Toby J. Sumpter's Blog, page 23

Why ‘Gentle Parenting’ Isn’t

“For whom the Lord loves, he chastens, and scourges every son whom he receives” (Heb. 12:6).

Parents are required by God to spank their children. This is not just an Old Testament thing. This was not just for criminals. Hebrews says that this is how God demonstrates His love for us, His children, and therefore, parents who refuse to discipline their children in this way hate their children. 

Sometimes this refusal to discipline children is called “gentle parenting,” but let’s be clear: it is anything but gentle. It is not gentle to communicate to your children, that you hate them. It is not gentle to say to them by your actions that you are not sure they actually belong to you. And worst of all, it is not at all gentle to communicate to them that you are unsure of God’s love for them, unsure if they belong to Him or not. 

Of course the arguments are always full of nuance and complexity; no advocate of this will admit they are hating their children. But the fact is that they have arrogantly redefined hate and love according to their own wisdom. They have decided that they know better than God, which is a very high handed hubris that also thinks it knows better than most previous generations of faithful Christians. 

We certainly insist that all discipline must be carried out calmly and graciously. God does not fly off the handle with us, and parents who discipline in anger and frustration are also disobeying their Father, as well as lying about what He is like. We also insist that spanking is not the only tool in a parent’s toolbox. Discipline also means discipleship, and there ought to be tons of time spent teaching, talking, practicing, drilling, and preparing for different situations. What kind of coach puts his team on the field without running the plays many times in practice? Parents should be the best coaches.

Nevertheless, we are not at all ashamed of what the Bible clearly teaches, and we rejoice in the gift of the rod: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15).

Photo by Mick Haupt on Unsplash

Idaho PRIDE, Drag Kids, and the Price of Pursuit

Introduction
So Idaho seems to be gearing up to be a real flash point for the culture wars in our land. For which I am very grateful. Biden’s abortion cronies have targeted Idaho’s trigger laws to perhaps make a lesson out of us or perhaps because they think our RINO leaders are easy targets for corruption or compromise. But now the PRIDE jihad has come to Idaho over the last few years, and as they have done virtually everywhere else, they’ve moved right along to sexualizing and grooming children through drag shows aimed at children and minors. 

This year’s Boise PRIDE festival is scheduled for this weekend, culminating in a pseudo-worship service on Sunday, September 11th – the 21st anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Talk about dissonance and tone deafness. What should be a weekend remembering heroes, mourning the devastation, and uniting in gratitude and repentance as a nation, Boise PRIDE turns into a spectacle taunting the God of Heaven and throws down a gauntlet calculated to divide our communities. Why they didn’t plan this for PRIDE month, we don’t know, but we can confidently say that PRIDE month was never intended to remain merely one month. They are evangelists with their “gospel,” and they will not stop until they have PRIDE year. 

But the early returns suggest that the pride and hubris have gone to their heads (as it always does), and drunk on presumption, (“nothing can stop us now!”), they went full bore on targeting children and minors in Idaho this year, with a superhero motif and full-blown preteen and teens drag show. A number of sane people pointed this atrocity out and rightly objected, and began making noise this last week, including the leader of the Idaho Republicans, particularly putting pressure on the list of businesses sponsoring the event, and Zion’s Bank pulled their sponsorship along with Idaho Power. Idaho legislators also pointed out that tens of thousands of dollars from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare was pledged to this creepy sexual circus, leading to a letter released on Thursday announcing that IDHW was withdrawing sponsorship of the event. Coinciding with the sponsorships being dropped, Idaho PRIDE announced that they are “delaying” the drag show for kids, due to “increased safety concerns.”

Can We Make Any Distinctions?
As I have followed some of the chatter surrounding the event and now the cancellation of sponsorships and at least a “delay” of the kids drag show, tensions run high and accusations run immediately to extremes. One reply in my feed suggested that this was just like Nazi Germany’s ramp up to cancelling the Jews. Apparently, right wingers cannot see the slippery slope we are on. Protecting children from leering and gyrating men in leotards and gaudy makeup is equivalent to Nazism? But the question really needs to be pressed: how do we determine which groups of people can and should be restrained and regulated?

And if you think it’s undemocratic or medieval to even ask the question, you’re simply being disingenuous. Should we encourage white supremacists and KKK rallies in our state? Should we have the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare sponsoring female genital mutilation parties in our state? The question is not whether certain groups will be restrained, the question is which groups? If Boise refused to allow openly racist groups to use public space for a KKK rally, would you also accuse Boise of embracing a pseudo-nazism? Of course not. Why not? Because you are assuming that white supremacy is obviously wrong. The fact that IDHW and many family friendly businesses don’t want their dollars or name going to promote the sexualization of minors because it is obviously wrong to them is also obvious to many Idahoans. But it is not enough to say, “well, it’s obvious.” Because, obviously, it isn’t so obvious to many of us anymore.  

But let us be clear: Christians condemn all vigilante violence to homosexuals, transgenders, queers, pedophiles, or white supremacists. The question is whether we want to support public debauchery, public celebration of corruption, grooming, and sexual exploitation. The question is also whether public dollars should go to an extreme leftwing agenda. If these same people would object to public health dollars going to support a pro-life, pro traditional family rally, why should these same dollars go to sponsor lifestyles that most Idahoans do not approve of?  

We affirm the rights of all Idahoans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and while we disagree that this sexual confusion will bring the happiness they are seeking, our primary objection is to the public display of indecent acts, the public celebration of perversion targeting young people, and the public sexual exploitation of minors, which incidentally, is actually prohibited in Idaho State statute, for example Title 18, chapter 15 which reads in part: 

“18-1506.  SEXUAL ABUSE OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF SIXTEEN YEARS. (1) It is a felony for any person eighteen (18) years of age or older, with the intent to gratify the lust, passions, or sexual desire of the actor, minor child or third party, to:
(a)  Solicit a minor child under the age of sixteen (16) years to participate in a sexual act;
(b)  Cause or have sexual contact with such minor child…
(c)  Induce, cause or permit a minor child to witness an act of sexual conduct.
(2)  For the purposes of this section, “solicit” means any written, verbal, or physical act which is intended to communicate to such minor child the desire of the actor or third party to participate in a sexual act or participate in sexual foreplay, by the means of sexual contact, photographing or observing such minor child engaged in sexual contact.”

This is not some kind of radical right wing stuff. This has been in the Idaho criminal code for decades.

But Why Here?
I want to key off of something that the Zion’s Bank statement said. In their announcement and in the announcement from the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the real line that seems to have been crossed is the involvement of children and minors. Both statements affirmed their happiness and willingness to sponsor PRIDE events in general. They made it clear that they were not objecting to public simulations of sodomy or crossdressing drag shows. They don’t mind men doing blackface for women. They don’t mind women being objectified, insulted, and mocked like that. They don’t mind men pretending to sexually abuse one another in public. They don’t object to that all. They are happy to support those kinds of public spectacles and assaults on decency. The only thing they object to is dragging kids into it (pun intended).

