Richard Dawkins and Diane Gaskins: A Study in Seeking Consistency and Fairness

And greetings welcome to The Dividing Line. We're four minutes late or so, but we are going to blame

Windows. I - I - I did happen to be looking through the window and Rich was standing a few feet away from the computer but then he says that the - the - the screens like switched places and stuff.

I - I don't have any direct empirical evidence of this. So I -

I - I don't know. But he was on his phone. He was doing something on his phone. So - and then -

I don't remember this because Windows Vista drove me out of - of all that and this was back when - when

Mac was still Mac and Apple was still Apple and just worked.

So but evidently there's this thing called Forced Updates that I do remember.

I - I do have a - I'm not always certain if those are just nightmares or if that was just having to use

Windows all those years but something about Forced - Forced Updates. I - I am convinced that something seriously

NSA is going on. Well, you told me. Yes. It's like last night. My wife and I are watching.

Yeah Yeah, you're gonna get this story dude. My wife and I are watching this music program and I make a comment about, you know,

I can do this. I can just go full, you know, anyway, I make a comment.

The phone is sitting right next to me. I make a comment to her, you know, that young lady singer sounds very much like a singer from the 70s named

Melanie and I get curious. I'm like, do I have that right? I start googling and I go 70s singer and it pops up.

I kid you not. A selection. 70s singer named Melanie. This thing is listening.

There are little - Are you blaming - Are you blaming our problems on that? It's not a conspiracy.

Okay, just checking. I'm done now. The the arm of the chair just fell apart just so you know, so we've had this one for a long time but it's time to time to replace it.

Anyway, welcome to the program now that we're started and have already burned a few minutes for conspiratorial purposes and things like that and let's just hope it

Let's just let's just hope it keeps working and doesn't do whatever he said it was doing before. I don't know

Anyway, I was just I was just smelling my my most recent

Jeffrey Rice rebind Some of you have seen this on on his website.

It is the Tyndale House Greek New Testament In This is such a luscious lambskin

That he says he's going to do a rebind for himself in the same leather

It is luscious. Now this was their Cambridge bound one to begin with so it's nice as far as that goes but then you put it in a in a post -Tenebrous

Lux and this is gonna be sitting here on the on the This could be the default dividing line when you need a

Greek New Testament grab that one there, of course, you know, I've got the rest back there, but Some of you saw it on the website and and when

I was saying yeah, I know where that's going Yep, appreciate that. So anyways

Not gonna take time to talk about the Tyndale House Greek New Testament Fascinating concept. We'll we'll do something like like that in the future.

Maybe we're talking about some other relevant issues, but we have other things to be talking about and Specifically I wish to start on the program today

With I'm going to be tying all this together a Book came out.

I heard it first being referenced a couple of months ago called outgrowing

God and of course it comes from Richard Dawkins one of the most famous Atheists of our day and One thing

I certainly have learned over the years is that atheists are Generally very unconcerned

About the accuracy of the statements they make about Christian faith and Christianity as a whole

Not only are atheists in essence, in fact, I think I've mentioned this but the reason we do not have comments on our

YouTube Videos is because When we first started

We did have comments and you just had to invest most of your waking hours

To deleting the profanity coming from atheists. They just they can't control themselves

They they just think dropping f -bombs and everything else is a whole lot of fun. And so that's what they do and so we just turn the comments off and because of course

I Am absolutely convinced that comm boxes are as I call them internet ignorance aggregators

They're very very rarely Worth the time to read other than for entertainment value at times anyway but you would think that someone with the

History reputate not reputation fame of Richard Dawkins You would think maybe his publisher somebody

Would Want to make sure that what he's saying is at least semi accurate

That that if if people just punch holes through it right left and center That might you know, not be a good thing long term for him

But as I began looking at this book, I Immediately discovered what?

What we have Understood to be the reality amongst Amongst atheists for a long time beginning a whopping 10 25 pages in so about 10 % in you basically up to this point have a repetition of Bart Ehrman's perspective of All sorts of different beliefs and Changing and changes of stories and you know, the standard skeptical we need to get as much a variation into the dark period the dark period between the days of Jesus and The first manuscript evidence we have for the

New Testament so we got to get you know for for a long time that was hundreds of years and So you could theorize all sorts of evolution, that's what

German rationalism is all about Was you know all this evolution? So the Gospel of John wasn't written till 170 175

Because it would have taken time for those high beliefs about Jesus to develop and all this kind of stuff. Well That dark period has gotten shorter and shorter and shorter

Because though we do not have tons and tons of manuscripts we have sufficient number of Papyri fragments to be able to demonstrate that as soon as we start seeing

The New Testament it exists as we have it today The books are the same

Readings are the same Structure is the same You don't have any evidence of some kind of 170

AD writing of John In fact, John is the earliest attested

Of the New Testament books or at least the widest in the earliest manuscripts. I guess we should put it that way anyway so He goes through the standard stuff.

And so I just pick up here. The Gospels were not yet written They had no New Testament to bind them together They disagreed on many things for example where the

Christians had to be Jews had to be circumcised Where the Christian was a whole new religion some of Paul's letters show a leader struggling to bring order to this chaos an

Agreed biblical canon those books agreed as the official list Wasn't finally settled until centuries after Paul's death

The Bible read by Protestant Christians today is a standard canon of 27 books in the New Testament 39 books in the

Old Testament Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians have a set of additional books often called the Apocrypha Matthew Mark Luke and John are the only

Gospels in the official canon, but as we'll see Plenty of other Gospels of Jesus had been written around the same time

The reality is of course, we don't have anything from the first century, but anyway the canon.

Okay. Here we go. Ready? Are we ready to to see the depth of the scholarship of the leading atheist as far as reputation or?

Fame is concerned The canon was largely fixed in AD 325 by a conference of church leaders called the

Council of Nicaea Set up by the Roman Emperor Constantine The one whose conversion led to Europe becoming

Christian He made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire now, let me stop for a moment and point out once again as we have pointed out for years as Soon as you hear any person say to you that The Canon of the

New Testament Was decided at the Council of Nicaea You're talking to someone who has no

Firsthand knowledge no balanced knowledge. No meaningful knowledge of church history at all.

You're talking to someone who has been Educated by the internet and Primarily YouTube on these particular subjects because if you have spent time

Reading the primary sources on the Council of Nicaea, you know

They did not address the subject now. There's one fellow Who likes to throw out stuff?

I think just simply to make himself controversial and therefore

Pump his name some I won't mention directly at the moment, but There are there are some folks such as this individual who?

Try to connect Nicaea to some type of canonicity just because well once you start discussing these things

Then there is of necessity a discussion of canon because if you're going to have ecumenical councils that are seeking to decide key theological issues or at least to Verify the decisions already made and exclude people

Which in the case of Nicaea would be the exclusion of Arius and his followers That there would have to be an establishment of canons.

This would at very least be a something that would prompt The official

Listing of a canon you can make somewhat of an argument along those lines The reality is that even

Athanasius somehow Felt that the knowledge that the church had of the canon

At the time of Nicaea and immediately afterwards was sufficient without any type of official promulgation of a canon list

Even when he provides us with that in his 39th Festal Letter 40 some odd years after the

Council of Nicaea Even when he does that he's not going.

