10.03.2003
From the Desk of Gamaliel
RE: Pharisee Positives
I have been accused by certain liberal types of being known more for what I’m against than what I am for. They must have gotten this idea from Robert Webber who lumps evangelicals and fundamentalists (such as myself) together in his book The Younger Evangelicals. Webber says that we are characterized by what we are against and then lists the things to which we are opposed. Let me state first of all that he is right in listing what we are against. Every good Pharisee should be against the things he lists. But he is wrong when he says that we are not “for” things. Every thing we are against represents an opposite of what we are for.
What I would like to do in this week’s column is to take his points and show why being against one thing is really a way of being for its opposite. If you don’t own the book (and you probably shouldn’t), you can read a review of it by Len Hjalmarson, a known postmodern Christian (as if one could possibly be both postmodern and Christian), at http://www.next-wave.org/jan03/younger.htm on the web. Keep in mind that if the book is something Postmoderns like, by definition, Pharisees should dislike it.
Anti-Intellectualism
Webber claims that we are anti-intellectual. This is typical of his misunderstanding of what we stand for. Simply because we are justified in blasting liberal seminaries for perverting the tender minds of young Pharisee preachers, he thinks we are anti-intellectual. This is manifestly not true because I am on of the most intellectual people I know. My associates are an intellectual band of fellow Pharisees who are quite capable of debating the finer points of Pharisee church history, the Calvinist/Arminian debate and why the King James Bible is the verbally inspired translation approved by God in the English language.
Seminaries make young preacher boys (and young “preacher girls” even though this is clearly a violation of the Word of God) waste a lot of time studying Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order to undermine their trust in the King James Bible. They also fill their heads with the philosophical writings of non-Pharisee philosophers including many that are not even Christian. By contrast, a good Pharisee preacher will not waste his time and valuable brain cells with worldly philosophy. Instead we devote ourselves to reading only Pharisee writers and studying doctrine we already know to be true. So we are not against the intellect; we are for using it to study the Truth instead of error.
Anti-Ecumenical
If Webber means by this that we have no desire to be a part of a group that supports the coming One World Religion and One World Government of the Beast prophesied in Revelation, then he is right. So if we are against ecumenicalism, then what are we for? We are firmly in support of Christian unity. Denominations have flourished simply because most people refuse, in their fallen state as sinners, to agree with the Truth that is proclaimed in most Pharisee churches today. This is unfortunate because it unnecessarily divides the body of Christ. While I admit that there may be Christians who are genuinely children of God scattered here and there in other denominations, this doesn’t mean that we should unite with these heretical sects.
Webber misses the point that we are not the ones who are against ecumenicalism. We are all for Christian unity. The difficulty is that the other denominations refuse to accept the truth of God’s word as we preach it in the Pharisee church. By refusing to accept the Truth of God’s Word, they make it impossible for us to fellowship with them. Amos asks, “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” We would be all for ecumenicalism if other denominations would be willing to accept the Truth. How can Webber fault us for refusing to compromise the Truth for the sake of a unity that would be in name only?
Anti Social Action
This is the grossest mischaracterization of all. We are not against social action. In fact I am all for it. This is what Government is for. Social action is why we have welfare, food stamps and FEMA. Our commission as a church, however, is to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe all of Christ’s commands (Matthew 28:19-20). Anything that distracts us from this vital set of tasks is a triviality that needs to be relegated to some other group. This allows us to focus our time on our “core competency” or our main mission. It is not the mission of the church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless or take in widows and orphans. It is our job to preach the gospel. Let other do-gooder organizations and government agencies focus on meeting temporal needs while we meet eternal spiritual needs.
In all fairness to Weber, he had a good start but has come under the evil influence of liberalizing seminaries such as Wheaton. I’m convinced that he may be sincere in his beliefs and may even mean well by his book, but he is leading many astray. I have even discovered an online discussion of this book at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TYE/ but would advise against anyone joining it. The moderators have clearly come under the influence of Postmodernity and should be avoided.
Gamaliel
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."