Now, from one angle, that makes sense. There is a natural defensiveness for children, but there’s also a reason why leftists and the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t understand that line at all. And I actually want to press this. One liberal Idaho journalist I follow wanted to know why conservatives object to children doing drag shows if their parents give permission. Isn’t that one of the conservative talking points? Aren’t parents the primary care-givers and have primary responsibility for children? If parents give permission, shouldn’t that be enough? I don’t know how honest or disingenuous the question was, but it’s actually a good one. Everyone understands that the rights of parents have limits. A parent does not have the freedom to abuse her child. But again, we are back at the need for a standard. Who gets to define “abuse?”

Abuse is mistreatment. Abuse assumes a “right use,” a standard, a right and a wrong. And the right use of parental responsibility assumes that we know what we’re aiming for, it assumes we know what happy, flourishing adulthood looks like, which is what we’re raising our children to become, right? But conservatives in Idaho and everywhere really do need to decide what that standard is. Is what Dave Rubin is doing with his kids, intentionally depriving them of mothers, and raising them with the delusion that two fathers is a reasonable option – is that abuse? Is spanking a child abuse? Any sort of corporal punishment? Why or why not? 

Another tweet I saw on this whole situation claimed that this isn’t really just about children doing drag, and what conservatives are really after is the whole LGBTQ movement. And if conservatives say, “no, not all; we just object to sexualizing children,” the obvious question the drag supporters need ask is: By what standard? What is the moral standard that allows for LGBTQ lifestyles and then says, “but you better not teach your children anything about this.” The PRIDE festivals are frequently more consistent than many conservatives. The LGBTQ celebrants want to insist that if something can and should be celebrated by adults then it can and should be celebrated by children. If their parents want them to celebrate drag, on what basis can you object? By what standard, will you tell parents that they may not permit or encourage their children to explore those lifestyles and identities? And the only answer that will standup to this sexual storm is the Word of God, the Bible.

Conclusion
It’s actually very encouraging to see the pushback, and I’m very grateful that the drag kids show has at least been postponed. But this is the moment to pursue, not to sit back in satisfaction with some very minor victory. But in order to pursue, we must have a very clear objective in mind. The reason conservatives have so consistently lost to liberals is because liberals typically have a far clearer objective in mind. They are fighting for complete autonomy. They are fighting to choose their own identities, to define their own realities, to remake themselves into whatever they desire. According to their worldview, all constraints and restraints on that are dehumanizing and enslaving, and so they are pressing for complete indulgence, complete sovereignty of their choices.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are fighting for what? According to Zion’s Bank it’s fine to redefine human sexuality, fine to be completely autonomous when it comes to designing your own sexual realities, your own meaning, your own family, so long as you don’t tell your children. According to the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, it’s fine to practice sexuality that is known to be destructive to human health and welfare, so long as you don’t encourage children to?

No, conservatives want to teach their children that God made the world, and He created us male and female in His image. Jesus said that our bodies are sexual assignments from God the Creator, and because we are made male and female, marriage is only the joining of one man and one woman (Mk. 10). And just as a bird is most free in the air, and a fish is most free in the water, so too human beings are most free and happy when we receive these gifts with gratitude from our Maker.  

This nation and the state of Idaho were founded on Christian values. Those values come from the Bible. Until conservatives in Idaho and throughout the nation simply insist that we want the freedom our fathers established for us, the kind of freedom found in following the God who made heaven and earth, the kind of freedom that comes from being created equal, created in His image, male and female, with unalienable rights, we will not make much progress and we will keep being chased by our enemies.

Our Declaration of Independence acknowledges a Creator and insists that we have our unalienable rights from Him. We cannot fight for life, liberty, or the true pursuit of happiness if we do not ground what those things mean in a fixed standard, in what our Creator has said. Christians must stop being embarrassed of Scripture. God has spoken, and He has spoken to all men everywhere, that includes Idahoans, that includes all Americans, citizens and those entrusted with authority. They will call us extremists, but let them. Yes, we are extremists just like George Washington and John Adams and John Witherspoon. The winners of this war will be those who believe in their standard and are not ashamed in the slightest.

Conservative Marital Witchcraft

The Bible says, “let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband” (Eph. 5:33). And far too many Christians think that what they just heard was for miscellaneous spouses to be nice to each other. But that’s not what it said. The Lord says that husbands must love their wives as themselves, and wives must respect or reverence their husbands. And some of you think I just said that husbands and wives should love each other. But that’s not what it says. The Bible gives different assignments to husbands and wives. God says that if you are a man and you are married, you are required to love your wife as yourself. And God says that if you are a woman and you are married, you are required to respect your husband. 

Many Christians are complementarian in name only. They say that they believe that the differences between men and women, male and female matter. They say that they are not egalitarians. They say that they believe in the headship of a husband and the submission of a wife to his leadership, and then many husbands proceed to respect their wives and many wives proceed to love their husbands. But that is not what it says to do. It’s like James says, you look at yourself in a mirror and then walk away and five minutes later don’t remember what you look like, don’t remember the assignment. And it really is disobedience. We are required to not merely be hearers of the Word but also doers of the word, otherwise we are lying to ourselves. But obedience really is the perfect law of liberty. 

Many women love their husbands, and they wonder why things are not going better in their marriage. But they are disobeying God’s clear instructions. He did not say to love your husband. God said to respect him, look up to him, thank him, honor him, ask him for counsel and obey it. Many men respect their wives; they really do think highly of them, and they wonder why things are not going better in their marriage. The reason is you are disobeying God’s clear instructions. He did not say to respect your wife. God said to love your wife as your own body. Sacrifice yourself, lay down your comfort for her comfort, give careful thought for her care, think about what she needs for her good, just as Christ has loved the Church. 

Photo by Joanna Kosinska on Unsplash

Faith vs. Sacramentalism

Sacramentalism looks at the sacraments as talismans, objects or rituals that have power in themselves. In baptism, the old Roman Catholic phrase was ex opere operato (“from the work working”), which essentially meant baptism always regenerates people, which is not true. Likewise, in their communion theology, they teach transubstantiation, that when the priest lifts up the bread and the cup, even though the outward material still looks and tastes like bread and wine, the inward substance has changed into the flesh and blood of Jesus. And this is why they will bow down to the bread and wine and pray to the bread and the wine, and save the bread and wine afterwards and continue treating it as Jesus. 

