An Invitation to go on the Record

An Invitation to Go on the Record

Introduction

            Pastor Phil Endris and I recently released a video on Forward Talk entitled, “We are Going on the Record.” The purpose of the video was to highlight a few reasons that we as the church and ministers should go on the record (click here to view that episode). The purpose of this blog is not to restate the reasons that we think that Christians should go on the record with their views. Rather, I am writing this blog to encourage others to go on the record in response to any of the Forward Talk videos, or to my personal writings or teaching. 

            CLARIFICATION: Allow me to make the clarification that I am writing this blog solely as John Carroll and not as Forward Talk. I am not writing on behalf of pastor Phil Endris.

The Invitation

            What do I mean by an invitation for you to go on the record? I mean that I am inviting you to take the opportunity to utilize any of the technologies available to you to respond to Forward Talk or to my personal content. Anyone may utilize YouTube, blogs or various other tools to respond to our published material?

            Why would I invite such a critique? I get almost weekly feedback from preachers in the form of phone calls, texts or social media saying that there is someone on a closed forum that is attempting to dismiss what you are saying. Furthermore, it is the rare occasion that a dissenter will contact me directly. The only preacher that consistently does it is pastor Steve Epley. A couple of others have done it on isolated occasions. 

            What I would love to see is some of the people who like to do remote keyboard strikes as they drone from behind the privacy of a closed preacher’s forum go on the record as I have. Even worse are those who deliver weak attacks cloaked in concern in private conversations where no record of their comments exists at all. Some fear that this open dialogue will cause division. I argue strongly that going on the record will cause no more division that we are currently experiencing as a result of private slander. The positive side of going on the record with our brotherly critiques is that the person being critiqued can actually clarify misunderstandings. It is exactly this level of transparency that the anonymous gossiping preacher resists at all cost. 

            It is no secret to those who are familiar with my work, that I taught a series on divorce and remarriage in early 2018. I have had many screenshots sent to me from various private forums where conversations were being had about my argument. There have been some men that have had very severe things to say about me and what I have taught—including calling me a false prophet. I did what no one has done in response, I went on the record. I have asked repeatedly that someone produce a video response to my material. I have asked that someone present a written critique of the arguments. So far, no one has made any serious attempt at responding to my points. Or at least no one has done it publicly. 

            Let me state clearly, I am inviting anyone to respond to my divorce or remarriage series. The body of Christ needs to see the ministry have respectful, public discourse. If anyone should respond on the record to my material, then I would respond again in kind. The sole point of this blog is to invite conversation which is so important to the body of Christ. 

As always, leave your feedback—on the record

A Surprising Consequence of Divorce Part 1

There are many consequences of divorce. Many of them are negative and traumatic. Contrary to some, I do not think that every consequence of every divorce is negative. I understand fully that my views on divorce and remarriage are controversial. And I am comfortable with that. 

I have experienced a shocking and unexpected consequence from my divorce. When my ex-wife and I divorced it was life-changing. I experienced deep depression and many other negative responses. Nothing about it was fun. It was by far the worst experience of my life. 

However, there have been some good things come from my divorce. It changed how I view fellowship. More specifically, it changed how I view disfellowship. Because losing my marriage was the most painful relationship loss that I will ever experience, the threat of a preacher friend walking away from me holds much less power over me than it did in the past. For much of my ministry, I have lived in constant fear of pleasing the brethren. While walking in harmony with godly men is noble, walking contrary to one's faith and conscience to please men is not. 

The political pressures of Pentecost seem small to me after the loss of my family. The threat does not work. The fear of the consequences of Pentecostal politics does not paralyze me.  I hurt for friends who have not experienced the depth of loss that I have when I see them struggle with being who they are because of preachers and politics. I want so bad for them to know that the greatest relationships that they will ever have fall asleep under their roof every night. And the second greatest category of relationship they will ever have are the people that God has blessed them to pastor. 

I ask every pastor that reads this blog to reconsider your priorities. Put your family and the congregation you oversee first. Then allow God to put organic relationships in your life that fit the vision God has for your family—including your church family. Don't subject what God is doing locally to someone a thousand miles away (in many cases). There is no one that you only see a few times a year at a conference worth giving that much power in your life. The people that have that kind of sway in your life should be few and selected carefully. 

I do not, and will not, build my life around fellowships, movements or organizations. I build my life around the relationships that God places in my life to forward his agenda for me. And those people will be loyal to individuals and not institutions. I fear for good reason relationships that are dependent on human systems. I fear them because of how they have treated me and the people with whom I am the closest. 

I am fiercely loyal. I will admit that I may even be loyal to a fault. I may stick with people too long. But I am loyal and I value loyalty wherever I see it. 

As always, comment even if you disagree. 

