Jonathan Leeman's Deceptions - A Tragedy in 3 Parts (w/Receipts)

You know, whenever I do a video about Jonathan Lehman or Nine Marks or Mark Dever or whatever,

I always get a lot of pushback from people that really find a lot of value in Nine Marks content and things of that nature, and they really don't like it when

I ratchet up the rhetoric. In fact, if you remember, there was a series back a couple months ago where I called

Jonathan Lehman a snake a number of times, and I've continued to do that because I do think that the rhetoric is warranted.

And I'm using that word very carefully because I think that unfortunately, regardless of what you might think about Jonathan Lehman as a person,

I think he's very deceptive a lot. Not just occasionally, and I don't think it's accidental,

I think it's intentional deception. I just talked to someone earlier today that said that is a weighty charge you might want to reconsider before you levy it.

And I'm sorry, but just the way that I'm seeing the facts as they happen in real time,

I just don't really see another way. I mean, he would have to be one of the most forgetful people of all time, otherwise he's a deceiver.

And I want to give you a clear cut example today. This is a story in three parts.

It's going to cover three separate videos that I've done on Jonathan Lehman with screenshots of words that he has said himself and videos that really just lay out the case that, look, he's trying to deceive people.

And I think that there's a couple things going on here. There's a couple options. The first option I think is he changes the message a little bit depending on who he's talking to, what his audience is.

And I've been through some of these Big Eva training sessions about gospel contextualization. And look, gospel contextualization is important, but the problem is a lot of these

Big Eva classes about gospel contextualization, like making the gospel understandable and relatable to different contexts and cultures, a lot of it really butts up against changing the message of the gospel, changing the ethics and the morality of the gospel for different cultures.

And that we cannot do. Of course, we want to be understood by every culture. There's everything good about that.

We want to be understood in different contexts and people that have different understandings of the way the world works. We want to be able to present the gospel to all kinds of different people.

There's everything good about that. But once we start tweaking and altering the message, depending on who we're talking to, the core fundamentals of the faith, that is a big problem.

And I think that Jonathan Lehman participates in some of that kind of thing regularly. My big problem is duplicity.

My big problem is saying one thing and then your actions say something else. In fact, that was the big problem that people had,

I'm sorry, that Christ had and the apostles had with the Pharisees. Often he said, look, do what they say, don't do what they do, because what they say and what they do doesn't match up.

There's hypocrisy there. There's duplicity there. And I think that sometimes it's opposite duplicity in Nine Marks and Jonathan Lehman in particular.

So let's talk about this. If you remember the video that I did in the thumbnail, it said vipers.

And I was playing off of John the Baptist calling the people that were coming out to him to see what he was up to.

He called them a brood of vipers. And so if you remember, Tom Buck screenshotted a picture from one of Mark, not

Mark Devers, Jonathan Lehman's books about voting and church membership and things like that. He screenshotted a page of it and he said this, in this

Nine Marks book explaining tactics for overcoming abortion, it says that some insist on adding a whole life consideration to their opposition of abortion.

It sounds like a defense to vote for pro abortion candidates who vote other life issues.

Am I reading it right, Jonathan Lehman? So he asks a Jonathan Lehman a question. He says, look, this sounds like you're saying you could still vote for a pro -choice candidate or, you know, you're defending the possibility of voting for a pro -choice candidate based on other, you know, pro -life issues, comprehensive human flourishing, womb to tomb, you know, that kind of stuff.

And he asks Jonathan Lehman, am I reading you right here? And he provides the screenshot of the page that he's referring to.

And Jonathan Lehman flatly denies this. He says, no, you're not reading it right.

Let me play from you a clip of the video that, uh, that I did here. Jonathan Lehman does respond to this, which is very unusual, but it's good that he did.

He said, nope, you're not reading it right. Blessings. And so the idea here is this is very typical

Big Eva stuff. You're never reading me right. And it's like, you guys, like you, you guys got to start taking ownership of what you say and what you don't say.

And this kind of weasel tactic of like, kind of, we always allowing yourself some wiggle room to always deny that you're not saying what you're obviously saying.

It's getting very tiresome and it's getting very transparent. Most of the, you know, people that have a fair mind on their shoulders can see you guys do this constantly.

Tim Keller did this. I had somebody telling me that this idea of allowing yourself wiggle room and your statements is actually an example of being pastoral because you don't want to alienate parts of your denom, your congregation by coming out too strong on one side or the other.

I think that's crazy. If you look at, if you look at the people in the scripture, if you look at the new Testament apostles and prophets and preachers, they didn't do the same thing.

They spoke clearly. They had definitive categories. They spoke authoritatively. They didn't say they didn't allow themselves wiggle room and keep it a little bit vague and nebulous so as not to offend their congregations or alienate their congregations.