Reformed types may not be tempted by those particular errors, but some certainly have their own versions of them. One example would be communing your children to early, when they are still sleeping through most of the service and clearly not paying attention to much of anything, treating grace like some kind of vitamin you take. Another form is simply thinking that if we do our worship service correctly, God will automatically bless us or His Kingdom. Maybe it’s the exact perfect Covenant Renewal service, or maybe it’s the exact right way of doing communion, or concentrating on all the things we don’t do — like all those other Christians. While God does want us to want to obey Him, the most important thing is looking to Him in faith. 

Sacramentalism looks at the sacraments and expects to receive blessing and power impersonally. But faith looks through the sacraments to Christ and expects to receive blessing and power because of His personal promises. So look to Christ. And look around as you celebrate this meal: the body of Christ is not only in Heaven, it is also in the saints around you. Smile at one another, make eye contact, whisper to your children that Christ is King. He has forgiven all our sins. He is ruling and reigning until all His enemies are put beneath His feet. 

So come and welcome to Jesus Christ. 

Photo by Adeolu Eletu on Unsplash

Just Look

One of the ways many religious people mistakenly believe they are Christians is by looking at themselves doing religious things. They look at themselves praying and think that must mean they are Christians. They look at themselves going to church or participating in a Bible study, and they think they must be Christians. Others know that salvation is by faith and not by any works, but they spend most of their time looking at their faith, looking at themselves believing, and trying to believe really hard. But Christianity is the opposite of all of that. The Christian faith is deliverance from looking at yourself. The Christian faith is fundamentally looking at Christ. 

Blind Bartimaeus couldn’t see a thing but when he heard that Jesus was coming by, he simply started crying out for him, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” It was awkward and embarrassing for him to yell out like that, and the people around him tried to get him to be quiet, but he cried even louder, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” And it says that Jesus stood still. Jesus heard Bartimaeus calling and commanded that he should be brought to Him. Bartimaeus cast aside his garment and came to Jesus. And if you know anything about poor beggars, a garment might have been all that Bartimaeus had in the whole world. But he was coming to Jesus. And Jesus asked Him, What do you want me to do for you? And Bartimaeus said, that he wanted to receive his sight. And Jesus said, go your way, your faith has made you whole, and immediately Bartimaeus received his sight and he followed Jesus.

This is how salvation works, and this is how Christians walk with God. And there is no other way. If you are looking at yourself, even looking at yourself trying really hard, looking at yourself praying really hard, looking at yourself believing really hard, you’re doing it all wrong. You can do that and be very religious, and not be a Christian at all. In order to come to Christ, to walk with Christ, you must cry out to Him, not care what anyone thinks, and leave everything behind. Simply look to Christ. And don’t look at yourself looking to Christ. Just look. See Him crucified and risen for shameful, beggarly sinners. Cry out and say, Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me. 

Photo by Hannes Wolf on Unsplash

A CrossPolitic Tranny Baptist Playbook

Introduction
For those of you just now joining us, CrossPolitic had Jason Farley on the show a week or so back, and in the course of discussing the tranny apocalypse upon us, he noted that this was caused by baptists (or at least their pastors). If you were listening carefully to the show, you might have had a least some inkling that there was more to it than a simple accusation of credo-baptism. As the surrounding conversation made clear, the target was radical individualism, revivalism, decisionism, using credo-baptism as a ceremony to express yourself, rather than as a confession of the sovereign Lordship of Christ. 

Anyway, while many baptists have contacted us to thank us for describing exactly what they grew up with, a number of others were a bit flustered, and there were calls for us to retract and apologize and grovel. Not everyone called for all three, but there were calls for all three. We didn’t retract anything, and that made some of the more vociferous critics more mad, which we aren’t sorry about at all. There were certainly reasonable questions and concerns raised by some friends who wished we would retract or distance ourselves from what Jason Farley said, but we didn’t and we won’t since we agree with him. 

Of course if you thought the comments were directed at all baptists or the simple conviction that the Bible teaches credo-baptism, we have been happy to clarify many times that we are not saying that and we don’t believe that. There’s a massive difference between baptists who see credo-baptism as a confesion that Jesus is Lord, and baptists who see credo-baptism as your own personal coming-out party, your moment to express your inner, sacred self, which really has been, in our view, a massive contributor to the current tranny madness. So much for a review of the game film. 

James White & Ecclesiology
It was a great honor to have James White respond to us on his own show (The Dividing Line) as well as having him on CrossPolitic to discuss these issues. While we certainly could have continued for many hours, and hopefully we will get an opportunity to continue the conversation, here are a few additional thoughts on some of the tectonic plates beneath this conversation. 

It finally dawned on me during our conversation with Dr. White that part of what we had bumped into was a difference in ecclesiology, a different understanding of the church. Dr. White pressed us a bit on exactly where the boundaries of the church are, and it finally occurred to me that this is because Reformed Baptist ecclesiology is different from Reformed Presbyterian ecclesiology. I confess if I have read the chapter On the Church in the 1689 Baptist Confession before, I didn’t remember some of the striking differences between it and the 1647 Westminster Confession that my church and many Reformed Presbyterians subscribe to. 

Let me just note here that I’m part of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches which actually recognizes the 1689 Baptist Confession as an accepted confession in our denomination. So in what follows, nothing I say should suggest that I wouldn’t be able to be in full fellowship with brothers who subscribe to that confession. This is simply me pointing out obvious differences that should not divide us but certainly help explain why we might read things differently. You can’t tell the players without a playbook. Consider this a glossary of terms just to help us all communicate a little more clearly. 

So for example, the 1689 Confession does not even mention a “visible church.” It mentions an invisible universal church made up of all the elect (Westminster does too), but then the 1689 moves immediately to describe particular churches or associations and their necessity and usefulness and then goes into some details on how they are to be organized and function. Westminster by contrast spends several paragraphs describing the visible universal church, which consists of all those who profess the true religion, along with their children, to which Christ has entrusted the ordinances of the Church and which God makes effectual by His Spirit, which Church is more or less pure, and more or less visible in history depending on the purity of the gospel preached, ordinances performed, and public worship enacted. 

Different Views of the New Covenant
Behind this difference in the confessions is the classic underlying difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on the nature of the New Covenant. The central question is whether the Bible teaches that the New Covenant has unregenerate members in it or not. Baptists say no; Presbyterians say yes. Baptists point to passages like Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 to underline the newness of the New Covenant, and the promise that “all show know me” (Jer. 31:34). Presbyterians embrace that glorious newness but deny that this must be taken to mean that every last member of the new covenant must be regenerate. We hold Hebrews 8 together with Hebrews 10 that warns against those who would go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge off the truth, and the promise of “worse punishment” for those who trample underfoot the Son of God, profaning the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraging the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:29).

There is some debate over who the “he” is who was sanctified by the blood of the covenant, but even if you take it as referring to the Son of God (as I understand John Owen did), I think you still have someone “profaning the blood of the covenant” along with the promise of worse punishment. Is Hebrews 10 merely warning about being outside of Christ (like all pagans)? It seems that the warning is against turning away from Christ, from having *some kind* of connection to Him and trampling that, profaning that. Presbyterians would call that a non-saving “covenantal connection,” membership in the visible church without regeneration. 