Oh, hey, I have the authority to do this for the entire church. He is Representing what the church has already

Been functioning on at that particular point in time But the point is there are no canons and decrees of the

Council of Nicaea That deal not to go back to the Council of Nicaea. There's fake stuff later on but Not to go back to the

Council of Nicaea. I'm reminded of Scott Butler trying to drag out the Arabic version of the

Canons and decrees of the Council of Nicaea to get around the actual canons and decrees which

Provide problems for Roman Catholic views on the primacy of Peter and the Pope. Anyway The Council of Nicaea did nothing in regards to promulgating a canon list

Dealing with alleged competing Gospels of which there really aren't any I mean

When you do look and this is why a couple years ago, we may have to do it again We had story time with Uncle Jimmy where I you know grabbed various translations of Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter You know infancy gospel of Thomas we read this stuff and everybody in the audience is just sitting there going

You mean those were the Those are the ones we're supposed to think we're competitors and we're supposed to be included in the canon or something

Obviously in a completely different worldview different different time frame different interests just a whole different religion but so one thing that's immediately obvious is that while Dr.

Dawkins might Know his biology. Well, he does not know history.

Well at all, which should not surprise us This is this is this did not surprise me at all. This is what

I've experienced over and over and over again But then Secondarily, it's not super important thing, but it's just simply fraudulent to say that Constantine He Made Christianity official religion the

Roman Empire. No, he did not Theodosius did 60 years later. I Mean again, this is just this is just factual stuff that if you did well in church history, you know but Wasn't there an editor on this?

I mean or is look I I know some Christian writers. I Themselves that their editors

Lose a lot of sleep over editing any of their books because If you dare say anything

This this person you may be kissing your career. Goodbye if you if you say a word, so Maybe that's the way he is.

I don't know. I don't know anything about the man personally Anyways, we go on Hmm But for Constantine you'd probably been brought up to worship

Jupiter Apollo Minerva and the other Roman gods much later Christianity was spread across South America by another couple of great empires

Portuguese Empire and Brazil Spanish Empire and the rest of the continent the widespread presence of Islam in North Africa the

Middle East and Indian subcontinent is also the result of military conquest. I don't have Any idea what they that's just as I said

Matthew Mark Luke and John were only four out of a large number of Gospels doing the rounds at the time of the

Council of Nicaea Doing the rounds with who? I'll come on to some of the lesser -known

Gospels in a moment and any of any of them could have been included in the canon But for various reasons none of them made it

No, we know why they weren't we know that there are only four from the first century.

There are only four that have any any Meaningful claim to having been written

In the middle of that century With by someone who lived and walked in Israel who could describe the number of porticoes at the

Pool of Bethesda and get it accurate Even though we only dug it up about 20 years ago The other alleged

Gospels come from minimally a hundred years after Jesus and Give Unmistakable evidence of Their fictional character does

Richard Dawkins know this evidently not Does he care?

It's not been my experience to be honest with you in any of my

Encounters with the Richard Dawkins's of the world that they do It is interesting to me that it's clear that Dawkins is dependent upon Ehrman, but Ehrman doesn't make those mistakes

Ehrman doesn't say the canon was fixed at Nicaea or something. He knows So it's it's almost like there's a well

It would just take me too much work too much time to figure out what those

Christians are really saying So But I see often it was because they were just radical which just means they said things at odds with the

Orthodox beliefs of council members so notice that he's This idea that the council was examining these things the reality is those

Gospels were recognized as Gnostic heresies long before Constantine took his first breath partly is because they are written slightly more recently than Matthew Mark Luke and John such as I Mean there is there is absolutely zero evidence anywhere anywhere

I Mean, maybe he's talking about the wild -eyed crazy

Theories that a few people threw out about this gospel of Peter thing, which is clearly Gnostic in origination

I know I know that John Dominic Crossan talked about that and and there have been some that tried to say that that's the earliest in it

But it's it's absurd. I don't anyway, but as we've seen even mark I see partly is because they are written slightly more recently than Matthew Mark Luke and John But as we've seen even mark wasn't written early enough to be potentially reliable history

Which okay this level of hyper skepticism means that nothing?

from history is noble nothing if Mark being written in the 40s or 50s is too late

So is Tacitus Pliny Suetonius and any of the Greek historians there?

They're all Throw it out throw it out The favored four

Gospels were chosen in part for weird reasons which owe more to poetic fancy than to history and he talks about Some strange saying some

Irenaeus and and and a few things like that. Oh then check this out not I'm only gonna mention this because as Some might know

We actually My fellow pastor Jeff has stepped out of Matthew chapter 24 for a little while not for long

But having been in Matthew pretty much for like seven years He's because he's finished up the

Olivet discourse now, I think the Olivet discourse took about seven months Now that's that's not preaching every

Sunday I've preached a number of times in there I did a whole series on the Lord's Supper during that time period but one of the things that Jeff pounded when going through the

Olivet discourse was opponents of the faith attack

Jesus as a prophet based upon Certain interpretations

That are forced upon Matthew chapter 24 by particular eschatological perspectives

And he says they say look Jesus said this is what's gonna happen That didn't happen

Therefore Jesus was not a prophet case in point

Now this isn't Matt 24, but you'll see what I'm okay. Here's here's Here's Dawkins again the book of Revelation by the way

It wasn't added to the canon until a century later, and it's a pity it ever was Some guy called

John had a weird dream one night on an island called Patmos and he wrote it down We all have dreams. Many of them are pretty weird mine almost always are but I don't write them down I certainly don't think they're interesting enough to inflict upon other people

John's dream was we're the most almost as though he was on drugs It has become hugely influential simply because it somehow got itself included in the biblical canon

It's thought to be prophetic and is often quoted by fiery preachers in America. He's British, of course

I just stop and just just go does he really not know

Any history of even Britain and the British preachers and that Along with Paul's first letter to the

Thessalonians Revelation is the main inspiration for the idea of the rapture It is also the source the dangerous idea the longed for second coming of Jesus cannot happen until after the

Battle of Armageddon This belief is why some people in America long for an all -out war involving Israel in the

Middle East They think that war will be Armageddon Thousands of people especially in America since the remarkable popularity of the so -called left -behind books

Sincerely hold the nutty belief that the rapture is really going to happen and happen soon There are even websites that advertise a paid service to look after your pet cat in the event that you are without warning hoisted bodily up to heaven

It's a shame people don't realize it was a little more than chance which books which books got included in the canon and which books were left behind So all of the historical content of The Revelation All of its connection to history

To to Matthew 24 Do you think Do you think?

This atheist has any knowledge of any of that at this point.

I would say no, I doubt that he does but I'm not gonna be as harsh on him as I am about the

Council of Nicaea and the Roman history stuff because the Council and I see in the Roman history stuff is

Part of the Basic fundamental foundational documents that give us all the history of that time period so Anybody who wants to know the truth of that is able to know the truth of that But on this subject

I Got to give him some slack just because if If you are completely outside of the

Christian faith and you look at the Christian faith on the subject of eschatology Yeah when books sell tens of millions or hundreds of millions of copies

Just because and and look There are a lot of people

I encounter people all the time Who have no idea that there is any other way of looking at eschatology

Than Hal Lindsey's way of looking at eschatology. They just don't know They don't know anything about the discussions down to the history of the church different perspectives

Nothing, and then they hear you say something you go, but what about I? Mean I've told the story many many times.

