Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Nanny State Schools: Now Serving DINNER At School!

D.C. joins 13 states which serve three meals a day at school – and to the tune of $5.7 million. Officials here have embraced the program because they realize healthy, well-fed kids learn better.

“We're reaching 10,000 kids a day at 99 of our 120 schools," said Anthony Tata, Chief Operating Officer of D.C. Public Schools.

That's about 25 percent of the student population. And another big benefit of the after school dinners are that more kids are enrolling in after school programs where they can get some academic help as well.

So the dinners are really serving three purposes - fighting hunger, obesity and offering help with classwork too.

And the best news of all is this is a federally-funded program.

End quote.

Source: Audrey BarnesFOX 5 Reporter My Fox DC

That's the BEST news of all? That I'M paying for them? From womb to the tomb, parents want the government to raise their kids and indoctrinate them with a horrific worldview. This isn't for "health" reasons at all. Its to grow the government's power and control over the next generation and parents are willing to do it.

Does anyone know of a couple who woul go out and buy a puppy and then put it in a kennel for several hours a day, five days a week? Nope. And if they did, I would think someone would call the Animal Control department. But hey, they can do that with their babies and young kids...what they'd NEVER do with a dog! Evolution at its finest.

Scripture instructs Christian parents to love, discipline, and teach their children. When children are at school early enough for breakfast and late enough for dinner, plus all the hours in between, they ARE abdicating their biblical responsibility (I might add that even unbelievers used to understand many of these concepts like mom staying home, discipline and respect taught in the home, personal responsibility, consequences, etc.):

Psa 34:11 Come, you children, listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.

Deu 4:10 "Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when the LORD said to me, 'Assemble the people to Me, that I may let them hear My words so they may learn to fear Me all the days they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.'

Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.

2Ti 3:15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Pro 22:15 Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.

Pro 23:13 Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.

Pro 29:15 The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother.
Pro 29:16 When the wicked increase, transgression increases; But the righteous will see their fall.
Pro 29:17 Correct your son, and he will give you comfort; He will also delight your soul.

1Sa 3:12 "In that day I will carry out against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end.
1Sa 3:13 "For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them.
1Sa 3:14 "Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever."

Heb 12:7 It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline?
Heb 12:8 But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb 12:10 For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.

Eph 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
Eph 6:2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise),
Eph 6:4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Col 3:20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord.
Col 3:21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, so that they will not lose heart.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Twilight Obssessed

2Co 11:2 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin.
2Co 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
2Co 11:4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Danger! It matters what you read--and see!

Excerpts from Berit Kjos's article on the Twilight phenom:


Fantasy and imagination can transform beliefs and values more quickly than reality. Many of our readers defend their love for occult entertainment with this standard justification: "I know the difference between reality and fantasy." But it doesn't matter! Know it or not, persuasive fiction and virtual experience can change minds and plant lasting memories more effectively than actual experience!

God tells us to "abhor what is evil" and "cling to what is good." (Romans 12:9) When today's youth love the emotional thrills of popular occultism, they are desensitizing their hearts and minds to its evil. They are turning God's truth upside down. And they -- with a little help from the marketing industry -- are already turning America's values upside down. It all fits the plans of our globalist leaders and that old serpent in Genesis.

"You can only have a new society," wrote Marilyn Ferguson in The Aquarian Conspiracy, "if you change the education of the younger generation."[5] That process demands that people reject God's wise boundaries and "abhor" what He calls good. That change is well under way![6]

"You love evil more than good...." Psalm 52:3

"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness.... Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" Isaiah 5:20-21

4. Twilight's feel-good occultism brings "cognitive dissonance." Committed Christians (in contrast to cultural Christians) face a form of mental and moral confusion when confronted with incompatible values. Since Twilight's worldview clashes with Biblical Truth, readers are forced to make a choice: Will they heed home-taught values or the tantalizing message in the books and movie?

Many choose compromise. This moral "dissonance" prompts Christians to modify their values in order to resolve the conflict. After all, they don't want to lose their friends or their group's approval. Yet the only way to God's victory is willingness to take a stand on Truth -- whatever the cost.

"...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you, be watchful in all things..."" 2 Timothy 4:2-5

The consequence of compromise is a new belief system. "These books are so addictive -- kind of like drugs," wrote a visitor. "If they can captivate Christians who should know better, just think what they can do to non-Christian readers."

Redefining evil. Few Twilighters see their new passion as evil. After all, Edward is a relatively "good" vampire, isn't he? Though he lusts for Bella's blood, he restrains his craving. Other vampires (and some of the werewolves) in the saga are downright murderous, but he's a good guy! Isn't he? Besides, the story has spawned a noble mission.