Presbyterians would also point to John 15, where Jesus says, “I am the vine, and you are the branches.” Those branches that abide in Jesus are pruned and bear fruit, but those branches that do not bear fruit are cut off and thrown into the fire. The question is: what do we call those branches before they are cut out? What do we call a connection to Jesus that is not saving? The Presbyterian answer is the New Covenant. And again, in Romans 11, Paul describes the olive tree of Israel and how God has broken off unbelieving branches and grafted Gentile branches in, and warns the Gentiles against being haughty about being grafted in, since God is fully capable of cutting out unbelieving Gentile branches and grafting back in believing Jewish branches. What is that kind of relationship with God that allows for cutting out and grafting in? As Calvinists, we do not believe that salvation can be lost. Regeneration and justification are irreversible. All who are justified are guaranteed to be glorified (Rom. 8:30). But the New Testament clearly describes some kind of connection to Christ that admits being “cut out,” and Presbyterians account for that with the doctrine of the covenant and the visible church. 

Incidentally, all of this is why we also deny, to answer one of Dr. White’s gravest concerns, that baptism automatically equals regeneration. It is a sign and seal of regeneration (as Westminster says), but our confession also denies that all the baptized “are undoubtedly regenerated.” It also says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of administration, but “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time” (WCF XXVIII.6). So we do not believe in baptismal regeneration, but we do believe that God makes true promises in baptism which must be received by faith, a gift of the Holy Spirit, in God’s sovereign timing. 

How the New Covenant is Way Better
Nevertheless, to the concern more broadly of our Baptist brothers that we are flattening out the Old and New Covenants, we do affirm that the New Covenant is way better than the Old Covenant. It is better in clarity, efficacy, and extent. It is way better because Jesus is the fulfillment of all the types and shadows. What the sacrifices and cleansing rites and laws pointed to, God has now revealed with glorious clarity in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Whereas in the Old Covenant, the promises were limited to a tiny nation in Israel, and in that nation perhaps only a tiny percentage of them actually believed over a couple millennia, the New Covenant is international and we believe through the power of the gospel, the vast majority of covenant members over the course of human history will be regenerated and saved.

Jesus said that if He was lifted up, He would draw all men to Himself, and so He is (Jn. 12:32). He also gave us the marching orders to disciple the nations, and we believe that the mission of Jesus will be accomplished. All the nations will come. All the nations will be discipled before Jesus returns. This will not be accomplished through political action, marching armies, or humanistic power plays, but solely by the power of the Cross. So, in many millennia from now (it seems likely that we’re still in the early church) when Christ returns and the totals come in, if 10% of Israel was regenerate from Abraham to Christ, and 90% of the New Israel turns out to be saved from Christ to the end of the world, I don’t think Jeremiah’s prophesy or Hebrew’s celebration of the New Covenant will fall flat at all. 

Why All This Matters
But the reason why all of this matters is because it finally hit me in our conversation with James White that if you believe that “the church universal” is limited to the invisible church, the truly elect people of God, then how could *that* church be responsible for all kinds of evils and ills in this world? Dr. White emphasized on the show that he thought the Church primarily brings grace and blessing to the world through her witness and through that, a restraining influence. But when I (and the other CP guys) are talking about “the Church,” we are generally referring to the historic, visible church, all those who profess faith in Jesus and have some semblance of a Christian message and worship, a church which currently still has many spots and wrinkles and blemishes in it (Eph 5:27).

I’m pretty sure Dr. White would agree that our circle is probably quite a bit larger than his. Our confessions agree that certain congregations become so corrupt that they become “synagogues of Satan,” but I suspect that we (Presbyterians) tend to have a wider circle than 1689 Reformed Baptists. And the payout here is that when we are talking about “baptists” and the infiltration of Darwinism and the Enlightenment and Marxist categories and assumptions into the church, I have in mind a quite a bit larger swath of “baptists” than many Reformed Baptists would likely admit (I think). That’s a guess, but that helps me understand why many of them might have felt more targeted by our show than any of us realized (or intended!). We were talking about those baptists with waterslides that drop into the baptismal pool, the baptists with pirate ships, the baptists that recently invited Stacy Abrahms to speak on the biblical case for abortion in their sanctuary. We were talking about Joel Osteen and Andy Stanley and Hillsong.

But my point here is that if you don’t consider any of those folks members of “the visible church” then you might (understandably) be thinking that the only “real” baptists are the good kind, the regenerate kind. And this is just me saying, welp, here I was thinking like a presbyterian, and that never occurred to me.  

Given all of this, I hope that there can be continued discussion on whether God judges nations worse for the presence of those who once confessed His name and then go on sinning deliberately. That’s what Hebrews 10 says. 2 Peter says, “For if, after having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness…” (2 Pet. 2:20-21). Or what about the house that is swept clean of one demon, who then returns with seven more? Can the historic Christian Church experience that? 

In other words, are there curses for disobedience and unfaithfulness in the New Covenant? When judgment begins in the household of God does God only ever find good things there? That doesn’t seem to be the case at all when Jesus evaluates the churches in Revelation (Rev. 2-3). Or what does it mean that Christians are the “kings and priests” of God in this world (Rev. 1)? Is our ministry to the world only ever blessing and grace? Or can some of God’s ministers become very corrupt and minister that corruption to the world around them? Could, for example, the largest Protestant denomination in the world commend Critical Race Theory as a useful analytical tool? And is it possible that could have a corrupting influence on the world? Not that I know anything about that; I’m just asking for a friend.

Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash 

A Covenantal Table

When we partake of this table, Jesus is here by His Spirit. This is a covenantal meal, and so there are blessings for coming in sincere faith and curses for coming in hypocrisy and lies.

In Corinth, Paul said that some had gotten sick and some had even died because of the way they trifled with the Lord’s Supper. Becoming guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, they were eating and drinking damnation upon themselves. 

There are different ways people may trifle with this table. In Corinth they were getting drunk, there were divisions in the church, and some were going to prostitutes. But Paul says that when Christians celebrate this meal, they need to examine themselves, checking to see that they truly are discerning the Lord’s Body, and not living in ongoing, unrepentant sin. This could be ongoing division between you and your spouse, your parents, your children, your neighbor, your co-worker, or another brother or sister here or elsewhere. This could be ongoing sin in your life that you are not repenting of. We want to be clear that you cannot persist in sin and come to this table and everything be fine. 

We also want to be clear that as you bring your children to this table, make sure you are teaching them. While they do not need to be required to have an adult understanding, you should want to be seeing childlike faith and understanding, childlike awareness of sin and forgiveness. This is why we ask parents to let an elder know when their baptized children begin taking communion. We want to encourage you in this. 