I'll be brief, but when we were on the cruise in 2007 2007 in Hawaii the

D. James Kennedy Coral Ridge cruise Where Gary DeMar RC Sproul and myself were the primary speakers?

we were doing a Q &A and I'll never forget this Q &A

We're sitting it's it's me RC and Gary and You're on a it was really it was one of the nicest setups.

I had ever seen we are in an amphitheater So the seats go up So there's there's not a bad.

It's not a bad seat in the house The acoustics were awesome You know there was there was if you if you needed to show something there were screens

It was it was a really nice setup really was but we're down at the bottom and we're getting toward the end of the

Q &A and A elderly lady way up there put your hand up and she says

I Forget exactly how she put it, but it was something along the lines of Do you think that I think

I had something to do with something? It just happened in the news or something like that. Do you think that this will have any impact? Upon the date of the rapture

Yeah, yeah, and and so so I remember I remember started looking over like this And and Gary started looking over like this and our sees us doing this number like Okay, who's gonna break the news to her about this particular subject and I forget

I think I think we let uncle Gary do it because that's his thing And I think he just likes talking about that but but the grin on RC's face was was was pretty pretty cool at that particular point in time, so Anyway, so I you know,

I get I get but the point is here's a guy He's supposed to be all that and a bag of chips, right?

I mean there are there are atheists out there that view

Richard Dawkins like he is The Messiah for people who don't believe in the supernatural.

I mean, they will quote him they Get about as close as you can get to worshipping somebody and Yet the reality is he writes books about how stupid the

Bible is but he has less than a freshman

Bible students knowledge of the actual history and background of the Bible It is simply my experience that atheists and people on the left as a whole

Unconcerned about this They will make grand sweeping statements about Christianity scriptures

They don't do their homework. They do not allow the scriptures to speak for themselves. They don't worry about context

They don't worry about history They don't worry about the fact that the Bible is filled with different kinds of literature that revelation is not the same thing as a gospel

It's not the same thing as an epistle It's not the same thing as poetry there's poetry in it, but it's not in and of itself poetic

All that kind of stuff, which is a given should be a given should be something. We're certainly teaching our people regularly

These people just don't don't even concern themselves about it and so obviously the the statements they end up making are

Empty vacuous Meaningless but still accepted by many many many people and we as Christians we sit back and go no, wait a minute

Wait a minute. You're not being fair You are

Horribly misrepresenting the facts you are making fundamental errors of research and argumentation and you're ignoring different genres of literature and and you're you're just you're not being truthful and We asked to have the opportunity we were rarely given the opportunity in media in in in the

Academy and I'm leaving I'm not including Bart Ehrman this Bart Bart Ehrman is a Scholar of these things and I've said many times

My problems Bart Ehrman are his conclusions Not generally the facts that he throws out

So Even though I mentioned him earlier like I it would stun me if If Ehrman would make this kind of basic level error

About the Council of Nicaea or something like that. I just I just never seen him doing it

I mean, it's not that I haven't caught him on factual errors. It's just that they're Generally, not this kind of basic thing.

They're You know something required a little bit more in -depth analysis of particular text or something like that.

Anyway So we as Christians When we're doing apologetics to the world we have to realize that the person you're talking to reads

Outgrowing God by Richard Dawkins Accepts it as an absolutely unquestionable source and Well Richard Dawkins, he's

He's a scholar Well, he's a biologist. That doesn't mean he knows anything about history at all

In fact, it may militate just the opposite to be honest with you There was a day when being a biologist actually suggested that you might know something about history because there was a day centuries ago when

Human knowledge was much more integrated because it was not nearly as fractured and there wasn't as much to know

Now today we are so specialized and the educational system encourages specialization

So that a general broad knowledge in numerous fields is not can not really valued

It's not really considered to be a valuable thing You you're supposed to know everything you can in one narrow little spectrum

And you're excused if in the very next discipline over you're completely clueless

That's one of the in my opinions one of the great downgrades in the modern educational paradigm that even

Christians have bought into so Why do

I? Bring up all of this well You will and go on any university campus and you will encounter people who've read anywhere from the selfish gene now through outgrowing

God and everything that came in between and So you have to be you have to be prepared for that. You have to you have to know how to respond to that kind of that kind of rhetoric and also

If you buy the book, he's already got enough money It doesn't matter one way or the other if you buy the book and you stick it on your phone

And you bookmark those things and then it'd be really easy to Have a couple quotes from a serious history book

Saying you know Theodosius is the one that Declared the Roman Empire to be Christian not

Constantine counsel Nicaea Said nothing about the issue of the can scripture

Who knows maybe that would be a way to go, you know I read the same book and man it started off with just face plantingly bad research

So why do you can you tell me why you believe what this guy has to say? Let me give you some examples

Might open a door might be it might be a means of Getting a few words in and edgewise.

So, you know, think about it might be useful but However Computers still working out there

Good screen that screens over there that screens over just checking.

You know, you're getting older. So you cast out the demons of the

NSA I Wouldn't insult them that way personally they have ways of making

Blue screen of death and it's all over with Yeah Yeah So Here's here's the application part if we as Christians Recognize that inconsistency of argumentation ignoring genre context authorial intention

Not doing your research Reading everything in the New Testament in the worst possible light

Rather than going. Well, it's possible. It means this it's possible It means that we can't necessarily prove the you know

The worst possible glue if we recognize all that when it's being used against us Then we have absolutely positively no grounds to do that to others

We have to be consistent if we are going to ask that meaningful standards of Analysis and interaction and citation and argumentation

Be used when people are critiquing Christianity then as Christians We can't use the same type of errant

Argumentation citation, etc, etc When critiquing others whether it be outside the faith hence

What have we been known for for decades Even when there was a sort of a mob going on in regards to Mormonism, for example

We were like, well, wait a minute. Let's let's make sure that this information is sound. Let's let's be fair We've said for a long time.

There are bad arguments against Mormonism. They're inconsistent Why because they require us applying a standard to the

Mormon Church That when turned around would refute Christianity so we can't use that kind of argumentation

If we're going to be defending our faith by using standard X, we can't then violate standard

X in criticizing somebody else same thing with Islam boy, do you get into a lot of a lot of trouble for that?

How dare you give someone the benefit of the doubt? How dare you not accuse Muhammad of everything that everybody else accuses

Muhammad of at every single point Etc, etc so when critiquing others we need to be consistent and then internally within the faith

The point is no matter what we do Even if we have strong disagreements with someone there are standards that we have to follow as followers of Jesus standards of truthfulness accuracy and especially when you are

Talking to someone or reviewing someone Who claims to be a

Christian? the first thought across your mind has to be

I Must act as a Christian here. I must be consistent.