According to an article titled "Twilight fan knows it's not just vampires who need blood," college freshman, Kayla Urban, is "obsessed with vampires." She is also a blood donor "fixated on a blood drive" in her county. To her, the blend of "vampire-loving Twilighters and the need for more blood donations seemed a logical match."[8] Hers is a noble mission, as are many collective service projects these days. It all depends on who sets the standards for right and wrong -- God or man! While God's standard is like an anchor in a storm, man's values shift with the winds. For--

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9

Since the beginning, human nature sought alternatives to God and His guidelines. Spiritual deception gave rise to vast occult belief systems and unceasing manipulation by the forces of darkness. Thus pagan sacrifices -- a devastating corruption of God's perfect plan for His people -- became the norm in all parts of the inhabited world. These notes may help explain God's ban on "fellowship with... darkness...[and] idols," including blood-thirsty vampires.[9]

End Quote. More here.

Twilight's author Stephenie Meyer, a Mormon.

In an article at The Observer by Dan Glaister and Sarah Falconer, it says in part about Meyer:


After nine rejections, her manuscript was noticed by an agent at Writers House in New York. From there it was a precipitous journey to book fairs, multi-million-dollar deals, a movie of Twilight, directed by Catherine Hardwicke and due out in December, and an obscure kind of celebrity. 'To be honest, I feel like I was guided through that process,' Meyer told an interviewer in 2005, after publication of Twilight.

The guide she was referring to was not her New York agent Jodi Reamer, or Elizabeth Eulberg, 'director of global publicity for Stephenie Meyer' at her US publisher Little, Brown. Rather, her guide is a more lofty being: Meyer is a Mormon and, while her books avoid direct mention of religion, her faith informs her work. Interviewed on, she declared that the Book of Mormon was the book 'with the most significant impact on [her] life'. Accordingly, her books, in the words of one critic, are full of sexual tension but remain 'as decorous as Jane Austen'.

The intersection of vampirism and Mormonism has caused some comment among other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 'Some Mormons, especially those who know me, are surprised by my choice of topics,' she told the Mormon arts and culture website '"Vampires?" they say, with a critical lilt to their voices. Then they add self-righteously, "I don't read those kinds of books." I hasten to explain to them that it's not like that. Unconsciously, I put a lot of my basic beliefs into the story. Free agency is a big theme, as is sacrifice ... Even after I explain all that, I still have LDS friends and extended family who look at me funny.'

End quote.

More Mormon influences in Meyer's work, here. Excerpts:


If the media cannot get the major facts of Meyer’s own story straight, it is not surprising that journalists have missed a good deal of the theological underpinnings of her work. When Mormon themes are mentioned at all, they are explicitly tied to sexual abstinence to the exclusion of all else. That is not to say that sexuality is not a hugely important element of Twilight, or indeed of all vampire fiction: vampirism is nearly always a literary stand-in for eroticism, and falling in love with a vampire is the pinnacle of forbidden fruit.6 But the media’s focus on the steamy but restrained sexuality of the Twilight series, equating “Mormonism” with the fact that Bella and Edward do not have intercourse until marriage, misses the richest connections between LDS theology and Meyer’s writing. At least the Atlanticrecognized this tendency and grieved it: in Caitlin Flanagan’s brilliant article about the Twilight saga’s commercial appeal, she noted that, although every reviewer had made mention of Meyer’s Mormonism, “none knows what to do with it, and certainly none can relate it to the novel.”7

Meyer has publicly declared the Book of Mormon to be the book that has made the most significant impact on her life. A careful reading of her fiction attests to the reality of this statement; it is not just window dressing or pious platitude. Meyer’s theology is impressionistic and not systematic, and it is always embedded within story—very much like in the Book of Mormon itself—yet it is clearly discernible.

One of the most important theological aspects of the Twilight series is its emphasis on what the Book of Mormon would term overcoming the “natural man” (Mosiah 3:19). This phrase crops up throughout LDS scripture as a reflection on sin and redemption.

End quote.

Of course, the LDS and Book of Mormon have no idea who Jesus Christ of Scripture really is, nor about the sin nature or natural man and how to overcome it. LDS has a false Jesus that is NOT eternally God the Son, nor is their gospel that of Scripture and therefore LDS is utterly condemned by God (Gal. 1:7-9). For specifics on why Mormonism is absolutely condemned by God, go to Let Us Reason ministries.

Twilight "moms"--mothers who themselves are obsessed with Twilight to the point of neglecting their homes and wishing their husbands were vampires. (Also go here.)