Paul specifically says that if anyone is hungry they should eat at home, indicating that this is not to be thought of as an ordinary meal. This is not snack time at church. This is communion in the body and blood of Christ. But it really is the goodness of God for us. God isn’t setting this table and inviting us here in order to trick us into judgment and cursing. No, this is the table of our Father, and He invites you here to bless you. Our response is simply gratitude and faith. But do not look at yourself looking to Christ with faith and thanksgiving. Simply look to Christ. Lay down your sin, lay down your unbelief, and come and welcome to Jesus Christ. 

Photo by Joshua Olsen on Unsplash

Smashing Kindness

Introduction
Picking up on some things I said in my recent Grace Agenda conference talk “Smashing Patriarchy,” I wanted to reiterate something I said about fatherly and masculine kindness and contrast it with the prevailing notions of effeminate niceness and winsomeness. 

But first, just to make sure we’re all speaking the same language, you should recall that like the word “wicked,” “smashing” can have different meanings depending on the context. We say that something is “wicked” and it might mean evil, but if we say that something is “wicked fast” or someone is “wicked smart,” we mean they are amazingly fast or smart. Likewise, “smashing” something may mean it is destroyed, but if you describe a party as “smashing” or someone as “smashing,” you mean they are outstanding or impressive. 

So we want to smash all counterfeit versions of kindness: effeminate niceness and winsomeness and flattery, and we want a smashing kindness, an impressive, excellent, splendid fatherly kindness. 

Fatherly Kindness 
One of the distinguishing marks of godly patriarchy is kindness. God is the Father Almighty, and all fatherhood is derived from Him (Eph. 3:14-15). And God is known particularly for His kindness. Psalm 103 says, like a tender Father, God remembers our frames and removes our sins as far as the east is from the west. We are mere dust and fading flowers, but the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting. Godly patriarchs are known for their compassion, forgiveness, and mercy. 

Fathers, cover over the mistakes of your people as much as possible, the way God covers yours. This doesn’t mean ignoring real problems, but it means covering lots of sins in love and confronting some sins in love, but in either case doing it all with joy and kindness. Whether you are confronting sin in love or covering sin in love, you may not do it with a bad attitude, grudging, or grumbling under your breath or in your heart or out loud.  

Remember the father in the parable of the prodigal, looking down the road for his wayward and rebellious son. What had the father been thinking about all that time, while his son was squandering his inheritance in worthless living? The father wasn’t preparing a lecture. He wasn’t preparing a sermon. He wasn’t preparing punishment. He was preparing a hug and a party. He was preparing for joy. That’s fatherly kindness. 

Kind fathers give good gifts. Jesus says that we being evil know how to give good gifts to our children, and our Father gives the Holy Spirit and all good things freely when we ask (Mt. 7:11, Lk. 11:13). Be a man of gifts, of good surprises, presents, and generosity. Do not give beyond your means, but definitely give more than is reasonable. Give without keeping track. Give and don’t bother with the fact that lots of your gifts go by the wayside and end up at Goodwill. God gives and gives, and He isn’t bothered by the fact that we can’t enjoy all His gifts all the time. This is the grace and kindness of godly patriarchy. 

The kindness of fathers is also particularly displayed in affection. We live in a world that really is starving for love, for kindness, for grace. And so many women and children go looking for it in all the wrong places. We know that the love they seek is ultimately in the Father through Jesus. But that is why the hugs and kisses and touch of earthly fathers are so potent. In a world of all kinds of inappropriate touch, fathers must cultivate appropriate physical affection. Fathers tickle their young children. Fathers wrestle their boys. Fathers hold their girls and kiss their cheeks and hold their hands. Fathers put fists on the foreheads of their boys and pinch their ears and put them in headlocks. Fathers swing children around and throw their babies in the air and catch them (because they can). And this is fatherly kindness.  

Fathers give the gift of kindness through joy and laughter. I have a terrible memory for jokes, and so the joke around our house is to see how many times you can tell dad a joke that he can’t remember the punch line to and still laughs like it was the first time he ever heard it. By the way, dad jokes are the best jokes and don’t let up. Don’t stop. That’s your job. That’s what you are for. It’s how you lead with joy and kindness. 

Conclusion: The Difference Between Niceness & Kindness
Some friends asked after my talk what I think the difference is between fatherly kindness and effeminate niceness. And I said that I think the difference is that the former is active, intentional, and aimed at a positive goal, whereas the latter is passive, defensive, and largely trying to avoid conflict.

Kindness is masculine because it takes courage, planning, assertiveness, and intentionality. It is aimed at a particular goal. Kindness is masculine because it seeks to initiate blessing, forgiveness, and encouragement. Whereas niceness is effeminate because it is largely passive, reactive, responsive, and trying to keep everyone happy. 

Kindness is also personal, whereas niceness is generic and impersonal. Masculine kindness takes responsibility for the needs of particular people and seeks their personal good, but niceness is vague, bland, and actually avoids responsibility. Niceness avoids conflict at all costs, but kindness can have true enemies and real conflict and love them and do good to them all at the same time. Kindness is truly selfless, seeking the good of others no matter the personal cost; niceness is self-seeking, trying to protect personal comfort or reputation.  

God the Father rejoices over His Son, and so all faithful fathers must rejoice over their families. God the Father chose all those He would save in and through His Son, and of those He has personally chosen, He will not lose a single one. That is the kindness of the Father, not merely Him being nice. In fact, God is not particularly nice to the nations plotting against Him, since He laughs at them and holds them in derision and promises to smash them like potters vessels, but it truly is a kind and gracious command, ordering them to kiss His Son, in whom is their salvation. Therefore, faithful fatherhood, faithful patriarchy isn’t nice, but it is supremely kind. Faithful fathers laugh at the world, laugh at the Devil’s schemes, laugh at all the cultural and political folly, and then they gladly lay down their lives for the good of their people. And that really is a smashing kindness.

Photo by Omar Lopez on Unsplash

CrossPolitic, Big Eva, & the Serrated Edge

Introduction
This is a scatter shot response to a few different friends or comments I’ve seen in various places following up on the Great CrossPolitic Baptist Tranny Bruhaha of 2022. Our friend Jeff Wright wrote a good faith, reasonable response. And our very own CrossPolitic writer and editor, Rhett Burns, wrote another very reasonable thread on Twitter. The bottom line is that I simply think they are wrong. And I want to say it that simply and directly because I also want to acknowledge the legitimacy and reasonableness of their questions/concerns. Jeff, in particular, raises the very reasonable concern that he’s seen this sort of thing before. He’s seen how Big Eva has circled the wagons to protect the brand, shield wall up, damage control modes, and no admissions of wrongdoing. I know exactly what he’s talking about, and I don’t know how to say more emphatically that I agree with that concern, care about that danger, and at the same time, simply don’t see it here.