I must be truthful. I must extend grace and for some people

That's just not possible. That's just not possible. And so a few weeks ago

I Mentioned briefly on Facebook the fact that a

Exposé of Rosaria Butterfield was going to be produced and we are all familiar with that background now and What resulted from that?

the first article was Provided a couple days before I left for the weekend ministering back in st.

Charles so I read it and But did not this is the first opportunity

I've had to actually Address it it is written specifically in reference to Rosaria's book the gospel comes the house key and That book is not a

Book like the King James only controversy. It is not a book like scripture alone. It's not a book like the

God who justifies It is not meant to be taken as a scholarly textbook

It is not a discussion of English It is a

Literary work in a particular genre and it is meant to exhort through example

But not to lay out Dogmatic Theological Reasoning and assertions and demands that The church do things in a particular fashion that everyone has to do the same things that Rosaria Butterfield does

Since it's drawn from her own experience it partakes of the genre of memoir

Because it's placed within the context of events and those events are then

Analyzed and brought out and and Her thoughts and even emotions and feelings are brought in which is one of the things that separates it from You know the other books

I mentioned that I've written where my emotions and feelings are Generally irrelevant to what

I'm writing about. So Dr.

Butterfield it is. Dr. Butterfield Her first book that I read of course was you know

Her unlikely thoughts unlikely convert book secret thoughts and I like a convert and That is much more narrative

I Mean, that's really what it was about was, you know, how how did

I get from where I was because I mean talk about A an amazing story

To go from a tenured professor of English and Women's Studies overseeing women who are doing

PhDs in in queer studies and she's in the lesbian community and all of this stuff to being a

Conservative Presbyterian pastor's wife, how does that happen and The very fact that happens so rarely

Made the book a fascinating read but she is a Professor of English.

She may be doing more knitting than English professorial -ing these days

But the fact of the matter is that She still writes as an

English professor Which means That she writes on a level considerably higher

Than what you'd be accustomed to if you're generally reading blogs

That's not to say there aren't some well -written blogs in the world But especially for published work there's

There's going to be turns of phrase that you might have to read more than once and You might have to withhold judgment for a few pages or maybe go back and Reconsider what you thought was being said to see it in light of what's actually being said or how it ends up being fleshed out

In other words, it might take some work to fully follow and unfortunately if You don't want to do that work or if you have other intentions in your reviewing of her work

You can utilize that To accomplish what your other intentions are.

Let's put it that way. So the article that came out

I mentioned yesterday on Facebook It's not like Someone is is actually asking us to believe that they are providing any kind of unbiased unprejudiced fair Analysis of Dr.

Butterfield's Theological perspective as a conservative Presbyterian Or Any of the comments that she makes in regards to homosexuality interacting with homosexuals homosexuality in the church all these things

Because the title of the article by Diane Gaskins published

December 2nd Updated December 5th is

Rosaria Butterfield promotes Sam Albury's theology Catholic priest who says

God is gay and a cultic scholar. So while the article does

Seek to I guess the term would be interact though.

It's it's not really interaction it's I'm Hearing Rosaria say this that's different than what

I believe we should believe and therefore this There there is at least

And it wasn't interesting enough wasn't based on the book It was based on a TGC interview from 2015 it to me it almost struck me that that section had been written before this book was even looked at that that was just how

I got it because You you could have interacted there could have been interaction with the actual substance of the books

Numerous forays into theological thought and the application of Specifically very strongly

Westminster confession of faith Reform theology and I think it's one of the problems here is though Diane Gaskins identifies herself as reformed.

I There there are our people who are Calvinistic who are not reformed

There are people who are Calvinistic who are not reformed and One of the places where you can really find out whether someone is

Reformed or just Calvinistic Do they really see the centrality of the federal headship of Adam and the doctrine of original sin because if you're just sort of a

Calvinistic Baptist type person who likes the tulip You may still really struggle with issues related to the federal headship of Adam and the whole concept original sin

The total depravity being something more than just simply total inability and Issues along those lines.

I think that's behind a lot of this in my personal opinion But the point is the title is just a blast and What's odd is?

Mrs. Gaskins says Um Well, whenever one mentions the topic of homosexuality around conservative

Christians He or she is usually met with have you listened to Rosaria Butterfield? She is holding the line of these issues not being one who relishes an argument

I often sigh inwardly to encounter these comments. I get it I followed Butterfield as a fan for a time have read all her books and have listened to dozens of her lectures and interviews

Over the past few years, however, I have grown increasingly disturbed by a closer examination of what

Rosaria Butterfield is actually saying italicized and particularly by the overt and covert messages in her most recent a highly acclaimed book the gospel comes with a house key, so my question is

How could you be a fan if this? Especially if later on you're saying this has always been what

Rosaria has said She's always said these things about being born that way, even though what she means by that is born that way in original sin and that the that there are more primary foundational sins that give rise to sexual sins to give rise to fornication give rise to homosexuality and That those sins have to be dealt with and if you separate homosexuality out and and treat it separately

From what gives rise to it in other words How often have we over the years in talking about homosexuality pointed out that the treatment of it in Romans chapter 1

Makes it different. In fact when I was criticizing JD Greer What did

I say about Romans chapter 1 he says oh, it's just it's just one of all these sins I said no, it's not It's being used as an example of the result of idolatry

That that even the core definitional aspects of humanity are

Fundamentally impacted by the twisting of the creator creation late relationship that comes from idolatry and so Idolatry which inevitably leads to pride is

Foundational to giving rise to All forms of sexual sin and especially homosexuality

So her point Rosario's point is that if you deal only with homosexuality as If it's the central sin rather than dealing with pride and unbelief

You're not you're not going to accomplish anything because you're not dealing with the sin That's giving rise to sin. You're trying to focus upon and Rosario's argument is

Because of the situation the church has been put in the church is under constant onslaught Culturally To capitulate on this issue

To give in and what the Bible teaches in Romans 1 first Corinthians 6 first Timothy 1 Leviticus 18 and 20, etc, etc

And we'll talk about her comments on on Genesis and Sodom and Gomorrah which misrepresented this article as well

But since the church is under such pressure to capitulate on these things And she does not capitulate on these texts but because that's been been going on the church has focused upon that particular sin that we are being told we must celebrate as if it exists almost off on another planet someplace and is not a part of the complex of human rebellion and Her whole argument is

She never saw why she had to be concerned about her homosexuality until the real issue of God's authority to be

God Reveal himself in Scripture and her pride and rebellion was dealt with was was exposed for what it was and Then at that point, well if God says

If God is really spoken and he has the right to determine these things Then I have to believe what his word says

I don't have the right to demand that he changes revelation to fit me because that's

I'm being prideful and rebellious I'm not believing at that point So it's actually a holistic understanding of Human sin that again flows straight out of a very very reformed understanding of Adam's fall original sin

And things like that and that is not Normally unfortunately how we deal with things in the church.

There is a lot of surface level Dialogue and discussion on the subject of homosexuality most of us have not spent until until Jeff Neal Did a series on Homosexuality back in the 90s

Told me about it. I was sort of like wow, you you're brave, you know that's what the genesis of some radio programs and then same -sex controversy and Debating Barry Lynn and you know all the rest that type of stuff

It was not a subject that I've said many times for I graduated seminary I couldn't have told you what the six quote -unquote clobber passages are

I couldn't have told you where we can absolutely Demonstrate that the subject of homosexuality is being addressed in a particular text of scripture.