"It's just so cool that I'm not the only 30+ mom and wife in love with fictional underage vampires and werewolves."

~Stephenie Meyer

Gal 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

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.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Stop Complaining Part 1

Excerpts [MacArthur goes through a lot of Old Testament Scriptures on those who complained and how God dealt with them, so see the whole sermon here.]: Quote:

And I really believe we are breeding a generation of complainers and they seem to be getting worse with each passing generation. And as I've said to you on a number of occasions, it is a curiosity to me that the most indulged society is the most discontent society, that the more people have the more they seem to be discontent with what they have and the more complaining they seem to be.

In thinking about this, and there would be many ways to approach it, I was just inadvertently flipping on the radio this week and I heard a speech by a sociologist that was quite curious to me and quite interesting...And he had an interesting thesis. What he basically said was this, that in many ways this discontented generation of young people is a product of small families...Now, his thesis is that those kinds of small families in a materialistic society breed selfish, self-indulgent children.

If you are raised in a family of four, five or six children, you get up in the morning and you get handed a bag. And when you leave the house your mother says to you, "Dinner is at 5:30, you're here, you eat."

And when you go to a table in a small family and your mother has broken her back to prepare some kind of cuisine that she has taken out of an exotic cookbook and you take one bite of it, the typical one or two child family, the kids say, "I don't like it. I don't want this." In a family or five or six children, somebody says "I don't like it," the kid next to him says, "Good," and takes it.

And the difference is where you have a small family the system bends to the child. Where you have a large family, the child bends to the system. And so what you have, he said, is young people growing up in an environment where the system bends to them. And you have child-centered parenting.

The reverse is true now, children grow up controlling the family and they don't want to become adults because that means conformity. Then they have to go to work and nobody at work says, "Now how would you like your office decorated? And what time would you like to take a break for lunch?" Nobody says that, they put you on an assembly line or they put you in a place where you are forced to conform, so what you have then is a generation of young people who don't want to grow up.

One of the curses of our culture are over indulged childish kind of adults who are really complainers about everything. Nothing is ever enough. That's why we have a whole society with a critical mentality, constantly attacking everything.

Now I want you to know this has found its way into the church. And the church is full of its own complainers and what is really sad is many of them are run by their children's discontent. People leaving the church because their children don't like it. Can't imagine such a thing unless their children control the family. The church has its complainers. And here we are with so much, so in the world could we possibly complain just because every little thing in life isn't exactly the way we want it? Frankly, I would suggest to you that few sins are uglier to me and few sins are uglier to God than the sin of complaining. Frankly, I think the church at large does much to feed this thing by continuing to propagate this self-esteem, self-fulfillment garbage that just feeds the same discontent. There's little loyalty. There's little thankfulness. There's little gratitude. And there's very little contentment. And sadly what happens eventually is you're griping, grumbling, murmuring discontent is really blaming God because after all God is the one who put you where you are. So just know who you're complaining against....

One New Testament text to which I call your attention, 1 Corinthians 10. In 1 Corinthians 10 verse 8 it says, "Nor let us act immorally, don't let us act immorally, as some of them did," that is the people in the wilderness with Moses, that's who he's talking about, "and 23,000 fell in one day, nor let us test the Lord as some of them did and were destroyed by the serpents, you'll remember, the snakes," verse 10 is the key, "nor grumble as some of them did and were destroyed by the destroyer."

Now you say, "John, why did you read all of that?" I'll tell you why, look at verse 11, "These things happened to them as an example and they were written for our instruction." Now, beloved, I'll put it simply, for me not to go through that little history of Israel would be to be unfaithful to that text. That is the classic illustration of how God feels about people who are discontent and malcontent and complaining. It is a serious sin. It is directed at God who has ordered your circumstances. Complaining...and let me say it to you, and here's the definition I want you to hold on to, complaining is the symptom of a deep seeded spiritual problem. And what is that problem? Failure to trust God and failure to submit to His providential will. Complaining is a deep-seeded spiritual problem, it is not superficial. And at its roots it is a failure to trust God and that is a serious sin because if you believe not God you make Him a liar. And it is also a failure or a rejection of His providential will. It is distrust against God and non-submission to His plan and purpose in your life. It is a serious sin. God hates it and if you want to know how serious it is, He has killed people for it and He says that what He did to them, slaughtering them in the wilderness, is an example to you in the end of the age of how God feels about the sin of complaining.