If you’re brand new to this conversation, and looking for a road map to the various sites on this tour, let me recommend that you read this, this, and this (and follow some of the links) before proceeding. 

Proof of Our Reasonableness
While I don’t think Jeff’s claim that Gabe’s post and my post “disagree” holds any weight (what we both said is true and valid), it should also alleviate some of Jeff’s concerns that we’re turning into Big Eva, since clearly we didn’t do a bunch of coordinating for “damage control” with our PR department. Of course we don’t have a PR department. We *are* the PR department. And all we care about is the truth; damn the torpedoes, damn the brand. 

The one point that I’m happy to grant to Jeff and anyone else who caught it was Knox’s transition from the end of the regular show to the beginning of the backstage. Jeff pointed out that Knox did say he wanted to ask Farley about a hypothetical family who is trying to be covenantal. Fair enough. I do see that if you were hanging on to those specific words and then glided right into the backstage, you might think Farley and the crew were punching that guy in the nose. But I would also say that if you hung on to those words, and only those words, ignoring the rest of the 99% of the show, you have a very odd way of listening and interpreting. The central theme of the show was radical individualism vs. thinking covenantally from beginning to end. And the simple fact is that while Knox *did* want to ask about the covenantal baptists, the guys never got to that part of the conversation. 

But here’s what I think should suffice. A simple, straight up question: do you guys mean that all credobaptists are the direct cause of transgenderism? And the answer is no, no, no, no, no. How about no? And you might say, well, why didn’t anyone say that on the show? Well, actually, Jared Longshore did say that on the show. And if you’re going to hang on every word of Knox, please don’t leave Jared out, especially since he’s so new to these paedobaptist waters (pun intended). Jared specifically said that if one of his baptist friends was tempted to be offended, he wanted to put his arm around him and assure him that that is not what they were saying. They were not saying that baptists were the direct cause of transgenderism. It really is as simple as that. Some wanted the hosts on CP to flatly contradict Farley, but if Farley actually literally meant every credobaptist is actively committing transgender sin, by the same token, he should have contradicted Jared. But he didn’t because he agrees with Jared.  

A Hermeneutical Challenge or Two
Now, having said all of that, I do think there is something of a hermeneutical challenge we are facing here. And I actually mentioned it on the follow up show with Knox, and I’m a little hurt that there hasn’t been more recognition of its brilliance (heh). I made a shameless plug for our Fight Laugh Feast conference: Lies, Propaganda, Storytelling, and the Serrated Edge. And for the record, I’m assuming that God gave us this whole, what shall we say, conversation, because he wants a whole bunch of you to go to flfnetwork dot com right now and sign up for the conference in Knoxville, TN Oct. 6-8. See what I did there? 

But seriously, I pointed out on the show that we need to learn to read the Bible rightly so that we can read the world rightly, and related to that, we need to learn to emulate the Bible rightly so that we can wield that sword rightly. Now, please don’t read this as me saying that Christians may be jerks online and go around saying pointlessly offensive things. (Yeah, I hear you guys in the back mumbling about “baptists causing transgenderism…”)

But the fact of the matter is that it is not only the truth of Scripture that is sharp but also the rhetoric of Scripture that is sharp. The blade of Scripture is not merely sharp in what it says, but in how it is said. I said on the show that Jesus roundly condemns the Pharisees over and over and over, while there were still good Pharisees in Israel. And the reason why no one seems to care at all about that point is because Jesus completely trashed the Pharisees. I say “Pharisee” and everyone thinks “bad guy” and so no one cares. But honestly, and just to try to make everything worse, Jesus could have just as easily said “baptists.” And now I’m braced for all the “baptists are pharisees” memes. But that’s not what I said. 

But seriously. The Pharisees were the respected religious leaders of the day. Ezra (of Old Testament fame) was arguably the founder of the Pharisees. The Pharisees were the more conservative party in many respects, emphasizing careful obedience to the law and a belief in the resurrection of the dead. And the Pharisees could point to their faithfulness to the covenant through the intertestamental period, holding fast to circumcision in the face of persecution and massive cultural and political pressures to give up God’s law and covenant and just assimilate with Greek and Roman culture. And many Jews did assimilate, many apostatized, and many simply compromised with the world. I’m not sure we really appreciate how much the Pharisees had preserved, how much they had sacrificed, and how hard they had worked to keep doctrine and practice pure. I’m not sure how much people appreciate that the Pharisees were the good guys. They were the conservative resurgence. You went to their seminaries and conferences because you were committed to the authority of Scripture. And the Pharisees really had done a lot of good. 

And then Jesus came along. And Jesus didn’t care about their rules, their traditions, and he didn’t seem to care about how faithful they had been. And let me underline the fact that many of them had in fact been faithful. Many of them loved God. Many of them were regenerate. Many of them went to Heaven. And many of them were still good guys, but by the time of Christ, the movement was going to seed. By the time of Christ, there was a deep, cancerous rot in the Pharisees.

Even if you aren’t sure about the connection between radical individualism in American baptist culture and the current transgender crisis, isn’t American baptist culture something similar in general? So many good things have come from American baptist culture, and it really is a compliment to acknowledge the massive influence (for good) baptists have had on preserving and contributing so many healthy things to American culture over the course of its history (again, Knox and I noted that in our follow up show). Or consider the modern lobbying power of the SBC. I’m told that the Vice President himself has spoken at the SBC, and the SBC president has been known to receive invitations to the White House. But all that influence comes with responsibility. And you can’t have it both ways. If American baptists are now known for the JD Greears, Russel Moores, Beth Moores, Ed Littons, and Rick Warrens, are these leaders influencing American culture? I would think we’d all have to say, yes, even if we differ on exactly how. Do these people represent every baptist? Of course not. Are many faithful baptists pushing back? Yes, and thank God. But c’mon, people. These are some of the most prominent baptist leaders in America, and that’s just the SBC.

On Reading the Bible Well
But the main point I want to make is that a bunch of our baptist brothers are doing exegesis on our CrossPolitic shows in a way that they would never allow to be done to the Scriptural text. Some commentators are zeroing in one or two lines, ripping those sentences out of their context and then assuming the most flammable or absurd meanings. But stop for a moment and consider whether you would do the same with various texts in the Bible. Jesus said that unless you eat His flesh and drink His blood, you cannot have life within you (Jn. 6:53). That’s what He said, and now you either believe in transubstantiation or cannibalism, right? Of course not. So what did Jesus mean? How do you interpret that hard saying of Jesus? Well, most Protestant interpreters would say that you must take the whole biblical context into account, and that what Jesus was saying He really meant in one way but He said it in that way to make a particular kind of point. I supposed you might accuse Jesus of exaggerating or “stupid hyperbole,” but I’m not sure you want to do that. Of course what Jesus said was understandably “offensive” to many of His followers, and from that time many unfollowed Him (Jn. 6:66). 