Redemption During and After Divorce

In my last post I wrote about what I hate about divorce. In this post I want to write more redemptively. While Christians should always try to avoid divorce, there are redemptive things that can result from it. I am not suggesting that the things I am about the reference cannot be accomplished in marriage. But sadly they too often are not. So, if you are divorced, it is not the end of the world. Your life is not over. The following are some positive things that can result from divorce:

• One can recover their true identity in Christ. Too often married people have unhealthy identity issues with their spouses. 
• One learns to trust God solely. 
• No relationship loss after divorce will every be more painful or life-altering. 
• Many times God will restore one's life with a marriage that is God-honoring and fulfilling. 

No doubt there are many other results that could be noted. But these will suffice for the present purpose. If you know someone who is divorced, or is going through a divorce, please share this with them. It may be the grace and hope that they need. 

I Hate Divorce Too

It is no secret that I have gone through a divorce. In conversations on this topic, people often say to me, "God hates divorce." The aforementioned phrase is a quote—more or less—of Malachi 2.16. Often it feels as if people use this phrase to insinuate that those who allow for divorce and remarriage in certain cases do not hate divorce. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. 

I was reminded of above truth again this evening as I talked about divorce with a friend whose parents are divorced. Divorce doesn't just hurt the spouses; it hurts the children too. My friend and I both agreed that we hate divorce. He recounted his story about his parents in a way that saddened me deeply. Our conversation reminded me once again of the tragic consequences of a fallen world. 

I sat recently at a conference table filled with preachers. The topic of divorce came up and at least one preacher referenced Malachi 2.16. My response was that as the only divorced preacher at the table that I hate divorce more than all of them combined. The point of this post is simply to say that no one hates divorce more than those who have experienced it. I insist that it is impossible for a person who is still happily married to their first spouse to hate divorce more than me. Or any normal person who has survived divorce. 

I know no one who is pro-divorce. I know no one who went into a marriage hoping that it would fail. Certainly, no true Christian would. What do I hate about divorce?:

• I hate the human brokenness that produces it. 
• I hate the pain of separation that results from it for all parties involved. 
• I hate the isolation, suspicion and calloused judgment that sometimes comes from fellow Christians. 
• I hate the loneliness that follows it. 

In a subsequent post, I am going to write about the redemption that is possible after divorce. 

First World Fellowship

For many preachers, fellowships can be frustrating. The frustrations of fellowships are not limited to organizations. A person is certainly not free from the frustrations as an independent preacher. It can be discouraging to watch the politics involved between local churches and between national churches. Perhaps the most notable thing about it all is the pettiness. When two men's teachings have 90% or more in common, and they still manage to find some small thing to use as an excuse to disfellowship each other. 

A friend of mine pointed out that this may be a first world fellowship problem. I wonder how many of our issues would matter if we lived constantly under the threat of persecution or death? I would dare say that a persecuted church would be a more united church. I pray that God will raise of voices of unity in the body of Christ. 

Preaching conferences, broad acceptance in the brotherhood, and many other issues inform the choices we make about fellowship between churches and ministers. Sadly, we allow suspicion and the level of a person's political toxicity to determine whom we fellowship. 

I pray that the American Apostolic movement will begin to love each other like a persecuted church before we actually become one.  As Oneness Pentecostals, we should be pursuing oneness with our brothers and sisters of the name. I realize fully that there are lines we should not cross, but I must insist with this little blog that we can do better. 

Misrepresentation

Anyone who meddles in ideas will be misrepresented. There is no escaping it. I don't claim to be an expert on any issue. But I do enjoy immensely the exchange of ideas. And there are a couple issues on which I think if have a solid grasp. Whatever the issue was, I have yet to have a conversation that either I or the other person(s) did not misunderstand some detail about the issue under consideration. The reasons for this are multi-layered.

Two Kinds of Misrepresenters 

Not all misrepresenters are created equal. I want to create a couple categories so as not to misrepresent them. It would be terrible if I misrepresented the misrepresenters. 

The Innocent Misrepresenter

The innocent misrepresenter is so because he does not have the informational or intellectual capacity to grasp the nuances of the topic. Therefore, he attempts to convey the conversation but cannot do it accurately. What often happens is that the misrepresenter has a preconceived notion about what a particular position states or what certain terms mean. Therefore, they hear an issue discussed through the distortion of misinformation. Far too often people have walked away from my conversations or statements and repeat what they heard, but not what I said. This kind of misrepresenter is not malicious; they are just misinformed. And that is tolerable. 

The Malicious Misrepresenter

The malicious misrepresenter is so because he has an unholy agenda. There may be many motivators for the misrepresentation. I am not so much concerned about the motivation as I am the action. When I encounter a malicious misrepresenter, I will mark and avoid them. When I and others have clarified our position on a topic, and one refuses to state it accurately, then they are a malicious misrepresenter.