Listen to Lamentations 3:39, write it down because you'll want to go back to it. Two little lines but, boy, are they profound. "Why should any living mortal or any man offer complaint in view of his sins? Who in the world are you to complain in view of your sins? What do you deserve?" You deserve hell, so do I. What should I complain about?

End quote

Friday, November 11, 2011

To The "Gospel" Coalition

It was as though it had been said, "Yes, we believe in the Godhead of the Lord Jesus; but we would not keep a man out of our fellowship because he thought our Lord to be a mere man. We believe in the atonement; but if another man rejects it, he must not, therefore, be excluded from our number."

The brethren in the middle are the source of this clinging together of discordant elements. These who are for peace at any price, who persuade themselves that there is very little wrong, who care chiefly to maintain existing institutions, these are the good people who induce the weary combatants to repeat the futile attempt at a coalition, which, in the nature of things, must break down. If both sides could be unfaithful to conscience, or if the glorious gospel could be thrust altogether out of the question, there might be a league of amity established; but as neither of these things can be, there would seem to be no reason for persevering in the-attempt to maintain a confederacy for which there is no justification in fact, and from which there can be no worthy result, seeing it does not embody a living truth. A desire for unity is commendable. Blessed are they who can promote it and preserve it! But there are other matters to be considered as well as unity, and sometimes these may even demand the first place. When union becomes a moral impossibility, it may almost drop out of calculation in arranging plans and methods of working. If it is clear as the sun at noonday that no real union can exist, it is idle to strive after the impossible, and it is wise to go about other and more practicable business.

To what end, therefore, are these strainings after a hollow unity, when the spirit of fellowship is altogether gone?

The world is large enough, why not let us go our separate ways? Loud is the cry of our opponents for liberty; let them have it by all means. But let us have our liberty also. We are not bound to belong to this society, or to that....

At any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty.

FAILURE at a crucial moment may mar the entire outcome of a life. A man who has enjoyed special light is made bold to follow in the way of the Lord, and is anointed to guide others therein. He rises into a place of love and esteem among the godly, and this promotes his advancement among men. What then? The temptation comes to be careful of the position he has gained, and to do nothing to endanger it. The man, so lately a faithful man of God, compromises with worldlings, and to quiet his own conscience invents a theory by which such compromises are justified, and even commended. He receives the praises of "the judicious"; he has, in truth, gone over to the enemy. The whole force of his former life now tells upon the wrong side. If the Lord loves him well enough, he will be scourged back to his place; but if not, he will grow more and more perverse, till he becomes a ring-leader among the opposers of the gospel. To avoid such an end it becomes us ever to stand fast.

~Spurgeon, The Downgrade Contraversy

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

2Co 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God;

Friday, November 04, 2011

Faithful And True

"God is NEVER worthy of our doubt, He is FOREVER worthy of our faith."

Rev 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war. 12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself. 13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

Rev 21:5 And He who sits on the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And He said, "Write, for these words are faithful and true."

Wednesday, November 02, 2011

Hanging With the Heretics

I'm just going to say it: to invite a heretic to speak anywhere is sin.

Not merely a lapse in judgment.

Not merely a lack of discernment.

Not merely ignorance.

It. Is. Sin.

As such, it is spiritual adultery and it needs to be immediately repented of and all ties publicly severed.

2Jn 1:9 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he 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, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Don't Even Greet The False Teacher, Much Less Give Him A Microphone

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.

To give air time, discussion time, a pulpit, an audience, a microphone to a false teacher is to violate the above passage. Its mutiny against the King of kings.

Instead of aiding and abetting a false teacher "and let the viewer decide", Christians are to expose their error and reject the man without defending him, giving him a wide birth, giving him time to manipulate and teach others.

What part of "do not receive him" or "whoever greets him partakes in his wicked works" don't you bloggers, interviewers, apologists, I-Don't-Know-What-Gospel Coalition/ Animal Room/ Desiring-I-Don't-Know-What-God Conference, get? What part is not clear to you? A man who teaches a false gospel or Jesus, a man who teaches a false justification or salvation, a man who denies the Genesis account of God speaking forth His creation in 6 Literal Days, a man who denies the absolute sovereignty of God even over weather much less salvation, is to be REJECTED, NOT GREETED MUCH LESS A PLATFORM TO SPEAK.

Scripture is totally biased for the Truth and against error. It doesn't mix the two and tells us to not either. If you can't even get that straight, you have no business trying to straighten out anyone else.

The Gag Order on Discerning Women Bloggers

1Jn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from

God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

Heb 5:13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is not accustomed to the word of righteousness, for he is an infant. 14 But solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.

Recently Phil Johnson and Todd Friel made some sweeping statements about women bloggers; particularly women who have discernment and home school their kids.

Here are some of Phil’s comments that I would like to address:

A comment on his blog:"Certainly God didn't gift believers with the Holy Spirit and with spiritual gifts according to their gender."

Phil Johnson answered:

Of course He did. He gave us gifts that are in accord with our calling and office. Certain offices in the church are closed to women.

No matter how broadly you want to interpret 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 one of the clear implications of that text is that it's not fitting for a woman who has no teaching authority in the church to raise a public objection against a teaching elder whose office is recognized by the church. That's not to say the pastor is infallible or above critique, and there is (of course) a proper venue for a lay woman to share her concerns or ask her questions, but a blog on the Internet is not that venue.

If any woman fancies herself a gift to the church as a guardian of sound doctrine because she thinks she has a special "gift of discernment" that entitles her to go online and write insulting epithets against a duly ordained and divinely-called pastor, She is seriously mistaken and grossly out of line--and she is an embarrassment to propriety and feminine modesty.

End quote. ( my emphasis)

1 Corinthians was written to the entire church at Corinth, both men and women. 1Cor. 14 is in fact, speaking about behavior in the local church, certainly not at the marketplace, the internet, or a parkinglot.

Scripture doesn’t say God gifts His children according to gender.

1Co 12:4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.

1Co 12:5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

1Co 12:6 There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons.

1Co 12:7 But to each one is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

1Co 12:8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

1Co 12:9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

1Co 12:10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

1Co 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.

Then chapter 14:

1Co 14:34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.

Chapter 14 is about the orderliness that needs to take place in the local assembly of believers, that is,“in the churches”, plural,or “in the assemblies”. The role of women in the NT teaches that they are to have no authority over men nor teach men in church. This is clear. But to place all forms of speech and expression of one’s insights, that is, to muffle all women on the Internet especially if they are criticizing a public pastor-teacher, is to misapply this text of Scripture. God doesn’t call for a gag order on women, rather to be quietly learning in the church service (see below where MacArthur explains this more fully). In fact, the more informal arenas such as a Bible study or Sunday school class that of course is taught by a man, can be opened up by the teacher for questions and interaction and this is permissible. Even MacArthur agrees with this. And if this is permissible in such settings, then all the more online. There is no authority over others online; it really is a free and fair place for exchanging of ideas. I might add this is why there is no such thing as an “online church”.

John MacArthur states in his study Bible:

14:34, 35 women keep silent in the churches. The principle of women not speaking in church services is universal; this applies to all the churches, not just locally, geographically, or culturally. The context in this verse concerns prophecy, but includes the general theme of the chapter, i.e., tongues. Rather than leading, they are to be submissive as God’s Word makes clear (see notes on 11:3–15; Gen. 3:16; 1 Tim. 2:11–15). It is not coincidental that many modern churches that have tongues-speaking and claim gifts of healings and miracles also permit women to lead worship, preach, and teach. Women may be gifted teachers, but they are not permitted by God “to speak” in churches. In fact, for them to do so is “shameful,” meaning “disgraceful.” Apparently, certain women were out of order in disruptively asking questions publicly in the chaotic services.”

This is hardly the venue of an Internet blog.

In a Q&A at GCC MacArthur again deals with this passage of Scripture:

Larry: I got, I guess it's a controversial question on gifts of teaching. It's in Corinthians 14:26-34, I guess. And basically I've heard different interpretations of verses 34 where it says, "Let women keep silent in the churches for they are not permitted to speak." My interpretation of what it's talking about, and correct me if I'm wrong, that's why I'm here, is that they do not possess any of the gifts listed in verse 26, which are teaching and edifying gifts. And I don't know if that is right or wrong. Maybe you can help me there.

JOHN: Well I don't think it has anything to do with gifts. In fact I think it may assume that they do have the gift of teaching, otherwise it wouldn't have to control how it's used. You understand what I'm saying? If he says, "Let the women keep silent in the churches," that may mean that there will be a temptation on the part of the women to want to teach in the church, which indicates that perhaps they do have the gift and so it has to be regulated.

In the public service of the church the men were to lead. The women were to learn in subjection, but the older women were to teach the younger women and there's nothing in the Bible at all that says that women cannot have the gift of teaching or other gifts. The point here that in the assembly of the church, when the church comes together, the prophets were to take over. He said the spirits of the prophets will be subject to the prophets and the women are to be silent. This is a affirmed in I Timothy where it says I permit a woman not to teach nor to take authority over men, but to learn in all subjection and so forth. This is the God ordained pattern. Doesn't mean that women are dumb. It just means that God has designed women to be different and their role is different within the church. But it doesn't mean they don't have the gifts.

End quote.

And here MacArthur states:

If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home. The implication is present in this statement that certain women were out of order in asking questions in the church service. If they desired to learn, the church was no place for them to express their questions in a disruptive way. Paul also implies, of course, that Christian husbands should be well taught in the Word. Many women are tempted to go beyond their biblical roles because of frustration with Christian men, often including their own husbands, who do not responsibly fulfill the leadership assignments God has given them. But God has established the proper order and relationship of male–female roles in the church, and they are not to be transgressed for any reason. For a woman to take on a man’s role because he has neglected it merely compounds the problem. It is not possible for a woman to substitute for a man in such things. God often has led women to do work that men have refused to do, but He does not lead them to accomplish that work through roles He has restricted to men.

There are times in informal meetings and Bible studies where it is entirely proper for men and women to share equally in exchanging questions and insights. But when the church comes together as a body to worship God, His standards are clear: the role of leadership is reserved for men.”

~ Source

Again, the Internet is not the local church. There's no disruption of a church service by questions, because the Internet is not the church.

Elsewhere in the comment section on Phil Johnson’s article, he said:

I didn't have the Sola Sisters in mind when I said that. I appreciate most of what I have read at your blog. But I was thinking specifically of the pugnacity and snippy, catty tone we often saw in Ingrid's blog posts, the scattershot approach and conspiracy-theory mindset behind the Lighthouse Trails campaign, and the type of women who plastered my Facebook page with endless, angry, deliberately insulting rants (and still do sometimes) because they think my criticism of the Piper-Warren connection wasn't sufficiently vehement.

In short, I was referring to those very vocal (mostly, but not all female) self-styled "discernment" specialists who seem to think screeching, angry emotions are as good a response to heresy as carefully reasoned, biblical answers.

End quote.

First as a side note, I’d like to point out that while there may have been ungraciousness on the part of some women bloggers, the tit-for-tat Johnson ensues is wrong. He’s just as catty and snippy as those few women he has a problem with. In other words, it doesn’t help his argument for him to rant about the ranting of women.

Also, pastors have no authority over anyone outside of their own church. It is only within their own church can elders exercise church discipline for example. See James White on “Shepherding. She does not violate Scripture in criticizing “duly ordained” men by criticizing them online (more on this in a moment). In fact 1Cor. 14:34-35 is about the local churches, not some “universal church”.

Adjectives like “catty”, “insulting rantings”, “screeching”, “harpy”, “shrill” ,“divas” ,“angry emotions” are very subjective in their description and may not be accurate at all, (and maybe even reveal a personal offense, not a biblical violation) as well it dismisses the validity of the concerns of discerning women, as well as being just being sexist against strong women who do discern and as a result have voiced their grave concerns. Indeed, this is not a “carefully reasoned, biblical answers” itself. Where have these women bloggers not used Scripture correctly in showing error? Moreover, isn’t the misapplication of Scripture itself (1Cor. 14:34-35 for even the Internet), the very thing Johnson and Friel are claiming to want women to avoid—the very thing Johnson just did? If this is how Johnson deals with women not whom he primarily has an issue with, the name-calling and applying silence to all women who are critical of pastors, I can’t imagine how he deals with those he does primarily have issues with. Is this how he deals with women in his church? I hope not, and I rather suspect he really doesn’t. So why the inconsistency with his behavior and claims online versus those at GCC?

I found an interesting quote from Donna Morely, wife of The Master’s College professor, Brian Morley.Now granted, I think women speaking to a congregation is in violation of Scripture, in fact I think women teaching Christian things in college or seminary violates Scripture, so I am definitely far more cautious and conservative than Donna. However, Donna does make an interesting point:

"I have personally heard Joni Eareckson speak to the entire male/female congregation at Grace Community Church (Dr. John MacArthur’s church). Does this make Pastor MacArthur a hypocrite, after his above quote? No, not at all. Joni wasn’t usurping authority over the men nor was she speaking authoritatively. She was lifting others up spiritually, through encouragement, rather than by exegetically teaching scripture." ~ an excerpt in Donna’s Morley’s book, Choices That Lead to Godliness (p. 114-120)

I found the irony interesting. While Phil says women are not to teach men in church, a woman has taught men at his church. I would say Tada was indeed violating Scripture. Often times women get behind a pulpit and claim to be “sharing their hearts” but in doing so, they end up exhorting and teaching men. This is the foot in the door we’re to avoid. A blog however, doesn’t take place in a church. It doesn’t usurp anyone’s authority because there is none. Its just a publication of one’s own thoughts and insights. A blogger certainly does not have a captive audience.