Or here’s another example: Peter says that “baptism now saves us” (1 Pet. 3:21). You don’t have as far to go to find your context and explanation for what Peter means in that verse, but you could still rip that line out of the text as an easy clickbait soundbite and accuse Peter of teaching baptismal regeneration. You might also accuse Peter of saying something easy to misunderstand and confusing to many people. I mean, if Peter hadn’t written those words, maybe there wouldn’t be such sharp divisions between Protestants and Roman Catholics. So much for biblical catholicity, Peter. And piles of us, if we are honest, still really aren’t that comfortable with saying what Peter says. But it’s God’s Word, and it’s good and true and edifying. But it could very easily be misunderstood, confusing, or offensive, especially to those who might be repenting of their Roman Catholicism. 

Ok, one more example: James said clearly that we are “justified by works, and not by faith alone” (Js. 2:24). In fact, as many Roman Catholic apologists have pointed out, the only time in all of Scripture that the phrase “justification by faith alone” occurs is to deny it. James says we are “not justified by faith alone.” Was James being stupid? Martin Luther thought so, calling it an epistle of straw. But most of the church has accepted that the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire those words because we need them just as much as we need Paul’s clear insistence that we are “justified apart from works” (Gal. 2:16). Talk about confusing! Talk about potential for misunderstanding. And again, so much for biblical unity. Over 500 years at odds with the Roman Catholic church over the issue. 

All of this to say, I’m not denying that someone could be offended at what Jason Farley said. And by the same token, I’m not denying that someone could be offended by what Jesus, Peter, or James said. The question is whether you have a right to be offended. And the answer is “no” because of what the actual message (in context) is/was. The answer to those who were offended at Jesus (or Peter or James) is found in the context of what was actually being said, not merely the sharp pointy end of the message. Of course no one is saying that what Jason or Jared or the CrossPolitic hosts say is anything remotely close to the authority or perfection of Scripture, and we are always happy to correct misstatements, errors, or mistakes (and we have). But in this case, the accusation is simply wrong. And the context makes it abundantly clear, plus all the follow up insisting on what we actually meant. 

Conclusion
One final thought: Jeff Wright’s concern about Big Eva isn’t crazy. And so he should know that we are painfully aware of that track record, and we are praying and working like crazy to put things into place to keep all of those temptations and slippery slopes at bay. But if I may, I would like to point out that the leaven of Big Eva is fully capable of leavening in many different directions. And it seems to me highly likely that a bunch of the folks who got into a bit of a tizzy over this CrossPolitic episode did so precisely because they have been discipled by Big Eva more than they realize. Jeff Wright wonders if we are above apologizing or admitting that we simply whiffed, and we take the brotherly admonition seriously and we have and we will keep it in mind. But I’d like to ask Jeff and other brothers like him to consider whether they misread, misheard, jumped to conclusions, or were unjustly offended, and whether they need to retract and admit that they were wrong. The Big Eva temptation can run in both directions.

And while we certainly have had thoughtful, good natured pushback from some (like Jeff and Rhett), the Twitter mob that attacked me over the last weekend had more than a little whiff of Big Eva cancel culture. And at the same time, we’ve had many, many baptists and Reformed baptists who have written to say that they understood exactly what we were saying, they took it to heart, were not offended in the slightest, and thanked us for being willing to tell the truth boldly. Maybe they got it right.

But regardless, I’m looking forward to that good pizza joint with Jeff (and Rhett) and all my Fight Laugh Feast baptist brothers and anyone else who wants to keep having this conversation in Knoxville in October. 

Photo by Talal elmountassir on Unsplash

On Tranny Baptists & Such

Introduction 
So last week CrossPolitic launched into the deep end of the evangelical pool with a cannon ball, that sent waves into the stands. And while we were pretty impressed with ourselves, we were somewhat surprised by the enthusiastic response. Maybe enthusiastic isn’t the right word, particularly from a number of our baptist friends. A goodly number of baptist friends have reached out and thanked us and said that they understood exactly what Knox and Gabe and Jared Longshore and Jason Farley were getting at and appreciated the gut check, even though they are committed baptists. But there has been a fairly large explosion in parts of the internet, pretty worked up about it all. So here’s my three cents. 

What’s Done Happened
First, a quick replay of what’s done happened. The whole show started with Knox and Gabe walking us through some of the most recent horrors of transgender surgeries, particularly at Boston’s Children’s Hospital. For whatever it’s worth, I was not on the show that day, as I was out of town with my family. They invited a friend, Jason Farely, on the show to comment, who noted that this is not at all unrelated to the pervasiveness of “modern individualistic Christianity” (his words). He noted that most of the modern church says you get to choose your identity at your “age of accountability.” Jared noted that this is what Carl Trueman discussed in his book The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. We have turned institutions and sacraments from structures that teach and instruct us and our children about who we are supposed to be into opportunities to “express who I am” – a radical expressive individualism. Jason noted that this is “American Baptist theology secularized.” Jared Longshore tied this to Lewis’s works The Abolition of Man and That Hideous Strength. We are a nation of men without chests, lacking the courage to stand up to this, and he noted that this is ultimately why Christians apostatize. They do not have the courage to fight these pagan ideologies. 

After the regular show ended, the guys went “backstage,” and Gabe and Knox questioned Farley on what he had said, and Farley said that “baptists caused transgenderism.” This is the part where errbody lit their hair on fire and ran around in tight circles all weekend. But as the previous conversation had framed that comment and as the conversation continued, the point is actually incredibly clear. What was meant by “baptists” is not credobaptism per se. The central culprit they are talking about the entire time is this radical expressive individualism. At one point, Jared used the phrase “radical American baptistic individualism.” Jared also said clearly that if a baptist brother was deeply offended, he wanted to put his arm around him and assure him that they were not saying that credobaptism = transgenderism. No one is saying that if you hold to credobaptist convictions you are the direct cause of transgenderism. 

Later, when the topic of justification by faith came up, Jason noted that if you put all the emphasis on individuals and their choices, you will eventually lose justification by faith, since faith is receiving and resting upon Christ. It was also noted that you can baptize babies and still end up doing the same thing. You can still end up being a radical expressive individualist and feeding that same paganism even if you do baptize babies. 

Finally, Jason closed with a brief meditation on Psalm 11: when the foundations are destroyed what can the righteous do? The psalmist says when enemies are shooting at him, he will turn to the Lord and ask Him to test him. When you see the signs of the times, that God’s judgment is immanent, God’s people should know that judgment begins with the household of God. And so our prayerful instinct should be to ask God to take away from us whatever of the world is in us. We should be asking God, “In what ways have I bought into this metaphysic? Is there anything of this in me?” In other words, it is an entirely biblical instinct to ask whether there is anything in us, in the American Church, that has contributed, caused, or encouraged this current transgender crisis. Earlier in the show right after Jason’s fateful assertion, he also pointed to abortion as the church’s fault: we rejected children in our churches and that has led to the world rejecting children period. 