My Response to the Malicious Misrepresenter 

When I have confirmed that you are a misrepresenter of the malicious variety, then I will not engage you in conversation. If you are going to misrepresent me, then you are going to have to work hard to find my material so that you can traffic in your devious dealings. 

However, if you maliciously misrepresent one of my friends—and likely anyone—then I will call your hand. I know all too well what it is like to be on the receiving end of malicious conduct. By the grace of God, I will not participate in it. In the interest of being transparent, I must admit that I have had to repent of this sin more than once. But I am asking the Holy Spirit to keep a check on my tongue and spirit in this regard. 

NOTE: As will all my blogs, all comments will be posted. Please feel free to engage. 

The Need to be Honest with Scripture

I recently posted on Facebook about the need for hermeneutical honesty. The comments got so out of hand that I deceide to erase the post there. However, I have decided to reproduce that post here on my blog. My comments were as follows:

"Do we conservative Apostolics (of which I consider myself) care about hermeneutics in our preaching? I understand fully the concept of preserving traditional separataion. But a high view of scripture demands that you not commit crimes against the context of scripture to do it. We need a revival of biblical literacy and honesty. Preaching scripture soundly ought not to be too much to expect regardless of the setting. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I do need to respect your ability to interpret the Bible. If I disagree with you, then I will consider seriously that I may be wrong. I have a long history of being wrong, so I am aware that is a possibilty. Otherwise, I have no option but to dismiss your claims with respect."

I understand that much of the fury against the post was becasue of the timing. But anyone who knows me is aware that the above post is something that I have been passionate about for a very long time. My post was by no means isolating a recent sermon at PEAK 2018. Conversely, I am not suggesting that I am excluding said message from my post. The Facebook exerpt from above covers every sermon—including my own. I will go further and say, "Especially my own."

One of the primary purposes of preaching is persuasion. Paul wrote the following statement about preaching: "Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Corinthians 5.11, King James Version). My contention is that the way we handle scripture ought to have persuasion as its goal. We will convince no one of our view as long as we continue to demonstrate a disregard for context. As Apostolic preachers, we must start taking the Bible more seriously. As long as we misuse scripture to promote personal agendas we will continue to lose the respect of saint and sinner alike.

Finally, let me say that I am not a perfect interpreter of scripture—no preacher is. We all have room for improvement. Therefore, let us work hard to interpret scripture faithfully. 

As will every blog I post, I encourage you to comment below even if you disagree.

Dispensationalism Part 2

Dispensationalism Part 2: One People of God  

Reflection

            In the first blog I discussed the relationship of the two brides/peoples of God to the Oneness of God. While I did not discuss it extensively, I think that made the point clearly that two brides/peoples of God theology is incompatible with the Oneness of God. In this blog I will argue that not only is it incompatible with the Oneness of God, but it is also incompatible with a systematic theology of the people of God. I shall contend that God has always and will always have one covenant people of faith. So the question is, “Who are the one people of God?”

One Covenant People

            The Oneness of God (my first passion) informs my eschatology (my second passion). As noted in the first blog of this series, the two peoples of God theory of Dispensationalism is incompatible with an Oneness theology. So in this blog I will provide an introduction to how I see the one people of God. It is my contention that the people of God have always been covenant people consisting of both Jew and Gentile. Furthermore, God has never been interested in a bloodline, but rather faithline.

Abraham Was a Gentile

            The terms circumcision and uncircumcision mean Jew and Gentile respectively. Paul’s defense of Gentile justification apart from circumcision was that Abraham was justified while uncircumcised—i.e. Gentile (Romans 3:27; 4:25). The argument is this, if the Jews denied the justification of the Gentiles because they were uncircumcised, then they would have to deny the Justification of father Abraham.

            The Gentile calling of Abraham is exhibit one in the case that God has always had one covenant people. I can’t make a full argument here about Gentile participation in the Old Testament Israel. But I will make a couple of surface, but significant points. Firstly, in the Old Testament many Gentiles came to participate fully in Israel, so much so as to be bloodline members of Messiah—Rahab and others. The New Testament, among many metaphors, makes Gentiles members of the “commonwealth of Israel” (Ephesians 2:11-22).  Jew and Gentile are one body (Ephesians 4:4), one new man (Ephesians 2:15), one tree (Romans 11), with one hope (Ephesians 4:4).  The covenant people of God have always been about faith and not race.

           

Please subscribe and leave comments. 

Dispensationalism 1b: Replacement Theology

Dispensationalism 1b: Replacement Theology

            I want to write this blog as transition between the first blog on this topic and the next blog on this topic—hence Dispensationalism 1b. Dispensationalists often accuse non-Dispensationalists (like myself), specifically those who do not hold to a two brides/peoples of God theology, of teaching “replacement theology.” There are those who teach replacement theology, but I am not one of them.

