms of social issues. And we were going to work together against the many social evils, including secular humanism, the riding tide of Islam, pornography, abortion, and things like that. But we also agreed that this work [ECT] has been perceived as going too far in proclaiming the kind of unity that exists. I would like you to define the kind of unity that can exist between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics, and the kind of unity that cannot exist until the doctrine of “Justification by faith alone” has been dealt with clearly.
JOHN MACARTHUR: Well, I might be a little bit radical on this, but I will go ahead. I think the way we can work together on it is for the Catholics to work against those things, like they want to work against them, and we will work against those things, like we want to work against them, but we can’t really throw our arms around each other in a common effort because that confounds the issue of spiritual truth.
Look, if the Catholic Church is already a cobelligerent, if they are already anti-abortion, and pornography, and homosexuality; they are going to use all of their energies within the framework of their system to go after that. We are committed to that, and we are going after that. There is already a collective movement. Once you then sort of try to define that as “common spiritual mission” built on “common spiritual unity” you just take doctrine and throw it out the window, and perception is violated, particularly because the Catholic Church claims to be true Christianity, and when we reverse 450 years of history, and just throw our arms around the Roman system, which I think we have to say, John, in all honesty, is not a group of wayward brothers but is an apostate form of Christianity.
It is a false religion, it is another religion. When you throw your arms around that you literally have to undo any doctrinal distinction. In fact, ECT doesn’t just do that implicitly, they do that explicitly. In the document, in effect, they say, “we have to accept all baptized Roman Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ. In an article that followed that up in Christianity Today, J. I. Packer said, “We should acknowledge as brothers and sisters in Christ, anyone who lives to the highest ideals of their communion.” My response to that is the opposite. I maybe could fellowship with a bad Roman Catholic, that is, one who has rejected the system, but was still in the church and came to know Christ. But one who holds the highest ideals of Roman Catholicism—on what grounds do I have spiritual unity? And when you get spiritual leaders from both churches, coming together to sign a common effort—you may say that it is to fight a cultural war, but people are going to see it as confusion over doctrine.
R. C. SPROUL: John, can I say something?
JOHN ANKERBERG: Yes, let me just throw in here, that is why we put in here, paragraph one in this new doctrinal statement, which, let me read it:
“Our parachurch cooperation with evangelically committed Roman Catholics, for the pursuit of agreed objectives, does not imply acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrinal distinctives, or endorsement of the Roman Catholic Church system.”
R. C. SPROUL: That is important, John, that Chuck and Dr. Packer, and Bill Bright wanted to make that point clear. I just wanted to comment on John’s statement that he prefaced by saying he was “a little bit radical,” you know, like being a “little bit pregnant” I think. Because when somebody, representing evangelicalism makes the comment, “that in their opinion or their judgment, the Roman Catholic Church is apostate—it is not a true Christian community.” In this day and age of tolerance and pluralism and relativism, and the milieu or irenic peaceful, gentle coexistence. . . .we live in a world that is fed up with theological controversy and disputes, and divisions and all of that. You see we don’t live back in the 16th century where people burned each other at the stake over that.
For John MacArthur to make a statement like that, about the Roman Catholic Church, which is the largest professing body in the world, that claims a Christian position—it’s just flame inflammatory, incinderary (sp.), and will provoke a howling outcry of people—you’re going to get an enormous amount of mail for saying that John, you know that! [Great Applause].
The one thing that the spirit of tolerance of our day cannot tolerate is intolerance, because relationships have become more important than truth. Now what’s at stake here, if I understand the New Testament where the Apostle Paul writes the Galatians and says, “If anybody, anybody, if it’s Peter, if it’s Barnabus, if it’s an angel from heaven teaches any other gospel—let him be anathema.” That’s not Sproul, that’s not MacArthur, that’s not Kennedy, that’s not Ankerberg—that is the Apostolic position, and Paul wanted to make sure that he made himself clear so he repeated that.
And then he goes on to say that he had to resist Peter himself, as Peter started to crack and compromise and negotiate the gospel. Now think about the people in the first century who got that letter—they were horrified. They said the last thing we can have happen is a break-up of fellowship and unity between Peter and Paul! All I have listened to for ten months is “Oh, my goodness, what would happen if we saw a split among people like Colson, Packer, and Sproul, and MacArthur—we cannot have that happen! Well, I am the last person in the world to want to have that happen—I can’t stand that either, these people are my friends, my comrades and everything. But John, what he [John MacArthur] is saying here, the Catholic Church understood in the 16th century, and Trent and Rome placed its unambiguous anathema on the Protestant doctrine of “Justification by faith alone” and has never, in any magisterial sense removed that anathema.
The Roman Catholic Church condemns “sola fide! (L.)” Now if, please understand this, if “sola fide (L.)” is the gospel, then the Roman Catholic Church has condemned the gospel of Jesus Christ. Now, nobody who went to the Council of Trent, as a delegate, went there with the intention of condemning the gospel. The theologians of Rome really believed that they were defending the gospel and that the Protestants had in fact committed apostasy. And I admire the Church, the Roman communion of the 16th century for at least understanding what apparently people don’t understand today, and that is what is at stake here. That they understood that somebody is under the anathema of God! And we can be as nice, and as pleasant, and as gentle, and as loving, and as charitable, and tolerant as we can possibly be, but it’s not going to change that folks. Somebody is preaching a different gospel! And when Rome condemned the Protestant declaration of “Justification by faith alone” I believe, Rome, when placing the anathema on “sola fide (L.),” placed the anathema of God upon themselves. I agree with his [John MacArthur] assessment, that the institution [Roman Catholic Church] is apostate!