Thus far the original show and backstage content, and I believe that the context is plenty clear to explain what Jason meant and what the men were talking about. The target was radical individualistic culture in the church from beginning to end, and in this case, the way that mainstream American baptist culture has often discipled people in that pagan ideology. 

The Follow Up Show
However, the calls and questions were beginning to come in on Friday, so Knox and I decided to do a follow up show to help clarify the target. Watch and listen to that show, and the two things that should be massively clear are: 

1. We consider all baptists our brothers, and they are all welcome in our churches as members, welcome to take communion with us, and we are happy to baptize their children whenever and however their conscience dictates. We underlined this point because if we really thought that baptists are directly causing and are guilty of the transgender crisis, how could we possibly let baptists into membership? How could we in good conscience come to the Lord’s Table with them? How could I personally even be involved in baptizing (by immersion) older children by profession of faith? Whatever was meant by the critique, our central concern was to make it clear that we did not see it as the sort of thing that should interrupt or even strain our fellowship in the slightest. We also wanted to underline that if our brothers have blemishes, we consider it our problem too. We aren’t pointing and blaming. We are saying “we” have this issue in “our” churches, and we aren’t calling for an immediate end to credo-baptism. 

2. We looked at several tweets that had tagged us with questions or concerns, beginning with Dr. James White wondering why we couldn’t distinguish between confessional Reformed Baptists and mainstream evangelical Baptists. And our response was that we can and we do. I don’t know how we could have made it clearer, but we explicitly said that we weren’t talking about Reformed, confessional Baptists. We said that we differ with them on timing of baptism, but we said we’re not talking about them. Knox mentioned the debate between Doug Wilson and James White on paedocommunion, and how willing Dr. White was to receive young professions of faith before baptism. We said that we’re on the same team as Dr. White. We agreed with Dr. White that confessional, 1689 baptists are not promulgating radical individualism. And in my wrap up, I explicitly said this:   

“We also believe that American evangelicalism is shot through with idols and perversions, in both presbyterian churches and Baptist churches. Most presbyterian churches have rainbow flags out front, and many Baptist churches are woke. The worship of self, self-actuation, self-determination has made deep inroads in both traditions: Presbyterians are not much better than drag queen groomers, but by the same token, mainstream Baptist culture, and that kind of Arminian masturbatory revivalistic culture really is a gateway drug to the same ideologies that murder babies and carve up bodies.”

I’m not sure how I could be clearer. Our target all along has been “mainstream Baptist culture,” which I explicitly explained as “Arminian masturbatory revivalistic culture.” We were not aiming at confessional, covenantal Reformed Baptists. In my replies, a number of folks thought maybe I should have mentioned that our target was Arminian baptists, to which I can only say, that’s what I did say.

Twitter Clarity
In an effort to make my target even clearer, I took to Twitter on Saturday, and wrote this: “Look, if God is waiting anxiously in Heaven for you to decide whether to become a Christian and whether you really mean your baptism, how could that cosmic theology not have repercussions for comparatively lesser realities like whether you are male or female or a furry?” Given the fact that Reformed baptists don’t believe anything like that, and that is a very common trope that Reformed types use to describe Arminian soteriology, I figured all the Reformed baptists would do some basic logic and realize: clearly they aren’t targeting me because I don’t believe God is anything like that. To which, I was lectured repeatedly on Twitter over the last few days that it was a really bad look for me to double down on what we had said. It would be better to retract and apologize. To which I only smiled in amusement.

As replies came in asking if I thought that Reformed baptists thought that God was in heaven waiting anxiously for people to decide to become Christians, I repeatedly said “no” (since I don’t and never have) and eventually last night I just retweeted the original and added “So based on a number of replies, some folks think this tweet below was directed at confessional 1689 Reformed Baptists (e.g. my friends @HwsEleutheroi [James White], Durbin, Ascol, etc.). But it wasn’t since they don’t believe anything like this. I’m talking about mainstream modern evangelicals.”

And I would add that the key distinguishing factor between “mainline baptists” and “Reformed baptists” is the fact that Reformed baptists do not put all the emphasis on the power or sanctity of a child’s decision or choice since they believe that regeneration is the sovereign work and choice of God. They differ with us on the timing of baptism and believe that baptism should be applied to those who show clear signs of God’s sovereign work. But that Calvinistic soteriology puts that kind of credo baptism into a very different paradigm than mainstream baptist culture. Calvinistic soteriology most certainly is not putting all the emphasis on human choice and decision. Not only that, but many Reformed baptists have very robust covenant theologies which makes them key allies in our fight against radical individualism, even if they are an extreme minority position in the broader baptist world.

Trippling Down?
At any rate, I certainly will not retract or apologize for what I actually believe or what I believe was clearly articulated throughout the show, which is that radical individualism has infiltrated the American evangelical church. And the vast majority of the American evangelical church is baptistic (which includes piles of radically individualistic presbyterians by the way, going all the way back to Charles Finney). But this mainstream American evangelical culture is full of the rot and cancer of radical individualism that most certainly has contributed significantly to the current transgender frenzy.

I’ve been accused of committing the motte and baily fallacy in all of this, that Jason said something outrageous like “caused transgenderism” and then I showed up defending some lesser more reasonable stance. But the target has been the same all along: radical individualism, revivalism, putting all the focus on individuals choosing whether they want to believe or not, individuals choosing their own identities. Yes, those kinds of discipleship programs do “cause transgenderism.”

Conclusion
The most offensive comments were made by Jason Farley, but they were made in a context that made it utterly clear what was being targeted. And if that wasn’t enough, the follow up show that Knox and I did explicitly affirmed Dr. White’s point that there was and is a huge difference between confessional baptists and mainline baptists, and mainline baptists are the ones with radical individualism problems. And while some folks have given us doe-eyed confused looks, wondering how we could ever say that about any baptists, we are very grateful for the many who have affirmed that they know exactly what we are talking about. They grew up in churches where self-actualization, radical individualism, and revivalism were real things, and they have also seen the fruit of it in the mass apostasy of children growing up in those churches, including being groomed for all the current sexual madness. 

We do believe this conversation is important. And we are glad to have it. And as we have said repeatedly, that includes the conversation that asks what presbyterians have contributed to this current morass. The name of our show is CrossPolitic in part because this is the kind of conversation we want to have. We need to talk about how the church has failed to be salt and light, how the church has failed to disciple this nation. Jesus said that if it’s dark in the land, it’s because the light has grown dim. Culture is downstream of the sanctuary. Politics is downstream from the Church.