Why Pastors Have a Unique Responsibility to Counsel - By David Powlison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

The author does absolutely nothing to explain a pastor's "unique responsibility." 

-----------------------

The Mailbag: Nursing Home Ministry Questions - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

It's unfortunate that Ms. Lesley is becoming a frequent guest on our blog. She has frequently written about what women aren't allowed to do in Church, so much so that she has created dozens of micro-doctrines to cover every possible circumstance.

Today's post is another example, this time to discuss women teaching in a nursing home. 

-----------------

He is worthy - what does "worthy" mean?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

Am I Responsible for My Husband’s Sexual Sin? - By Darby Strickland

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

**Update**

Apparently Beth Moore thinks that not only is ok that a wife deny her husband sex, she should be able to divorce him.

----------------

At first this seemed to us to contain some good principles about sex and marriage. But we soon realized that the author is manipulating the situation. She engages in term-switching, neglects to mention other relevant Scriptures, and makes pronouncements that she does not document. Further, she has an ultimate agenda, to excuse the wife and blame the husband.

The author manages to quote only a single Scripture. Happily it is a relevant one, but its presence only serves the author's agenda. The author has nothing at all to say about other Scriptures that may come to bear, like

1Cor. 7:3-5 The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Both the husband and the wife have a duty to satisfy one another. One of the reasons is to avoid the potential for temptation. The mutual decision to deprive is only for a time, and specifically to pray.

"Duty" is a specific (applied) kind of indebtedness, implying an "applied obligation" due to the debt (what is owed). The husband and wife owe a debt to each other that must be paid.

Now it seems generally true that the wife is the one who does more of the depriving than the husband, and often it is unilaterally implemented. This is a violation of the Scriptural command. We need to be clear about this. If the decision isn't mutual, if the one is depriving the other in an unholy way, this is sin. There is sin already present. When sin is present, other sins are tempting. 

The husband and wife must avoid the presence of sin so as to avoid the possibility of temptation.

------------------------

Spiritual Schizophrenia At Bethel - Multiple Prophetic Personality Disorder - by Rev. Anthony Wade

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

We have refrained from posting about the Reverend lately, because he has been incessantly repeating himself regarding his distaste for the anti-lockdown churches protesting COVID restrictions.  Now he has finally he changed subjects, but he's just gone back to his Bethel/NAR fixation. 

Rev. Wade's articles are invariably incendiary and sisyphean, adding much heat but absolutely no light. Today's article is 1781 words (not including quotes) and not a single solitary Scripture is cited aside from the opening verse. No Scriptural principle is explained, no claim is documented, and no effort was expended to edify the reader.

This is typical of Rev. Wade.

And we note we are not here to defend Bethel or its people. We intend only to examine Rev. Wade's presentation.

---------------------------

2 Chronicles 7:14 - Is it misapplied to the Church?

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “Rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves. 

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

The Mailbag: Potpourri… Couple teaching at marriage conference - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-------------------------

Having firmly ensconced herself in our blog as a questionable teacher of the Bible, we now award Ms. Lesley her own tag. We do this by virtue of her often thoughtless examinations of Bible doctrine, her parsing of doctrines in order to create micro-doctrines filled with rules and provisos, and her general failure to bring edification to the reader.

It is with some sadness we do this, but in service to the reader we feel burdened to somehow help the honest inquirer avoid the pain of believing falsehoods. And in so many cases, Ms. Lesley teaches falsehoods.

We have covered the subject matter of today's post in prior posts.
----------------

Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others - Barbara Ehrenreich - FB meme

A leftist Faceborg friend posted this:

Transcript:

"Shame at our own dependence on the unpaid labor of others. When someone works for less pay than she can live on - when she goes hungry so that you can eat more cheaply and conveniently - then she has made a great sacrifice for you. The working poor are the major philanthropists of our society."

These pronouncements require several assumptions:

Spirit of Light - by Sinclair Ferguson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

Astonishingly, the author, a supposed Bible teacher, doesn't quote a single Scripture. And he creates a contradiction by affirming the Spirit's revelatory nature while simultaneously denying it. Further, he makes several undocumented claims and inferences that cannot be supported by Scripture.

A truly disappointing presentation.