Luke 11:42 (NIV)
RE: Pharisee Positives
I have been accused by certain liberal types of being known more for what I’m against than what I am for. They must have gotten this idea from Robert Webber who lumps evangelicals and fundamentalists (such as myself) together in his book The Younger Evangelicals. Webber says that we are characterized by what we are against and then lists the things to which we are opposed. Let me state first of all that he is right in listing what we are against. Every good Pharisee should be against the things he lists. But he is wrong when he says that we are not “for” things. Every thing we are against represents an opposite of what we are for.
What I would like to do in this week’s column is to take his points and show why being against one thing is really a way of being for its opposite. If you don’t own the book (and you probably shouldn’t), you can read a review of it by Len Hjalmarson, a known postmodern Christian (as if one could possibly be both postmodern and Christian), at http://www.next-wave.org/jan03/younger.htm on the web. Keep in mind that if the book is something Postmoderns like, by definition, Pharisees should dislike it.
Anti-Intellectualism
Webber claims that we are anti-intellectual. This is typical of his misunderstanding of what we stand for. Simply because we are justified in blasting liberal seminaries for perverting the tender minds of young Pharisee preachers, he thinks we are anti-intellectual. This is manifestly not true because I am on of the most intellectual people I know. My associates are an intellectual band of fellow Pharisees who are quite capable of debating the finer points of Pharisee church history, the Calvinist/Arminian debate and why the King James Bible is the verbally inspired translation approved by God in the English language.
Seminaries make young preacher boys (and young “preacher girls” even though this is clearly a violation of the Word of God) waste a lot of time studying Latin, Greek and Hebrew in order to undermine their trust in the King James Bible. They also fill their heads with the philosophical writings of non-Pharisee philosophers including many that are not even Christian. By contrast, a good Pharisee preacher will not waste his time and valuable brain cells with worldly philosophy. Instead we devote ourselves to reading only Pharisee writers and studying doctrine we already know to be true. So we are not against the intellect; we are for using it to study the Truth instead of error.
Anti-Ecumenical
If Webber means by this that we have no desire to be a part of a group that supports the coming One World Religion and One World Government of the Beast prophesied in Revelation, then he is right. So if we are against ecumenicalism, then what are we for? We are firmly in support of Christian unity. Denominations have flourished simply because most people refuse, in their fallen state as sinners, to agree with the Truth that is proclaimed in most Pharisee churches today. This is unfortunate because it unnecessarily divides the body of Christ. While I admit that there may be Christians who are genuinely children of God scattered here and there in other denominations, this doesn’t mean that we should unite with these heretical sects.
Webber misses the point that we are not the ones who are against ecumenicalism. We are all for Christian unity. The difficulty is that the other denominations refuse to accept the truth of God’s word as we preach it in the Pharisee church. By refusing to accept the Truth of God’s Word, they make it impossible for us to fellowship with them. Amos asks, “How can two walk together except they be agreed?” We would be all for ecumenicalism if other denominations would be willing to accept the Truth. How can Webber fault us for refusing to compromise the Truth for the sake of a unity that would be in name only?
Anti Social Action
This is the grossest mischaracterization of all. We are not against social action. In fact I am all for it. This is what Government is for. Social action is why we have welfare, food stamps and FEMA. Our commission as a church, however, is to make disciples, baptize them, and teach them to observe all of Christ’s commands (Matthew 28:19-20). Anything that distracts us from this vital set of tasks is a triviality that needs to be relegated to some other group. This allows us to focus our time on our “core competency” or our main mission. It is not the mission of the church to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless or take in widows and orphans. It is our job to preach the gospel. Let other do-gooder organizations and government agencies focus on meeting temporal needs while we meet eternal spiritual needs.
In all fairness to Weber, he had a good start but has come under the evil influence of liberalizing seminaries such as Wheaton. I’m convinced that he may be sincere in his beliefs and may even mean well by his book, but he is leading many astray. I have even discovered an online discussion of this book at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TYE/ but would advise against anyone joining it. The moderators have clearly come under the influence of Postmodernity and should be avoided.
Gamaliel
“Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone."
Luke 11:42 (NIV)