JOHN MACARTHUR: I don’t want to leave Jim [James Kennedy] out of this, but I think that it is so important to know this. In a time like this of tolerance, listen, false teaching will always cry intolerance. It will always say you are being divisive, you are being unloving, you are being ungracious, because it can only survive when it doesn’t get scrutinized. So it cries against any intolerance. It cries against any examination, any scrutiny—just let’s embrace each other; let’s love each other; let’s put all that behind us. False doctrine cries the loudest about unity. Listen carefully when you hear the cry for unity, because it may be the cover of false doctrine encroaching. If ever we should follow 1 Thessalonians 5, and examine everything carefully, it’s when somebody is crying unity, love, and acceptance.
JOHN ANKERBERG: Dr. Kennedy, not Chuck, and not J. I. Packer, and some of our Evangelical buddies that came out with the ECT document, but others have gone one step further, and have said, “You know, Evangelicals and Catholics should overlook doctrinal differences and distinctives and unite to survive today here in America. If we don’t stand together; if we don’t fight together; we are all going down. How does that come into your theology of the sovereignty of God? Should we give up doctrinal distinctives just to survive? What do you think about that?
JAMES KENNEDY: John, first of all, let me if I could just add one little thing to this discussion that went on here, and then I will get back to that. For those lay people here that are not familiar—the Council of Trent, eighteen years that they spent examining the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, and at the end of that time they came out with many Canons of the Council of Trent, and this is the particular one that R. C. was referring to, and I just like to have you hear the words. This has never been altered or denied by the Catholic Church, “If anyone says that the faith which justifies is nothing else but trust in the Divine mercy, which pardons sins because of Christ, or that it is trust alone by which we are justified” Which is what every Evangelical Christian would say. And they end with, “let him be anathema,” which means “let him be accursed.”
Every Evangelical Christian in the world stands under the official, never changed curse of the Roman Church, and we need to be aware of that fact. Now, the Bible says that we are to hold to the truth—in love. Now, that is difficult to do. Only Christ did that perfectly. We always tend either to slip into a rigidity or a legalism or to slide on the other side into some sort of “wishy-washy” compromise of the gospel.
But, getting to your question, and that was one of the reasons for ECT, that we live (as Chuck told me on the phone when he called me). We live in a time when the concept of truth is under attack. When the values and morals that Christians hold in common are under enormous assault, that we must stand together, or we are going to fall together. But, the problem with this document is that it gives the appearance of compromising the basic doctrine of the gospel of the Bible, which is the gospel, and this is the heart of all Christianity. This is why we had this meeting, right here in my office, to try to work these things out so there would not be a schism among Evangelicals, and happily got all of these gentlemen to sign a statement that they do affirm the basic Reformational truths. I still would have difficulty having my name on that document [ECT], which it is not, because I think of the ambiguity of it; the lack of clarity, and the way it opens a door for people to think that there is no difference of any significance, pertaining to the Gospel of Salvation between Protestants and Catholics.
JOHN ANKERBERG: It is very important right now, that we, for the people who are tuning in, because they want to know, “Where do we stand right now?” “What does this doctrinal statement mean in terms of where we are at?”
R. C. SPROUL: That’s what I was going to address, John, so that we have an understanding of this. The purpose of this meeting for the clarification, was as Chuck Colson had a compassionate concern to communicate. He said, can’t we come together and agree to disagree as brothers in Christ, because the controversy had escalated to such a point that the issue became now: not what is the relationship between Catholics and Evangelicals, but what will the relationship now be between evangelicals who endorse this position and those who didn’t. Are we facing a serious and permanent breach within Evangelical ranks? I mean, are we going to break fellowship over our disagreement over ECT, and that is what provoked this. At that meeting everybody expressed their concerns in a candid way, and Chuck, of course, said, “The whole thing was provoked in the first place because of their deep concern of what was happening in Latin America, and they didn’t want to see another Belfast erupt, and trying to come to a united front to an increasing hostile secularism.” And we all said, “Hey, we share that concern. We don’t want to see Latin America become a Belfast, and we recognize the hostility of secularism.”
Our concern was, as I stated it in that meeting, as clearly as I knew how, “that as far as I could see ECT, in my judgment, betrayed the gospel of Jesus Christ.” I also went on to say, and I have said this as loudly as I can every time that I discuss this, “I don’t for one minute think that Bill Bright, Jim Packer, Charles Colson, et all, ever in their wildest dreams, ever intended any such thing. But by the same token, neither did the signers of the Council of Trent.” This is not a personal thing with me. I was saying the document, in what it says and proclaims because it goes beyond this standing together as cobelligerents—it declares a unity of faith, John, where there is not a unity of faith. That’s what deeply, deeply, concerns me. So what the concern of the men was, at this meeting was to say, “Hey, look, let’s say to the world, `We do believe in `sola fide (L.)’ and Chuck Colson says, `I believe in Justification by faith alone’ and he wanted to put his print on paper his statement that this is central to the gospel of Jesus Christ, because he realized that people were interpreting the document the way that I was interpreting it, and he believed that that was a misinterpretation. Packer thinks that it is a misinterpretation. I think that it is the one that the document screams, but we still disagree on that, and Chuck is still committed to ECT—my fondest hope was that these men would remove their names from it—”A.” And if they couldn’t do that, if they couldn’t formally recant of it, “B” that they would at least revise the document itself, and if we couldn’t get them to do that—at least, please give a clarification that we can print separately of what you meant.
JOHN ANKERBERG: Next week we’re gonna continue our conversation. And we’re going to look at: Are there any people that are off limits in terms of evangelism? Sheep-stealing, prostelization between Catholics and Protestants. And we’re going to look at this very controversial area newt week. And I hope that you’ll join us. (source)