The example I always use for this, I find this so frustrating. I find this so frustrating. Look, sending your kids to public school is not necessarily a sin, but it's the wrong choice because the scripture tells us in the

Proverbs that people, uh, that, that you train up the child the way they should go.

And in the end they won't depart from it, that the students become like their teachers. And so it's a very bad idea, very unwise to send your kids to a pagan school and then be surprised that they grow up pagan.

And you'll, and you know that pastors believe this because pastors overwhelmingly homeschool their kids or send them to a

Christian school, but then you look at their congregations and there's a disconnect there. So why aren't they teaching that it's a very poor idea to send your kids to pagan school?

I mean, some pastors do, don't get me wrong, but very few actually make that strong case. And so they know what's right.

They know what's true, but because I guess they're being pastoral, they don't tell their congregation.

That always seems very bizarre to me. And it's likewise, this is the same kind of thing. You know, why always allow yourself wiggle room in that way?

Let's continue. This today, uh, as he responded to John Harris on Twitter, which is another very unusual event, which we will go into, into a, in a further video.

But Jonathan Lehman says you're not reading it right. But this is amazing because Jacob Brunton almost immediately,

God bless you, Jacob, almost immediately found a five minute clip and we'll listen to a little bit of it.

A five minute clip of Jonathan Lehman and Mark Deaver arguing exactly that, that we're going to stop there, but we are going to listen to a piece of this clip because later on in that day,

I'm sorry, the next day I did an update video because later on in that day, Jonathan Lehman sees this video clip of him saying definitively what he just denied saying in the, in the section that Tom Buck cited here, he just denied it.

But then instantly Jacob Brunton had a video clip of him saying that exact thing, which very strongly implies that he,

Tom Buck was reading Jonathan Lehman right in the first place. But maybe he wasn't, and maybe he changed his opinion.

So here's, here's what we're going to say, right? We're going to go and we're going to listen to this video clip that Jacob Brunton found where he definitively said what he denied saying to Tom Buck.

So that's where we're at. That's part one later that night. Here's the video.

This is, this is the next video that I did about this whole topic. I called this update and I did the whole, you know, the whole unsolved mysteries update, um, and, and later that night,

Tom Buck shares the clip, the video clip that Jacob Brunton found where he is definitively saying the very thing that earlier that day, he denied saying.

Okay. So that's where we're at. Okay. I'm going to play you a clip of this video, but here's the reality guys.

Let's say, I want you to hear this. I want you to hear it good because Jonathan Lehman responds again.

He responds later that night to the video clip of him saying the thing he denied saying.

And this is how he responds. The day before. Yeah, it was the day before. Anyway. So he says,

Tom, I believe that Twitter is a terrible place for these kinds of conversations, but I do want to say for the record that for some time

I've regretted my statement in that video, it was a bad early mishandling that misconstrues my perspective.

Okay. So there's the second denial, right? So he's saying, yeah, I see that you have the video of me saying the very thing that I denied and his explanation is that I regret what

I said in that video. Okay. So he doesn't actually specifically tell you what he regrets or why he regrets it.

And actually it later in this, if you watch the video that I did, I'll, I'll link to it in the description here.

He adds some more information. He says, I wasn't actually really talking about voting. And then he says, maybe

I'll clear up my position on voting in an article because Twitter's a very bad, bad place for this conversation.

Listen, I understand. Look, Twitter's 280 characters. It can be used effectively. People can argue and change their minds on Twitter.

It happens every day, but I can understand the limitations of 280 characters. They're not that attractive to have a conversation like this.

I get that. And so nobody is saying he has to have this conversation on Twitter, but what he does do here is give the impression that he's actually changed his mind about this, or he just misspoke.

He doesn't actually believe that it's okay for a Christian to vote pro for a pro -choice candidate for other pro -life considerations, he denied saying that at first, and then we found a video of him saying exactly that he watched the video and says, you know,

I've regretted that for a long time. So what's the impression that he's given? He actually doesn't believe that he misspoke and we misread him the first time, and then he misspoken this time.

And so he doesn't actually believe that that's the impression that he's wanting you to take with you. Let's listen to the video.

Let's listen to the video, because I think this is important to hear what he's denying here or what he'd regret. Very interesting.

So he doesn't believe what he said in this video, I think, because he doesn't say why he regrets the statements in that video that misconstrues his perspective.

Let's hear him out again, because this is what he said. You remember in the video yesterday, this is what he regrets.

See, people don't like when I do this kind of stuff. They say, love believes all things, right? Like, why don't you just take him at his word? He regrets it.

