Monday, January 30, 2012

Why I Am Disappointed With Voddie Baucham

Voddie Bauchm wrote about his recent activities regarding The Elephant Room 2 and James MacDonald's Men's Conference speaking engagement. While I am glad he did not participate in either, and rightly  publicly rejects TD Jakes as a Christian, I do have some concerns.

Sadly, Baucham showed a few errors in his explanation of why he didn't go to The Elephant Room 2 and MacDonald's Men's Conference following the Elephant Room debacle. I do appreciate his willingness to admit it was an unwise decision to go to the Harvest conference, and I appreciate that he was public to some extent. However here are my concerns....

1) He wrongly assumed that two Emergents, namely the dirty X-rated Mark Driscoll, would have ANY spiritual wisdom or discernment regarding Jakes and his modalism. "There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time."  Prior to the ER show, would've been the right time to reveal this---moreover Jakes himself would have proclaimed this IF he had repented and gotten saved.

 2) He calls the dogmatic defender of Jakes, James MacDonald "a brother in the Lord" with whom he merely disagrees. "I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. "

It appears that perhaps Baucham was still willing to speak at MacDonald's church because he sees MacDonald as a "brother in the Lord", and frankly he shouldn't. It seems it was MacDonald who had the bigger problem which was Baucham which was publicly judging Jakes (as he should), but Baucham didn't have a problem with the embracing of a heretic by MacDonald.

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

Joh 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. 20 "For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 "But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God."

1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?
2Co 6:16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.
2Co 6:17 "Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord. "AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you.
2Co 6:18 "And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me," Says the Lord Almighty. 

3) He was deliberately silent over the ER 2, which IS the problem with public pastors/teachers, especially when they are connected to the ER's "Gospel Coalition". Silence is NOT an option, I don't care who 'else' has spoken out. Being a contributor of The "Gospel" Coalition, he had a responsibility to speak out on the ER issue. As a member of that religious coalition he had a duty to publicly rebuke the organization he is part of. Moreover, will he continue in that unholy alliance?

"First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2. I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further. There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light). I do not regret this decision. "

But when he did go public: "This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport."

So again, I'm left disappointed, but not surprised.

Why men have to make that tiresome qualification of calling someone in damnable error  (by promoting a known false teacher) a "brother in the Lord" and thus make it an issue of "agree to disagree"  is beyond me. James MacDonald has proven himself over the last few months at least, to be an enemy of the Lord and HIS people (note, not only has he raked his critics over the coals, he jettisoned two of them, from attending the ER, and had already made plans for Baucham to be replaced by another man for the Men's conference, because Baucham was public with the issue).

In The Downgrade Contraversy, written primarily by Spurgeon :

We are grateful to the editor of Word and Work for speaking out so plainly. He says:—
    "In The Sword and the Trowel for the present month Mr. Spurgeon gives no uncertain sound concerning departures from the faith. His exposure of the dishonesty which, under the cover of orthodoxy, assails the very foundations of faith is opportune in the interests of truth. No doubt, like a faithful prophet in like evil times, he will be called a 'troubler of Israel,' and already we have noticed he has been spoken of as a pessimist; but any such attempts to lessen the weight of his testimony are only certain to make it more effective. When a strong sense of duty prompts public speech it will be no easy task to silence it.

    "The preachers of false doctrine dislike nothing more than the premature detection of their doings. Only give them time enough to prepare men's minds for the reception of their 'new views,' and they are confident of success. They have had too much time already, and any who refuse to speak out now must be held to be 'partakers of their evil deeds.' As Mr. Spurgeon says, 'A little plain-speaking would do a world of good just now. These gentlemen desire to be let alone. They want no noise raised. Of course thieves hate watch-dogs, and love darkness. It is time that somebody should spring his rattle, and call attention to the way in which God is being robbed of his glory and man of his hope.'

End quote.

God will not be mocked. He will indeed bring out what was done in secret by men who call themselves Christian teachers yet wed themselves to wolves. Secondary separation becomes, indeed, primary separation because such men who fellowship ("greet" ---"rejoice" as it says in 2John 11) show that they are wicked men without love for the Truth, God, and the souls of others.  For a simliar view go to Daniel's Place.

2Jo 1:9 Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, 11 for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1Jn 2:15  "Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. " Wolves like Piper, Driscoll, and MacDonald love the world; they have NO love for the things of God, that which is pure, but rather they love that which is impure, unholy, and approve of those who also do likewise (namely each other).

No comments: