-----------------------
We have dealt with the author's incendiary rhetoric before.
It seems the lesson for today is the author wants to teach us to never be a part of an event where someone might believe something different than you.
It's not that we specifically disagree that there might be perils in unexamined unity, but the author never develops a case. Instead he skips most of the steps and jumps to a conclusion without showing his work.
The author complains about a show of unity. But were these people engaging in "unity" for the affirmation of teaching false doctrines? Nope. Were they unifying to promote these artists and teachers? Nope. Did the event promulgate anything false or heretical? Nope.
A quick check tell us that the purpose of the event was to raise funds for Samaritan's Purse. Apparently the author is opposed to helping the poor and the hungry, if those who are helping don't pass doctrinal muster.
The author closes by appealing to 2 Corinthians 6:14 and 1 Corinthians 5:13, but apparently he has never read them. Let's quote the passages:
2Co. 6:14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?
1Co. 5:9-13 I have written to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people — 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”In the Corinthian church there were those who were living in openly sinful lives. They pretended to be brothers. The leaders of this church were not only tolerating it, they were celebrating it. Paul is correcting this church: Stay away from those who call themselves brothers but openly practice sin.
Now, it falls to the author to demonstrate that any of the people participating in this event are practicing open and blatant immorality. Are any of them flaunting behavior that is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler?
More crucially, are any of these people part of the church Franklin Graham attends? Does Franklin Graham have authority in this church to expel these folks from that congregation? Does the fact that the author questions Graham's salvation have any relevance here?
The author completely fails here. Paul is correcting a local church for tolerating and even celebrating open sin in their midst. He tells their leaders to expel such people. This has nothing at all to do with how a fundraising event might involve people of differing doctrines.
Even the title of the article is deceptive. Was this really a "Christian Concert" (in quotes)? Did someone involved say it was a "Christian concert?" Or rather, maybe they are scare quotes, designed to imply to us that there was something untoward going on here.
If there was, we wouldn't know it from what the author has told us.
-----------------
Sunday night, several prominent Evangelicals and Christian bands joined together with a host of false teachers and charismatic in a show of “unity” for the Hope Rising online concert.
Among them were the well-known and respected Evangelist, Franklin Graham, along with a handful of somewhat respected modern contemporary Christian bands such as Casting Crowns who teamed up with several hopelessly lost false teachers.
Of the worst of them were not only anti-Trinitarian T.D. Jakes and serial blasphemers like Cody Carnes and Kirk Franklin, but also the pro-LGBTQ gay activist, Kristin Chenoweth. Chenoweth has been dubbed a “longtime ally of the LGBTQ community” by GLAAD and other pro-gay groups.
GLAAD reports that during an emotionally-charged acceptance speech for a GLAAD entertainment award, Chenoweth said, “I want to encourage many people of all faiths to come forward and stand with me, even if you don’t believe in Jesus the way I do. He did teach love. Not just tolerance, but acceptance.”
That Franklin Graham and others would think that it is in any way acceptable to put their name and seal of endorsement on the same event as these wicked deceivers is unfathomable. Graham, who is revered as one of the world’s most notable evangelists has a serious problem with compromising the gospel to promote his version of ecumenical unity.
What accord do believers have with unbelievers? What accord does light have with darkness? This is the rhetorical refrain of Paul in 2 Corinthians 6. The answer is none. Is Graham a believer? We are not called to stand in unity with these people, we are called to purge these people from among us (1 Corinthians 5:13).
Is this like when people condemn Christians who are inspired by secular artists, saying: "No Christian should listen to them?"
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly secular artists that no Christian should listen to. There may even be some artists who claim to be Christian we shouldn't listen to. It's things like these that are a matter of conscience. It's hard to issue blanket recommendations.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, Paul tells the Philippian church, "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things." Ph. 4:8
One last thing. It has been said that there are no more new songs out there. I don't know if it's true or not, but what is implied is that a lot of music depends on existing music. A lot of ideas, pieces of melodies, chord progressions, etc, are copied by songwriters. It would be difficult to not be influenced by secular music, which at times is some of the most creative and beautiful music ever written.
I said this because there was this anti-Christian rock article that bashed certain artists for covering secular songs, even though they might not have agreed with their lifestyles, and used guilt-by-association.
ReplyDelete