Well, because I can't take him at his word because he hasn't told me what he regrets, and so I saw this instantly.

This didn't fool me and it didn't fool a lot of you. Look, if you're in this audience, I know that you're a rational thinking person.

It didn't fool you because it was the non -apology apology. It was the non -regretful regret. He regrets it, and so in that way he keeps his conservative bona fides, but he doesn't actually articulate what he regrets, and so that way he can still be palatable to liberals.

That's my opinion. People don't like when I talk about this, but man, my instincts are honed. You're going to find out that I was exactly right to question, what is it that you're regretting?

We're going to find out why, but let's listen to the video to hear what he wants you to think he regrets, but I'm not sure which part.

And so Christians gravitate on, you know, majority culture, Christians gravitate this way, minority culture,

Christians gravitate that way. Satan is psyched over the issue, right? Because he sees division in the church and we don't trust each other and you're voting for them.

Well, you must, you must not care about justice. I don't even know if you love Jesus, right? I question your

Christianity and just rank division in the church. Um, and again,

I think this is where we have to allow for Christian freedom. Christian freedom. And remember Romans 14, 14, right.

And differently calibrated consciences, differently calibrated consciences. Yeah, that's interesting. So, so he, does he regret that part about, about, about freedom,

Christian freedom? Cause that should, I mean, he should regret that part because, you know, I don't know, I mean, call me nuts, but the idea that your favorite politician is a somebody that thinks, you know, killing babies, ripping them limb from limb, sucking their brains out, you know, injecting them with a, you know, burning, you know, poison, uh, is, you know, just a differently conscienced

Christian. I mean that you, you probably should regret that. I mean, nobody would let you get away with that when it comes to slavery or, or, or racism or things like that.

But I guess for some reason it's a, you know, so maybe he regrets that, but he doesn't really say what he regrets.

So it's like, I don't know. Is it everything? I let's just listen. Let's listen to the rest of it because maybe there's more regrettable statements in this.

I'm laughing at myself here. It's how we're united around the gospel and not how I work out my decision on who or who not to vote for.

Yeah, but it doesn't count when he's a... So there it is. So he said, look, there are differently calibrated Christians out there.

And so I can't necessarily say that that's illegitimate just because they work out who they vote for differently.

And so this is why he had to respond to this video because he's clearly making the case that Tom Buck said,

Hey, are you making this case? Am I reading you right? He denied that. He said, you're not reading me right.

But then here he is in this video, which existed at the time, making that exact case, there might be a different way to work out who you vote for that, that allows you to vote for a pro -choice

Christian candidate, even as a pro -life Christian, we don't want to necessarily not have room for that in the

Christian church, that's the case he's making. And so of course he had to respond to this video and he responds with another denial.

He's essentially saying, look, I actually don't believe this. I misspoke is what he said. I've regretted my statement in this video.

It was a bad early mishandling that misconstrues my perspective.

Now he then later in this thread says, maybe I'll write an article explaining my perspective on voting.

Cause I wasn't really even talking about voting in this video, even though he kind of was, but okay.

So, so look guys, love believes all things. Okay. But we don't have to be naive about this.

I didn't expect him to write that article. I was wrong about that. I said, he probably wouldn't write that article.

Cause as soon as he puts something on paper, he's going to realize that the conservatives are probably not going to be happy with what he says or the liberals.

And I don't think he's willing to, to make one side or the other angry in that regard. So whatever he ends up saying, it's going to make either the conservatives or the liberals upset.

And I don't think he's willing to do that. I was wrong. I was wrong. Look, love believes all things, but you can make predictions based on past behavior.

His past behavior was a little bit slippery. It was deceptive. And so I, I called him deceptive.

I called him a snake. And so guys, so he's denied it twice. He's denied believing that it might be okay, depending on how you work it out to vote for a pro -choice candidate.

As a Christian, we need to make room for that in the Christian church. He's denied that twice. Okay. We found evidence of him saying exactly that didn't require any interpretation.

He admits that it does say that, and he regrets it and misconstrued how he believes because he misspoke.

Maybe I'll write an article clearing this up. And he did write the article. This article came out last month.

Guys, it gives me no pleasure to report this news. This is deception. This is deception.

Here's the article. It's on nine marks. You can see Jonathan Lehman in the byline right here. What makes a vote immoral or moral?

The ethics of voting. I urge you to read this entire article. This is a very interesting article, but I'm going to point you to section eight.

With regard to church membership, your votes, your motives matter. Here we go.

Check this out. Here's his statement. Quote, for instance,

I believe it's ordinarily a sin to vote for a pro -choice candidate by virtue of principles one, two, six above.

Furthermore, if someone was voting for a pro -choice candidate because of his or her support for abortion,

I would probably recommend excommunication. Christians must absolutely not support abortion.