It just simply wasn't Wasn't there and so if that's the case for me, it's by the case for a lot of folks

And so we're we're playing catch -up So Rosaria obviously has put a lot of thought into this that does not make her infallible.

I have found her eminently approachable And I think if a person were to show her the respect of either contacting her or Especially the respect of Recognizing or at least

Doing your homework your due diligence to Recognize the the genre of literature that she's that she's writing maybe recognize the difference between a bibliography and a personal statement of faith that she'd be the type of person who would

Be more than happy to answer your questions and seek to clarify Anything that you found to be confusing

But There are folks who have no interest whatsoever in That kind of approach they have other purposes that That are going on so what

I'd like to start with is some of the Major issues and then we'll we won't have time today

We're coming up on an hour already but There There is much worth to be derived from Looking at What Diane Gaskins?

hears Rosaria saying and what she's actually saying sometimes it's just it's right there in the text sometimes it's just Like we're gonna look at today

It's almost I had I struggled to even begin to understand How someone could miss someone so badly it seems to me to be very purposeful,

I don't know how else to see it but Especially where she interacts with the

TGC 2014 2015 2014 Because it was pre a burger felt the 2014

TGC Women's Conference interview Less than 20 minutes long That's where she took the majority of her actual theological objections to Rosaria's position and I Think by looking at that.

I don't want to rush that part. I think by looking at that We are forced to walk through some real important issues

Regarding Especially an issue that has come up repeatedly and We've discussed it we've discussed it in regards to Sam Albury and Let me just mention that given the context in which this was written and published

The whole Sam Albury issue is a given for these folks in other words,

Sam Albury is just a terrible horrible bad person and so when you look at the interaction we've had with Sam Albury's writings

We've played his discussion in regards to Jesus and same -sex feelings and stuff like that.

Remember we've done that over within the past Six months eight months somewhere around there

We have never Consigned Sam Albury to the flames of hell because that's not our

Place We can't express concerns. We can express disagreement.

We can go is you know, where are you gonna go with this? There's a real issue here

And you can do that without then becoming insulting abusive

Nasty and just demonstrating that you have no concept of what the word grace means because you think grace is compromise and I said

When I when I read Sam Albury's book is God anti -gay.

I think that's the title. I said that when it comes to the key texts

Sam Albury's exegesis and my own were identical now mine was written

Published in 2001 as I recall So there's a long time between them but on those issues

There was there was no attempt on His part at all to get around what those those texts said

So the disagreements have been primarily in I Think in Sam's relationship to other people maybe if he wasn't

Influenced by them. There'd be more what we would consider to be Consistency, but anyway, but one of the issues

That does come up is The issue and this came up when I was in in the

Netherlands early in the year Is it

Appropriate to X to have an expectation that Regeneration will result in sanctification of sexual desires and What is the

Range of Acceptable or Expected sanctification.

In other words, there are people who would say if you're truly saved all homosexual desires gone right then

Just they they just absolutely believe that if true salvation takes place there will be an instant

Freedom from slavery to any type of SSA same -sex attraction. I don't know

I Suppose someone might say there's a list of sins of which that would be true

But then there's a list of sins of which it wouldn't be because The only people

I know of who say That the instant you're regenerated You will no longer have any

Sexual desires that are inappropriate at all are sinless perfectionist

Lust is a sin and it comes from a fallen nature and I Don't know too many people other than the sinless perfectionist who teach that it is

Is automatically done away with immediately. Now, I think meaningful orthodoxy would argue that Even if there is a continued temptation in any particular area there is now a counter desire for holiness on the part of the regenerate individual

And that would be same be the same in regards to same -sex attraction And all this comes down to whether you actually believe that the

Bible clearly defines Homosexuality is something that is displeasing in God's sight So again these issues we've been discussing them now for a couple years

Not saying we the the body as a whole and And Unfortunately, what's happening is position in positions are hardening without necessarily firm conclusions haven't been gotten to and So What does it mean

Rosario Butterfield promotes Sam Albury's theology? Are you saying that there's no differences between them?

Or are you simply saying well, there are similarities and This immediately is going to raise the question of What is appropriate?

review and Meaningful Christian thought when it comes to issues of disagreement

Because there is a mindset of individuals within the church

That Says well look if there's any similarity between them

Then the one is promoting the other and I'm not going to allow there to be differences and I'm not going to allow there to be any nuances and if you

Agree with such and such a person on Belief X you must agree with them on Y Z A B C and D and that's just simply not the case

None of us live that way We recognize that's irrational argumentation

But Unfortunately Mrs.

Gaskins in this article clearly demonstrates some of the worst forms of utterly invalid argumentation associationalism

Horrible violations of just basic logic and And that's what we'll cover today and Then we can get back into the having cleared the the minefield of all the expended brass

That was shot into the air Looks good doesn't accomplish anything Maybe then we can talk about something that's important in regards to Rosaria's comments and Go from there.

So How does Rosaria Butterfield promote? Sam Mulberry's theology, whatever that is

Catholic priest who says God is gay and a cultic scholar. Well She does so By quoting

From Sam Mulberry and the

You know, you could have just used Andre Nguyen, that's his name, but Catholic priest who says

God is gay and A cultic scholar. She does quote these people

Does that amount to a promotion of these people? Does that mean that?

Diane Gaskins took the time to fairly analyze the written words of Rosaria Butterfield and Demonstrates that Rosaria Butterfield's theology and positions and teachings

Not only have been influenced by but she has brought the foundational beliefs of Sam Mulberry and Andre Nguyen And an occultic scholar.

It's actually a woman that she read back in graduate school. But anyway, we'll look at in a moment and That this now is influencing and determining

What she's saying to everybody else because that takes a lot of work that work was not done

That work was not attempted in its place is the standardized formulaic

Look at how bad this person is This person quoted them therefore it must mean this and this is the kind of Argumentation that we as Christians can not abide it is

Fundamentally untruthful When it's done to us

By Richard Dawkins, we go foul wrong We can't turn around and do it to each other.

We can't it's just untruthful So, where does this come up well

I Mentioned I Mentioned the first one on on Facebook yesterday so let's

Summer stop it's like it it's like it's like squirrel Yeah, this came up when

I was in the Netherlands early in the year me my dad was in the Netherlands earlier this year you know

Sort of makes me a little sad because I sent pictures. I try to involve the grandkids

And so I can find right here on this phone the pictures I took of the the the ships in the canals and the ducks next to the running path that I sent in fact,

I Think I tried to FaceTime Because oh because no, it wasn't the ducks.

It was there there were little sheep and there were little little lambs Right right on the other side of the fence along the running path.

I That's right. And so I was like, hey, here I am. I'm in the Netherlands and here's here's this and here's that and obviously,

I guess I don't have to do that anymore because Doesn't even don't even listen to me. But Because I FaceTimed with them.

