Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed

Televisiongate: We Killed, then Changed 

            I am 45, so I remember well the video and television wars of the 1990s and early 2000s. In so-called conservative Apostolic circles, we were terrorizing the television watchers; not just the television watchers, but the home movie watchers. We were preaching against taking videos of birthdays and weddings. And we were certainly preaching against using video for church services. 

             But it’s even worse than that. We were not just preaching against TV as a matter of a local church standard or a personal preference; we were disfellowshipping preachers, pastors, and churches who did not align with us. In Tulsa, circa 1999, a preacher with the passion a Pentecostal can portray proclaimed that if you permit video, then “you are not my brother.” This scenario could be replayed many times over in many conferences all over America. Not only did we disfellowship them personally, but we also demanded that everyone else disfellowship him as well. 

            If you had anyone preach for you that used video, then we boycotted conferences at your church. I watched a former pastor of mine go through hell from some of his closest friends because he had a long-time friend and elder who used video preach for him. In the interest of transparency, as a teenager I was on the side of those who were opposing him. I watched the personal pulpit attacks. I watched the name-calling. I watched as we maligned their characters and questioned their integrity. 

            It is one thing to do that to pastors who have a paycheck every week. But may God have mercy on the evangelist that happened to preach for someone who allowed video. If he did not recant and repent, then his entire livelihood was taken from him. Pastors would call other pastors and tell them not to use him. And just like that, his revival schedule would disappear. Whether evangelist or pastor, if you had anything to do with video, you were anathema in that movement.

I wish I could create a montage of every abusive comment that preachers made on this topic. I wish I could capture the emotions of every person that we hurt and damaged by our vitriol. I wish we could compensate for all of the lost offerings because innocent men were “canceled” because they didn’t hold the same view we did. By the way, “cancel culture” existed in the church long before it existed in the culture. Most problems with society do. But we caused inestimable damage by our unchristian behavior over a non-essential issue. 

Fast forward to 2020. Many of those same preachers have multiple social media accounts. How often does it happen when watching Fox New live on Facebook that it notifies us that brother so-and-so is watching with you? Many of those men are now on social media recommending their favorite new conservative TV channel (Newsmax, OANN, etc.) and where to watch it online. They are buying the memorabilia of their favorite politicians like they are sports superstars, all the while denying fandom and hero worship. The former anti-TV men are now glued to a TV screen watching pre-election, election, and post-election news. 

I remember when it didn’t matter, we were told, whether you are watching TV on a big screen or a computer device. TV is TV no matter where you watch it, right? I remember when we ridiculed people for saying they only watch the news. I also remember the response that, “It starts with the news, but it never stays with the news.” Come on now preachers who are TV news junkies, can you tell us what else you are watching? Because, according to your former logic, people can’t and don’t “just watch the news.”

And here is the tragic part, we (corporately) changed no one has apologized for the damage they caused. We changed and no one has been honest about it. We changed, and no one is explaining why it’s okay to do the things over which we killed others. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they need to repent. When ministry assassins begin to do what they killed others for, they owe them an apology. You do not have biblical permission to change as if nothing happened. Preachers who attack and try to destroy other preachers should be held to account. To murder your brother with the weapon of words is a sin against the image of God. We should take it seriously, but we treat it at best as a whoopsy. 

I have learned from this, and I pray others do to, to draw both biblical and fellowship lines with grace. I have also learned to mark the assassins among us and to avoid getting too close to them. They can’t and shouldn’t be trusted until they repent and demonstrate a true heart of love and compassion. 

            

 

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.

"It Seemed Good to the Holy Ghost and To Us" Is Not a Blank Check!

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

INTRODUCTION 

Preachers often use this verse as their authority to preach against things for which they admit they have no prohibitive verse (s). Well...they actually only use part of the verse. But I will make that point a little later. So they use this verse as their trump card to every objection that anyone raises against their personal authority. They even use it to trump biblical arguments. 

I am writing this blog post to place this verse in its biblical context. It should not be used as a blank check to preach whatever one chooses. A pastor has the liberty to make certain requirements for local church membership for which he has no explicit biblical command. However, no pastor has the authority bind, either on his local congregation or the global church, as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. This applied to me when I pastored in Alton, IL. And it will apply to me if I should ever pastor again in the future.

As I stated earlier, we do not have the authority to bind as requirement for heaven what scripture does not bind. Furthermore, we do not have the authority to use our opinions as a basis to judge our brothers and sisters in Christ. 

CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT

The context of Acts 15:28 was whether or not to bind circumcision—therefore, the whole law—on Gentile converts. The Jerusalem Council decided that Gentiles should not be compelled to be circumcised. This is the context in which one should understand the statement under consideration.

IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US: NO SCRIPTURE NECESSARY
This phrase is thrown around as though scripture did not figured into the apostles decision in Act 15. Therefore, this phrase is used to justify men binding their own opinions about contemporary issues on the entire body of Christ. This is the text many use to prove they don't need scriptural support for what they bind.  In fact, based on this verse, they can bind their own opinions on the body of Christ when the entire witness of scripture says the opposite.

So, did the apostles use this phrase because they issued a binding edict without, or contrary to, scripture? God forbid! Let's back up a few verses and see:

"And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written...Wherefore my sentence is..."  (Acts 15:15, 18 KJV).

Brothers and sisters, James and the others based their decision on written scripture. The reason  it seemed good the the Holy Ghost, the apostles and elders was because they consulted the written words of the prophets.

WHAT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US?
Notice the rest of the verse that never gets quoted:

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; (Acts 15:28 KJV)

What seemed good to the Holy Ghost was not:

• To bind unnecessary rules for which one has no scripture. 
• To bind unnecessary rules that are contrary to scripture.
• To make ones own personal opinions the basis by which they judge those who do not comply. 
• To make 20th and 21rst century standards (many of which may be wise) perpetual, unbreakable law by which we condemn all present and future generations. 

CONCLUSION

"To lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things" is what "seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us."

If we are going to quote this verse, quote it all. And if we are going to use this verse, use it. Don't misquote and misuse it. 

Caricature of God

I can pick on the above gentlemen as I too have been abundantly blessed with ears. The artists have over emphasized the ears of Barak Obama and Ross Perot. While they have big ears, these pictures are obviously an exaggeration of their size. The artists have focused on a particular attribute of their persons.

Many times this is what men do with God. They over emphasize a particular attribute of His nature until the picture they have of God is not true, but a caricaturization of Him. What we must do is put each of God's attributes in proportion to all his attributes, and not to the minimization or elimination of some.

Some people focus so heavily on the holiness of God that barely no one can be saved; after all their best efforts they even worry about themselves. Others focus so heavily on the mercy of God that no one will be lost, including: Dahmer, Hitler, Stalin and Hussein (not Barak). When you do this you have a distorted view of God. The mercy and holiness of God are not competing ideas that you have to accept one or the other. Both are true and are complimentary of each other.

"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other." Psalms 85:10 KJV

Let's view God how He is, and not how the human mind would portray Him by exaggerating the aspects of God's nature that we choose to emphasize.