That's pretty good. Let's go back to the article. Quote, I want you to listen to this.

Let me, let me stop for a second. If you haven't been paying attention, I want to catch you up. He twice denied saying that we need to make room in the

Christian church for people who have other considerations, pro -life considerations, womb to tomb, comprehensive human flourishing, that there might still be pro -choice, but they're do good in these other areas.

Like I'm going to vote for him. He denied twice making that case. And here's what he writes in his article, clearing up his position on voting.

Quote, suppose, however, a fellow church member told you she was voting for the pro -choice candidate. In spite of the candidate's view on abortion, she hates abortion.

Yet she says she's unconvinced. The pro -life party is actually pro -life. She cares about other issues too, and sees other strategic considerations in play.

I would still affirm my own conviction that she was probably sinning for her support of that candidate as an unintentional instance of Romans 1 32.

And I would want to persuade her otherwise, but I would still affirm my willingness to come to the

Lord's table with her. In short, a fellow Christian's motives do make a difference, at least in terms of how

I would relate to someone as a fellow Christian and hear the difference between because of, and in spite of is meaningful, listen, you don't have to agree with me on this position to see that Jonathan Lehman was being deceptive when he twice denied this exact position and said,

I miss spoke. I misconstrued my own position. You're not reading me right. And then he comes and has the audacity a month and a half later to reaffirm that position that he lied to Tom Buck about believing, then he lied to the rest of us about believing when the video surfaced of him saying that exact thing.

He denied it twice and here he is. He's clearing it up. Finally, once and for all. And he reaffirmed that same statement, which he denied twice.

Now I ask you, what would you call that besides deceptive? What would you call that besides deceptive?

How can you deny twice believing something that you obviously believe we have it in black and white twice in on video at least once.

And actually we have it a lot more than that. Why would you do that? I don't know really.

Why is it, could it be fear of man? He he's just afraid of, of disappointing people or angering people.

Maybe. Could it be a motivation by his platform? He enjoys the power that he has and the gravitas that he has with nine marks.

It could be that as well. Could he, could he just be, could he just be trying to, you know, fumble through some kind of gospel contextualization thing?

I don't know what the reason is, but I do know deception when I see it.

It doesn't do Jonathan Lehman. If you're friends with him, it doesn't do Jonathan Lehman any good to pretend like he wasn't deceiving people when he definitively was, even if you agree with them on voting.

Even if you agree with him on voting, you have to understand how he was being deceptive at least twice.

It's in the, it's in the videos guys. Look, I've, I screenshot everything. I'm not making any of this up. Go back.

I'll link to the videos in the description of this video. I go through each point, each video and each article point by point, and you tell me how that's not deception.

This is why I called him a snake and I will continue to call him a snake. I don't hope that he stays in this state where he's just deceiving and covering things up and obfuscating and muddying the waters.

I don't want that. And listen, I don't oppose nine marks in toto. There are some good things that nine marks brings to the table, but the reality is, why is he deceiving people in this way?

Why is this happening? Why did he deny a position? He holds two times that we know about, and then clear it up by reaffirming that position, which he denied two times.

That is very, very troubling. It's troubling. And so look guys, I don't want nine marks to have no more influence.

I want them to repent. I want them to stop doing this stuff. I want them to stop sowing division.

I want them to just stop that. Turn from their wicked ways. And listen, I don't have a problem with blogs that have influence.

I don't have a problem with institutions like this. I don't have a problem with organizations and networks and private, you know, groups and stuff like that.

You can do all of that. Just stop this line, stop the shady stuff. That's what I want. I want this to stop.

It's okay. Guys, Christians are forgiving people. I know Christians get a lot of bad press, but it's not true.

Jonathan, all you'd have to do is say, look, I'm sorry for trying to deceive you twice. This is my position.

You were right. And in the moment I was just scared. I didn't know what to do, but I'm sorry for that.

I'll forgive you. And I'll never bring it up again. And the next time I call you a snake, it'll have to be because of something new that you did.

I won't call you a snake for this reason, if you apologize. But this is why I've done it. Because what you say is different from what you do.

There's duplicity there. And this is not the only example, Jonathan of duplicity in you. This is just the one that's easiest to demonstrate in a 20 minute video.

I want it to stop. I want it to stop. And I'll leave you alone. If you just stop anyway,

I hope you found this video helpful. I hope you understand too, that this doesn't give me any pleasure to do.

I didn't just wake up one day and decide to attack Jonathan Lehman. I just saw this kind of behavior in Jonathan and in so many other people regularly.

And I got to call it out. It's got to stop. You're dragging Christ's name through the mud.