I did I did I feel like baby

Yoda right now anyway Do you have any idea what's going on? I am

I am overwhelmed with baby Yoda memes So I sort of feel like I have to start watching this program

Just so I feel somewhat socially connected again You don't you don't care about You don't want to watch

You just want to watch Richard Jewell. Why? All I know is there's supposed to be

Braveheart 2 out pretty soon. That's all I know That's all I know With the same actor who played

Robert the booze in the original that's what I think is cool Yeah, well look at what we're talking about, um, are we are we done

I'm sorry. Mm -hmm. There was a that was a brief break there. Just a very brief break. So yesterday

I Put up some material and So the the first person to talk about here is

A particular individual by the name of Henri Nouwen who is a Roman Catholic priest and When we

Read in Read in Gaskin's article that Rosaria praises him and In fact,

I was going to I was going to read how many Paragraphs Were were dedicated to Henri Nouwen It starts off Actually, I might forget this tomorrow.

So let me just mention this real quickly I'm reading from the original article concentric circles mysticism and the horrific list reading

Rosaria Butterfield's the gospel came with a house key was a Disorienting ride for me now that said something to me

I was one of the first things I caught and not merely for the category confusion and the radical indoctrination

Could it be? Mrs. Gaskin's that it's because you think it's something that it's not that you did not identify its genre and Could it be that?

your familiarity with reformed theology is different than hers and So there are category issues that you may be missing

Did you did you think of the possibility of that? Did you ever contact her? There were also regular mentions of mysticism

Contemplative prayer terminology and the use of strange mantras now that is a literary method

That's a literary methodology right there to seek to turn on red lights for people by turning off the thought process because What you're given here is a single paragraph of what

I would call Google slander Google slander this here's how it works

How do you substantiate A regular mentions of mysticism contemplative prayer terminology and use of strange mantras

Here's the paragraph in the opening chapter of the book Rosario states in the morning. I pray in concentric circles

Endquote Chapter two is heavily loaded with unorthodox terminology the Jesus paradox the contagion of grace

She obviously hasn't read Doug Wilson that swirl and circles not clearly defined that swirl in Circles not clearly defined

If Rosario talks about praying and concentric circles That's New Age mysticism.

But when you talk about stuff swirling in circles, that isn't Hmm just looking for consistency

That swirl and circles not clearly defined the title of the chapter is the Jesus paradox and when

I did a Google search, I Found that to be a technical term for contemplative prayer and Zen meditation

For details see this contemplative prayer site run by a Franciscan priest Richard Rohr Earlier she described herself as a reader

Must not be very widely because there is nothing here that is even close

To being a substantiation for that kind of Argumentation, let me let me just bring up something here.

I wasn't gonna do this right here It's really nice to have the

Kindle version Okay here you're ready you're ready for for some

New Age Mysticism, okay peaceful sleep

Sounds echoed from my husband and two youngest children. Even the dogs are sleeping My Bible was open along with my copy of you ready?

Was she was she reading a New Ager? some Zen Buddhism My Bible is open along with my copy of table talk magazine

To which I've contributed numerous times and my notebook My coffee cup was in arm's reach sitting on a calico mug mat that my ten -year -old daughter made in sewing class

Oh, that sounds there must be something about sewing Caspian the enormous orange tabby was sprawled over the table.

I know how that works under the hedonistic Narcotic bliss of a hastily consumed can of fancy feast mixed grill

She said narcotic though, it's narcotic bliss, but it was a cat so I I Started my devotions that morning as I have been doing for the past 17 years and as Ken and Floyd Smith modeled for me

Praying that the Lord would open my eyes to see wondrous things in his word That morning after I read through five

Psalms and one proverb. I began to pray I Typically intersperse prayer with Bible reading and note -taking in the morning.

I pray in concentric circles I start by praying for myself that the

Lord would increase my love for him grow me in holiness Give me courage to proclaim Christ in word and deed as a living epistle

Lead me to repent and give me the humble mind and heart of Christ and the kind comfort of the

Holy Spirit To make me a more faithful and loving wife and mother and friend I then pray for my family the church my neighbors my nation foreign missionaries and missions.

I Thank the Lord that he has risen that he prays for me and that he has sent people into my life

Starting with the Smiths to bring me to himself and to hold me safely close I thank

God for the covenant of which I am a part I keep my prayer notebook open and I flip through the pages as I pray through the names how can anyone read that and even suggest

That there's some hint of New Age mysticism What was the concentric circles

I pray for myself my family my neighbors church missions nation world

It's an organizing way How many people when they praise? Then you get done.

It's like I only feel like I got anywhere because there was no organization to it So she organizes it moving out from herself

Pretty brilliant, isn't it? There wasn't a word in there. That was not 1 ,000 %

Orthodox according to John Calvin nothing The theology was sound

Anthropology was sound What motivates someone to read those into those words see how can a fellow believer?

Read those words and go. Mmm. There's something fishy here. You've got to have an external motivation

You've got to have something Going on That that would cause you to read those words and come to that conclusion you just have to So as I said in the article

Diane Gaskins, I was gonna count the number of paragraphs. We're we are talking 15 to 20 percent of this article and I'm being conservative

Was about all the heresies of Henri Nouwen Who was a gay?

Roman Catholic priest Or at least that came out after his death

But Roman Catholic priest, so what do we find in?

Rosaria's book That would give us the understanding that her theology and her teaching on the subject of homosexuality is

Actually meant to communicate Henri Nouwen's Theology, what do we find?

Well according to Diane Gaskins Twice she makes reference to Henri Nouwen Here we go in Chapter 3

Rosaria praises Henri Nouwen quote the late and gentle Catholic priest end quote who ran a center for disabled persons and Quote regard hospitality as a spiritual movement one that is possible only when loneliness finds its spiritual refreshment and solitude

When hostility resolves itself in hospitality and when illusion is manifested in prayer and quote page 62

Twice in the book Rosaria recommends to her readings her readers the wisdom of Henri Nouwen When one reads to the back of Rosaria Butterfield's book and it just jumped on me here

When one reads to the back of Rosaria Butterfield's book, they will encounter a list of books She recommends to her readers and what a ghastly brew it is

Rosaria's reading list begins with Sam Albury includes John Calvin and has contemplative gurus occult feminists and queer theologians sprinkled in the mix in This list

Henri Nouwen is again introduced Henri Nouwen can also be found in Sam Albury's living out curriculum a curriculum that also incorporates

Rosaria Butterfield's teaching The Nouwen quotation displayed there is from a letter.

He wrote a young gay man and reads Thank you so much for the expression of your desire and hope then he goes on with the quotation here.

And then let's see that's one two and Then starts

Nouwen On homosexuality Nouwen on spirituality hospitality social justice quote quote quote

Max Freud and the Bible Then down to Mary Douglas. So there is an entire section about Henri Nouwen and how bad

Henri Nouwen is and that Rosaria is twice in the book Rosaria recommends to her readers the wisdom of Henri Nouwen and then includes it in Rosaria's reading list.

