Gender Apartheid?

On the face of it, the claim that there is “gender apartheid” in NAPARC is not only implausible but even offensive. First, those who make the claim did so on their own, public podcast. Under apartheid black South Africans were not freely, without government interference, doing the equivalent of podcasts. Our podcasters were in no danger of authorities breaking down the door of their studio. Indeed, our podcasters have the ability to control with whom they will talk—they block on social media even the mildest critics and potential dialogue partners. Further, our female podcasters were theologically educated or had other advanced academic degrees. Again, for prosperous females in North America, who have earned masters and doctoral degrees, to complain of apartheid is just silly. It is offensive because it demeans the very real oppression that black South Africans suffered under apartheid. It is the equivalent of comparing standing in line at Starbucks to standing in a chow line in prison. It is not a thoughtful way to argue.

R. Scott Clark, “Gender Apartheid” And “Toxic Masculinity” In NAPARC?

Self-Righteous Alert

It was pointed out to me that one of my posts, Ten Commandments Destroyed in Arkansas, was a bit on the self-righteous side. It is. Therefore, I have marked it private, along with the latest one.

I really don’t wish to ever come across as self-righteous, but do from time-to-time. Given that, a dear brother let me know, and I’m repenting of that attitude and hiding the posts. I think I tend to be a bit more self-righteous when I’m not at peace about things, and clearly, I’m not right now. So dear readers, please forgive me.



An Open Letter to Sting, of the Police

Dear Sting,

It has been some time since you released your song, O My God, on your album, Synchronicity. In fact, as I write this, it’s been 34 years. You are probably as shocked as I am at how time flies. But it does fly and I wanted to write to you a response to that particular song.

Please note that when you first released the album, I bought it on cassette tape and listened to it over and over on my Walkman, and eventually by Teac Cassette player, with Kenwood amp and Klipsch speakers. Synchronicity was one of my favorite albums and I believe, your Magnum Opus with the Police. So know that the words are burned into my conscious, which is frustrating on one level.

Continue reading “An Open Letter to Sting, of the Police”

Free-Will Christians Are Beginning to Reap What They Have Sown

One of the reasons that so many in the church are having trouble with gay marriage, and the idea of a gay Christian, is because they have set their hearts on the idolatry of free will. Since they are the ones who made a decision for Christ, on their own terms, then how can they say that the gay man or woman who comes to Christ and yet remains gay despite this being contrary to the gospel, cannot come to the gospel on their own terms as well. In other words, the believer in free will is dictating the terms of the gospel. So too is the man or women trapped in the abominable sin of homosexuality. They are doing the same thing as those who declare it is their free will that led them to a decision in Christ.

Thankfully, there are those of us who clearly see that both positions are flawed. We don’t get to set the terms of our salvation. If we come to Christ, we must do so on His terms, not ours. That means we must be born again, made new creations in Christ, and have union with Him. This being the case, there is no room for holding onto any other identity. If a gay man or woman trusts in Christ, then they must die to the identity and that sin, just as the rest of us must die to our own identities and our sin. We are no longer of the flesh, but are called to walk in the Spirit and live in light of the new creations that we are in Christ.

All this to say, the free-will approach is now reaping what they have sown and this is why men like Andy Stanley in Atlanta are openly accepting gay marriage. The true believer, the new creation in Christ, sees this for what it is, a false conversion of someone who is no more a Christian than a Muslim.

The Covenant of Grace Has No “Ifs” and “Buts”

From Charles Spurgeon’s sermon The Blood of the Everlasting Covenant, preached October 2nd, 1859. 

Nothing which man has made is everlasting, because he cannot ensure it against decay. But as for the covenant of grace, well did David say of it, ‘It is ordered in all things and sure.’

…There is not an ‘if’ or a ‘but’ in the whole of it from beginning to end. Freewill hates God’s ‘shalls’ and ‘wills,’ and like man’s ‘ifs’ and ‘buts,’ but there are no ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ in the covenant of grace.

…Almighty grace rides victoriously over the neck of freewill, and leads it captive in glorious captivity to the all-conquering power of irresistible grace and love. It is a sure covenant, and therefore deserves the title of everlasting.

Furthermore, it is not only sure, but it is immutable. If it were not immutable it could not be everlasting. That which changes passes away. We may be quite sure that anything that has the word ‘change’ on it, will sooner or later die, and be put away as a thing of nought. But in the covenant (of grace) everything is immutable. Whatever God has established must come to pass, and not word, or line, or letter can be altered.