Contrary to Johnson’s sweeping gag order on women bloggers who criticize pastors, MacArthur invites the criticism of others:

One final thought to add is this: I believe that it is appropriate to respond publicly to that which has been taught publicly. If someone has published something in a book or on a blog or preached it in a sermon (which has then been made available online), it is now subject to public critique. I certainly believe this is true with regard to my own teachings. Anything I have preached or published (and therefore made public) is consequently subject to public criticism. And I don’t consider my critics to necessarily be unloving just because they disagree with me. In fact, I welcome their feedback, because it is part of the sharpening process.”

~ Source

Now the comments by Johnson, especially his gag order on women, lead to some fair questions and a few observations:

*Who’s on the approved list of homeschooling discerning women bloggers who are allowed to criticize pastors? He mentioned he has no problem with some.

*What are his standards for the approved group versus the non-approved group?

*How does he determine who is ordained and above being criticized, at least by women bloggers? And why women bloggers? Where was the ear-boxing to diva, screeching, hysterical, critical men? Alas, there was none. Perhaps nameless offenders are easier to verbally slap than men. I sure can’t account for it.

*Which pastors are allowed to be criticized? Benny Hinn, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen only? Why?

*On the one hand Johnson approves of certain discernment women bloggers, but then he applies 1Cor. 14:34-35 to all women, both in the church and on the internet, so which is it? Again, public teachers are open to public criticism.

*Why are women prohibited from publicly questioning, even exposing public teachers-pastors--pastors who themselves teach outside of the local church? Is that not fair game? Teach publicly, you get to be criticized publicly if needed.

*If its a matter of tone, then that's just nothing more than personal preference, not a biblical violation. If its a matter of a woman being critical, then that again, is not shown to be prohibited by Scripture either. Rather the call to arms and discernment is for all Christians.

*Does this far-reaching interpretation of 1Cor. 14:34-35 then include women evangelizing a Mormon man at the door or any man for that matter, in a public setting such as a gym or store or parking lot?

*Should a woman be silent in church when a man approaches her with false teaching, say, Annhiliationism or Hyper-preterism? Or should she destroy such arguments that set themselves up against Christ? Is she not supposed to defend her faith both inside and outside the local church?

*Does Phil include Rick Warren in being “duly ordained”? Does he view Warren as a brother in Christ? Is he not just as false as Joel Osteen? Is he not more dangerous?

*Why is it ok for Phil Johnson, Todd Friel, or Frank Turk to criticize pastor/teachers , but claim women bloggers cannot also do so? I might add that Turk and Friel are masters as sarcasm and mockery themselves—something that is often ungracious.

Are women not part of the battle for truth and against error? Are we not also called to earnestly fight the good fight of the Faith? Are we not called to discern and warn others when we see a false teacher? Is the war only for the men folk? Are women to keep quiet when they are facing a false teacher? Again, I find MacArthur’s insight helpful here:

“The modern canonization of compromise represents a detour down a dead-end alley. Both Scripture and church history reveal the danger of compromise. Those whom God uses are invariably men and women who swim against the tide. They hold strong convictions with great courage and refuse to compromise in the face of incredible opposition.

Where are the men and women today with the courage to stand alone? The church in our age has abandoned the confrontive stance. Instead of overturning worldly wisdom with revealed truth, many Christians today are obsessed with finding areas of agreement. The goal has become integration rather than confrontation. As the church absorbs the values of secular culture, it is losing its ability to differentiate between good and evil. What will happen to the church if everyone proceeds down the slippery path of public opinion?” – John MacArthur, “Reckless Faith” p. 51

This is all discerning women bloggers are doing, motivated, at least for some of us, by a heart for the Truth, a love for the souls of others, and a clear knowledge of impending disaster. Will standing alone be called “vocal”, “screeching”, or “hysterical”? Where are the vocal men who see the absolute urgency in our day to divide from error, expose it for what it is, and be bold about it? Very few and far between. They are so few that we can count them on one hand. Many play the “truth in everything” game, unwilling to come down boldly and decisively against false teachers and their cheerleaders, and some by their laziness and lack for zeal of the Lord and His Gospel and His people, actually embolden men like Warren and Driscoll. If the solid men were truly solid and bold for the truth and against error, instead of this tepid, lukewarm wait-and-see disaster of a position (something Satan uses to his advantage), many of us discerning women would be able to help arm them for the battle in other ways. You don’t see Spurgeon or Pink hesitate in dealing with those in error. In fact we see Spurgeon call for “War! War! War!” on the RCC and he even takes to task the Protestants who encourage Rome. Where are the Reformed men doing that today? Too bad some men aren’t just as bold and tenacious about false teachers as they are about women daring to criticize them or some pastor who teaches publicly (one wonders why Johnson and Friel don't take on the Feminists like Warren, Piper, Keller, and Driscoll who DO think its ok for women to teach IN CHURCH just as long as its not in the "office" of elder). In other words, the problem isn’t merely the false teachers; it’s those who give them a wide girth, platform, and time to do the work of Satan among what used to be considered “solid” circles in Christianity.