Well, is this insightful research? No, it's it's not let's

In reality if you search for Nouwen Which is n -o -u -w -e -n if you search for that you find three hits

One on page 62 one on page 220 and one on page 220 The reason that there are two other hits is because that's the cited text note and the bibliography

There is exactly one citation of Henri Nouwen and I'm going to read it in its context in Christ We have all the rights and privileges of God's image bearers noble birth eternal life and through Christ defeat of the stain of death and sin

We have adoption of the family of God the privilege of a new nature One that has the power that raised

Christ from the dead in the form of the Holy Spirit working in us and through us Driving out the old man or woman and beckoning in the new the

Bible tells us who we are essentially male or female and the binaries that separate the two are divine and sacred and eternal

We are ontologically image bearers of God with a need to have our

Heavenly Father's love The gospel is good news for everyone. Even those who have much to lose

Henri Nouwen the late and general Catholic priest and founder of the Lachaise Daybreak community for people with mental disabilities in Toronto, California Regarded hospitality as a spiritual movement one that is possible only when loneliness finds its spiritual refreshment and solitude

When hostility resolves itself in hospitality and when illusion is manifested in prayer new paragraph

Because the blood of Christ because Jesus dined with sinners, but did not sin with sinners

Because repentance is the threshold to God Table fellowship is both comforting and challenging it meets you where you are and asks you to die so that you can live

Practicing hospitality in our post -christian world means that you develop thick skin The hospitable meet people as strangers and invite them to become neighbors and by God's grace

Many will go on to become part of the family of God This transition from stranger to neighbor to family does not happen naturally

But only with intent and grit and sacrifice and God's blessing. That's it

That's it It's the only citation No praising of wisdom

No incorporation of anything other than a singular citation on the subject of Dr.

Butterfield's thesis her memoir regarding what?

hospitality so she we she reads widely has extensive notes and Found that particular quotation to illustrate an aspect of hospitality that she wanted to illustrate

This would be similar to the fact that if you were to take

Any of the books written in the past 30 years? by reformed individuals

You would find countless citations of GK Chesterton Say it all the time as often as Lewis or many others

But Chesterton was a Roman Catholic so evidently everyone who has ever quoted him is smuggling

Roman Catholic theology Purposefully into the church. That's the mindset if you cite him even if it's only once even if I can't find a

Single syllable anywhere else in the book that reflects anything that he actually said or taught that was unique to his theology still you are directing people because the publishing house

Instead of using the unfriendly term bibliography. This was an editorial choice and I checked with the author on this used described her bibliography as recommended reading

So what that means is if it's in there She agrees with everything that it presents

Okay now the reality is that if you look at that bibliography and that's what it is

All the works that are cited in there are cited in the book

So for example, there's only one entrance for Sam Mulberry She said it begins with Sam Mulberry that's because his name starts with an

A and It's supposed to be done alphabetically But why not cite his other books

Because they weren't quoted This is an English professor

This is her bibliography Those are her notes She cited

Nguyen once about hospitality So if you then fill paragraphs with demonstrating that there is all sorts of objectionable stuff about Henri Nguyen, then

I would like to find all the reviews you've done of all the books that fill our shelves by people who quoted

GK Chesterton and Hopefully there will be paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of where Chesterton ripped into reform theology ripped into Calvinism Ripped into justification by faith and all the errors of the papacy, right?

and If not, why not? Looking for consistency. Yes, sir. I want to jump in on something here real quick this publishers

Technique this publishers stepping in and changing things in the book The title of the column here

I can see it coming Oh that never happens had to get your permission first The publishers never have that you have a light blue book behind you over there

Next to pulpit crimes to the right of it next to the fatal flaw. What's the title of that book? God's sovereign grace

God's sovereign grace. You wrote that book and you called it God's sovereign grace. Do you know what it's actually on?

All the places called now The sovereign grace of God the sovereign grace of God where you consulted about that title

I wasn't either yet Somehow it just suddenly showed up there that way with that title on it because the publisher decided to do that Well, it's sir.

It's sort of like for the guy who justifies when I got the

When I got the what are called the galleys Which is the last thing you get to look at before going to publication going to press?

and I got the galleys I start reading it and I keep running into she and her

She and her I'm good. I wasn't talking about a she and that's when

I realized that they had randomly inserted Female pronouns into my book rather than he him is the generic and I couldn't read it and So, I mean

I immediately call contact the publisher and I said no no, no, I don't care if that's your new standard

That's not what I wrote. I don't buy it not going there issues such as Footnote and note issues

Especially stuff outside the text very frequently that type of thing happens. The point is that anyone

Operating on a foundation of even the slightest fairness Knows that if you have a list of books that just happens to correspond directly to the citations in the text

There's nothing else in there That's called a bibliography That's where how it was generated

That's where it came from the notes demonstrate that one citation nothing more and No evidence that this in any way is

Being that any of the rest of the stuff that he believed is even slightly relevant outside of the singular citation concerning Hospitality, that's it so The tight we're still on the title.

We'll do one more and then we'll wrap it up Remember we started four minutes late.

So we're right now at an hour and a half. So I'm sorry.

Yeah, I did blame Windows because Windows is to be blamed So that's the Catholic priest who says

God is gay So who is the occult scholar and this one?

This this one's this one's pretty bad the occult scholar Here's the quotation

Mary Douglas witchcraft scholar yet another dark book Rosaria Butterfield recommends in her book list is

Purity and danger and analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo by the feminist anthropologist

Mary Douglas and Then you have some quotes from Mary Douglas And then you have this this statement

Mary Douglas is one of only two authors in Rosaria Butterfield's recommended book list who contributes two books

How does Rosaria Butterfield recommend this author in the body of her book and Then you have the quote

Rosaria writes when I was in graduate school We all devoured Mary Douglas her book purity and danger and analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo

Was formative to my thinking about insiders and outsiders dot dot dot Douglas's essay deciphering a meal was instrumental in developing the radical hospitality that knit the lesbian and gay community together and Then later

I think a lot about Mary Douglas these days as table fellowship is a daily way of life for me

How can this be? So an author on the dark arts and a new age mystic gay

God priest will now disciple Christians on radical hospitality these are the authors

Rosaria Butterfield recommends to the little lambs with nothing but praise and The back of a lovely teal book that has graced every conservative

Catalog conference table and conference circuit in the reformed world for the past year How can this be if this does not qualify as setting an offense before the little ones what does?

well How about? we do what should have been done and Look up the references and when we do

There are references on pages 33 and 34 and nothing more After that you have the thing called the bibliography and you have the thing called the notes

That give you the references to what's on pages 33 and 34 so let's read the occultism and Satanism and all of that stuff

Which wasn't quoted? by Dianne Gaskins Strangers and refugees are marked by the dignity of God of the universe, but also by the imputation of Adam's sin

In order for the gospel to be proclaimed indeed in word We must recognize that we all deserve hell itself with all of its ravages injustices poverty and pain and That only through the blood of Christ poured out for the sins of his people and through the power that God used to raise

Christ From the grave bestowed upon all who submit to the authority of scripture are any of us saved

The Christian home is the place where we bring the church to the people as we seek to lock arms together

Christian hospitality violates the usual boundary maintenance enacted by table fellowship when

I was in graduate school We all devoured books by the cultural anthropologist Mary Douglas.