------------------

Letter to the editor: Electoral College system is the real election issue - by Jerry W. Calvert

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------

The letter writer is a retired Montana State University political science professor, which would be an indicator of why colleges are largely leftist indoctrination centers.
--------------

Rock Your Role FAQs - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

Since Ms. Lesley frequently links us to her other writings, it seemed better to us to comment on those referrals, such as the below article. However, it has has even more links. And each link is a variant of a theme: If the Bible prohibits women teaching or having authority over men, then a variety what-ifs arise regarding every conceivable application of the principle.

This is parsing of a Bible-based concept taken to the nth degree. But that's where this leads when perfect doctrine is one's highest value. The author herself summarizes the problem unawares: There are thousands of practical scenarios we could go through about women teaching men... This means that every scenario comes with a rulebook to consult. 

All this based on a single misinterpreted verse, 1Ti. 2:12:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.

There are at least five false inferences Ms. Lesley makes in order to derive a thousand scenarios:

1. This is talking about what happens in a church service or church ministry 
2. "A woman" actually means "women," and "a man" actually means "men"
3. "A man" does not mean "a boy," so a woman can teach boys
4. "Teach" means a giving a Bible lesson, speaking a public prayer, or leading from the stage in some other way
5. "Authority" means being a pastor, or leading in a church activity

We would briefly respond:

1. There is no indication in the verse that it is about what happens in church
2. "Man" is andros, a male human being; a man, husband, whereas the plural form is andres. 1Ti. 2:12 reads andros, not andres. 
3. If we really want to split doctrinal hairs, a woman cannot teach a boy, who is a male human being. 
4. The Scripture verse does not tell us this is about teaching the Bible. This would mean ANY instance of a woman teaching a man is forbidden.
5. There is no Scripture that indicates a pastor is the leader of a church, or that the verse is teaching about leading a church activity

The problem here is that Ms. Lesley has uncritically accepted the teaching of certain people who have expanded, modified, and morphed the verse into something it does not teach. She then runs with the concept, instituting a plethora of rules regulating what women can and cannot do.

Sadly, Ms. Lesley fails to quote a single Scripture in the entire Q&A. It mystifies us how a supposed Bible teacher can write 4435 words about the Bible without quoting it.

-------------

Letter to the editor: Equity under arrest as code for critical race theory - by Stephani Lourie

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------

Ms. Lourie employs a classic diversionary technique by claiming something isn't something because it's really something else. She writes, Equity is the moral responsibility of public schools, but is under arrest as code for CRT. Well, this is is actually backwards. "Equity" is code for Critical Race Theory (CRT.) 

CRT doesn't appear in the school district's plan because of the protests. And these protests are notable to Ms. Lourie because of the conduct of the participants. Apparently there is something unseemly about clapping and cheering (things that have never, ever happened in a school board meeting before...), but I doubt she had any concern about the school board meeting where four students complained about the Fellowship of Christian Athletes school club. And that incident resulted in a lawsuit by the school district.

CRT is controversial, so much so that the Bozeman plan doesn't include the term, instead referring to it as something more innocuous: "Multicultural education." Who can be opposed to that? Why would anyone be opposed to critical thinking? Therefore, opposing "multicultural education" is the same thing as denying there is racism, you see. It means "shielding white children" from fact and history. 

Again, classic diversionary techniques.

And she keeps going. She writes of the opposition: A crowded bandwagon is accusing schools of indoctrinating students that our country is pluralistic, complex and not without injustice. No, ma'am. A group of concerned citizens is protesting the indoctrination students into cultural Marxism masquerading as education. And that's what it is, Marxism disguised. 

Ms. Lourie twice mentions a moral obligation, but never mentions what morality that would be. Is it her morality? The school district's morality? Her church's morality? The use of the word "moral" conveys a weightiness of duty far beyond a simple teaching process. This is a "moral" thing, so important, so critical, that to deny her the ability to teach "multicultural education" causes her to violate her moral duty. 

The last thing to note is that Ms. Lourie dutifully parrots the National Education Association talking points about CRT:

She is an NEA member, so it seems likely she is read in on what her union is proposing for all 50 states.

--------------

False Teacher of the Day #28: Billy Graham - By REFORMATION CHARLOTTE

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

The author's baseline is doctrine determines salvation. There is no Bible verse that says this, but it gives the author the excuse to level accusations at a man who has done more for the Kingdom than the author ever will.

And we note that as is typical for the Doctrinal Police, very little Scripture appears in this screed.

----------------------