"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.'

~ Spurgeon September 1887, Sword and Trowel

The urgency of the poison of the downgrade of today’s “Christianity” is intensified by the Internet. What used to take months or years to spread, now can take seconds to spread worldwide. Multiply that with the constant obsession of seminars and conferences, seminaries, books, and journals, and the urgency is far more clear. And that’s not taking into account the influence of TV. and radio. Because of the instant access to information, no pastor (especially one that is Internet savvy and himself uses the Internet to promote his books, church, sermons, missions, articles, conferences) should be ignorant of whom they are promoting, linking to, sharing the platform with. In short, no pastor worth his salt should not do his homework.

Examples of this abound but one glaring and consistant example is John Piper. How else could Driscoll and Warren get a footing inside Reformed circles with a platform to obfuscate their audiences with a little error mixed in with a bit of truth? There was plenty of information on Warren for Piper to have known years ago, let alone last year, before inviting him to the DGC, to know that Warren is a heretic. Not only was it a bad idea to invite Warren, something Piper chuckled at, it was straight up sin, something NONE OF THE WELL-KNOWN FIRE BLOGGERS, SANDWICH WEBSITES, or many of the "apologetic" "experts", or Famous Bloggers, WILL ADMIT TO. Yet some of these have no qualms about slicing and dicing a couple of vocal women bloggers. The hypocrisy just drips all over this one.

Jude, another one who saw the urgency of fighting for biblical truth, stated:

Jud 1:3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. 4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

And Peter too:

2Pe 2:1 But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Who’s the “you” in “among you”? Everyone ELSE but YOUR church? None of YOUR elders or pastors? Not YOUR favorite author or conference speaker? Do you think its merely a "theory" that a heretic could rise up among your leadership, but you actually think that just pretty much won't happen? If that's what you think, you are already on the road to deception.

Just how do false teachers creep in unnoticed? How do they secretly introduce destructive heresies? By announcing themselves? Or hiding behind the cloak of Christianese, an approval of another professing Christian who just couldn’t POSSIBLY be lead astray nor lead US astray. How do these false teachers get in and stay in and teach if not by the treachery of men ALREADY INSIDE?

Act 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church….29

"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the

flock 30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to

draw away the disciples after them. 31 "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and

day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.

Who’s the “among you” here? How do the savage wolves sneak in? Is it not at least by the help of those “duly anointed” elders that aren’t supposed to be criticized by women bloggers? Could this not be the fruit that shows they are indeed not qualified and therefore not “duly anointed” after all?

These online blogging “anointed” men seem find truth in everything (that is, find what’s “good” and ignore the heresy)and slam others who plead with them to stop dancing with the devil’s defenders. Those who have a larger platform from which to speak (pastor-teachers) should be the most vocal in outrage against those who aid and abet false teachers, yet because of their truth-in-everything and low view of Scripture, they find such thinking and action repulsive. The plea for outright rejection of such false brothers is considered, irrational, unbiblical, snarky, shrill, and hysterical. Not so in Scripture, its commanded:

Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18 For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

Scripture doesn’t say to wait and see what a Confederacy with the wolves will bring about. It doesn’t say hear them out, give them a platform, pulpit, microphone. It says reject such a man.

Was Jude hysterical in his urgency and straightforward warnings? Was Paul? Paul even shed tears many times over the errors heading the way of his disciples. Is that irrational? No. It’s based on a love for the souls of men, of God’s Word, and impending doom.

So if a woman discerns the wolf under that false sheep’s clothing, is she to be silent? If a man is drowning and we see it, but we’re women, so we’ll just walk on by and hope some strapping young lad will do something to save his life, that’s ok? What would be dangerous and unloving in the earthly, would be doubly so in the spiritual, would it not?

Scripture never discounts the female intellect, downplays the talents and abilities of women, or discourages the right use of women's spiritual gifts.” - John MacArthur, “The Biblical Portrait of Women: setting the record straight”