            I am going to state what I believe in this blog. However, I am not going to present arguments in defense of what I believe at the present time. I will make the argument for my eschatology incrementally in subsequent writings.

            So what do I believe? I believe that God has always had one covenant people that consisted of Jew and Gentile. God has never been interested in an ethnic people, but rather a faithful people. I believe that the New Testament Church is a renewal and continuation of the Old Testament church in which Gentiles have full covenant access to God in Christ by the Spirit. The church and Israel are not two peoples, with two plans and two destinies. God has only ever had and will only ever have one Covenant people who consists of both Jew and Gentiles. The church does not replace Israel; the church is the Israel of God consisting of both Jew and Gentile in one body.

            I will make my argument for this position in future blogs. As always, all feedback is welcome. Please comment on the blog. All comments will be posted—especially the ones who disagree with my conclusion. 

Dispensationalism Part 1: Dispensationalism and Oneness Theology

Dispensationalism Part 1: Why Dispensationalism is Incompatible with Oneness Theology

            Eschatology used to be that subject that I resisted thinking about. I didn’t understand it. I feared it. I thought that it was too esoteric to be worth my effort to understand it. I have come to realize that nothing could be further from the truth. There is a blessing in reading and understanding the book of Revelation (Revelation 1:3). Once one accepts the blessing of the book of the apocalypse, it will connect other theologies in a way that nothing else can.

            I am writing this blog series to put in my own words what I believe about this topic. I have been misquoted so many times on this issue that I have decided to go on record. If anyone in the future should decide to speak for me about what I believe, then it can be compared to what I actually believe. Most of the cases where someone has said what I believe, that person has never spoken to me. By writing this blog series I will clarify publically my eschatological position. Obviously, I will not be able to clarify it all in this first installment of this series. It will take the subsequent contributions to paint the full picture of my position.

Clarification

            Before I proceed to the purpose of this blog, I want to make a clarification. Please read the following carefully. There are those who self-identify as dispensationalists who are NOT the target of this dispensational series. For example: Dr. Nathaniel Wilson has done an excellent job of apostolicizing dispensationalism. I take credit for coining the phrase, “Wilsonian dispensationalism.” I wrote about it in a finals paper for a Wilson University class. I hope to do a blog that specifically contrasts Wilsonian dispensationalism with classic dispensationalism. Dr. Wilson has written his reformed dispensational view in his book Rightly Dividing the Word. At this point I will allow Dr. Wilson to speak for himself. Just wanted to clarify that Wilsonian dispensationalism is not the object of my scorn. Although I don’t fully agree with his view, his view is compatible with core Apostolic theology

.

Dispensationalism and Theology Proper

            Finally we are at the point of the post. The point is how classic dispensationalism relates to theology proper and specifically how the two peoples/brides component of the dispensational model conflicts with an Oneness views of God. The two peoples/brides concept is central to classic dispensationalism. It is not incidental, but fundamental to making dispensationalism work. It’s like love and marriage, horse and carriage; you can’t have one without the other. Donaldson (2011) correctly argued that dispensationalism doesn’t work without the distinction of Israel and the church as separate peoples (Donaldson, The Last Days of Dispensationalism).

            Classic dispensationalism  not only sees two brides, but does so in a way that is not palatable to Oneness theology. Notice the following quote from Larkin (1920):

We must not forget that there are “Two Brides” mentioned in the Scriptures. One in the Old Testament, and the other in the New Testament. The one in the Old Testament is Israel, the Bride of Jehovah; the one in the New Testament is the Church, the Bride of Christ. (The Greatest Book on “Dispensational Truth” in the World)

            In Larkian dispensationalism, which no one can logically claim is not dispensational orthodoxy, you not only have “two brides,” but you also have two husbands—the Father and the Son. So you have two peoples, two plans, two destinies, and two divine persons. Classic dispensationalism is fundamentally trinitarian per the dispensational fathers.

            My further point is that I am not sure that the two brides/peoples of God  of dispensationalism can be transformed to be compatible with Apostolic theology. Let’s see what the covenantal distinction between Israel and the Church looks like with the Oneness of God. You have the one person of God married to Israel, then divorcing her, marrying a Gentile bride, rapturing her out on their honeymoon, and then marrying the Jewish bride again while keeping his Gentile bride. The two peoples of God theology ultimately has Jesus married to two brides at once. There are multiple levels on which this is wrong. But allow me to list one. A bishop must be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2). However, the two peoples of God theory has Jesus, the bishop of our souls (1 Peter 2:25), as a polygamist.

  Click here to listen to a recent lesson I taught on this topic.