May I stop for a moment? She wasn't a Christian at this point. Remember I Continue her book purity and danger and analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo was formative to my thinking about insiders and outsiders

Belonging and rejection and the boundaries to our homes and habitus norms dispositions capacities and propensities that make up our heart and home and community

Douglas's essay deciphering a meal was instrumental in developing the radical hospitality that knit the lesbian and gay community together during the confusing and terrifying 1980s and 1990s when

AIDS was called gay cancer and when people who identified as gay were believed to be carriers of a plague

Douglas explains how meals provide boundary maintenance between people who share different cultural norms and how dietary laws

Police the social body. I've always loved this essay But it was only years later as a

Christian that I could see how identity politics divides people Table fellowship that depends on identity sameness banks on a false understanding of personhood

God declares our identity We are male or female image bearers of a holy

God with a soul that will last forever And a gendered body that for those who have put their hope in Jesus and faith and repentance

Will be glorified and embodied in the New Jerusalem after Jesus returns Conversely Identity politics depends on the idea that the social body is preeminent that we are primarily and powerfully a member of a body politic first and only secondarily a private citizen as a

Christian this has become Revolutionary to my thinking about hospitality It means that exclusion of people for arbitrary reasons not church discipline related ones an important exception

I discuss in chapter 6 is Violent and hostile it kills faith and discourages believers and contradicts the clear message of the

Bible God's people were strangers once we know where it hurts. I Think about Mary Douglas a lot these days as table fellowship is a daily way of life for me

Kent and I practice daily hospitality as a way of life because we must we remember what is like to be lonely

We remember the odd contradiction to be told on the Lord's Day that you're a part of the family of God But then to limp along throughout the rest of the long week like an orphan begging bread

We know that chronic loneliness can kill people and destroy their hope and faith We believe that the

Bible's high calling for singleness compels us to live Communally when we can and to feast nightly on meals and scripture and prayer with doors wide open

Fasting a discipline of the faith is best broken with a communal meal and prayer We believe that the blood of Christ is thicker than the blood of water daily hospitality

Gathering church and neighbors is a daily grace I don't even know if I need to add anything to that if you can read that and then talk about Douglas and occultism and say

Rosaria is promoting this because she cites this woman and Then refutes her

Because you can't tell what a bibliography is is shameful Absolutely shameful

Stunning Stunning did

I not say weeks ago. I expect this expose to be based upon associationalism

You quoted somebody Doesn't mean that I can prove that there's anything unorthodox about what you're saying

Because everything I just read was I mean, you know Sort of almost starts getting old how often

Rosaria talks about our deadness and sin and the centrality of Christ and the power of his sacrifice

Just like those that's the context Like I said, just just reading context is pretty much more than a sufficient refutation so This is the kind What I'm what

I'm saying Is we start off this program looking at an atheist

Ignoring all the necessary homework to make meaningful statements about Christianity Now we're looking at a

Christian doing the exact same thing to another Christian to promote a particular meme a particular perspective

Neither one is correct The one should know better than the other so as I said

Those are just the egregious things that the title comes up with the real the real area where all of us can get past the silly misrepresentations and get down to something that is meaningful and That is dealing with issues related to how the church is to interact with Individuals who profess faith in Christ and continue to have same -sex attraction.

What do you do? What is the approach?

Do you just simply hands -off yell from afar you need to do this just What do you do?

That will take us into and I have the video And I'm almost

Tempted to just go through the video and make commentary on that. Maybe I can pull out enough quotes just to raise the particular issues, but That'll be the positive aspect for right now it is

It is enough for me simply to say this. I do not know

Diane Gaskins But I can simply state that This review would not pass

In in my in my educational experience my sophomore year in high school

My English teacher would have failed this Would have failed it. I mean if she knew the book was being reviewed

She would have failed it. I don't I can't recognize the bibliography as I can't recognize what footnotes are

I Misrepresent the sources and the impact they have

I mean now Things may be different today than they were back then but the point is in my experience

This is not appropriate to be putting this out Ostensibly as a warning

Because remember remember I read you know, how can this be? So an author on the dark arts and a

New Age mystic God gay gay God priest will now disciple Christians on radical hospitality

We read the context of both that is Not an even slightly truthful statement, that's not what she was doing and it does not take the extension of but a

Little dropper worth of grace to recognize that what it takes is a barrel full of animus

To miss it That's the concern and I'm not sitting here going called it, but I called it.

I Was afraid of where that was gonna go. So My concern is

I get the feeling this isn't the only thing that's coming out But if you start with this kind of a foundation

It's sort of hard to hope for better in the future, but we can we'll try We you know just just having this makes me hope for better in the future for because there are many of you who are commenting about this and and Fred Fred I Fred I wish you could

I wish you could feel what this feels like but but you can't And the scary part is I'm not sure if I can take this to church because Luke has said he wants to feel it against His face.

I'm like, no, I'm not gonna let it happen my face. Yes. It's mine, but not

Luke Do you know what lambskin feels like And I really like how the the the

Tyndale house is laid out because it's it's it's just you know It's just like reading a book. See there's not not a whole lot of notes down there there's some there but but it's just like reading a book so it's it's paragraphed and and And it and the canonical order is the is different than what you're accustomed to.

So sometimes you have to look it around looking for Because there are manuscripts of different canonical orders in the in early church and so we've talked about the

Tyndale house before so Anyway, but yeah, this is this is staying here.

And so we'll get to wave it around for years Years in the future. Thank you Jeffrey for slipping that into your holiday schedule.

He did that while he was moving, too So I appreciate the appreciate that. So well Lord willing

You know what I forgot to wait a minute Yeah Should be same time on Thursday should be

I've got stuff in the morning, but I should not have a problem I'm doing a the Bob Dutko show tomorrow

So if you know who he is, I'll be live with him talking about the Forgotten Trinity And I think

I'm doing something in the third. Yes I'm doing gonna do something really interesting on the 13th Friday Friday the 13th.

Not that anybody cares about that Recording something Friday 13th. That's gonna make a lot of people

Sit up and listen big big big time So anyway, so should be regular time on the 12th

Lord willing and we're all still Walking upright because and one last thing speaking of walking upright

Tom Askel, dude. Stop this I've known

Tom long enough that I remember him getting struck by lightning Okay, and in fact

Tom and I went to Alaska together Only a few months after he was struck by lightning. He was still recovering from that So, would you knock this off you're not that much older than I am, okay,

I think he's five years old or nine I think he's 62 and Way too young for any of this stuff.

So we pray for a swift recovery and No more of this because you know

You just you're just not old enough for for this stuff, so We will continue to pray my the last

I heard was they're hoping to move him from ICU Haven't heard the final Prognosis that diagnosis

Most of us sitting to go and that sounds like a stroke to me or something similar to that But you know

That's just all of us sitting out here going well since that we haven't been told then we're guessing this this and this but we'll see

But it's encouraging what we've heard so far if you didn't hear Jared's Really interesting record at the hospital update about did you hear it?

You did not one of the things that that Tom's been talking about was the wildly cussing

EMT in the ambulance Didn't think that Tom could hear him

But it's just driving him nuts. And so finally Tom is able to sort of gasp out fear

God So the guy stopped Yeah, yeah, that's it

Maybe that was that helped heal Yeah But we continue to pray for brother

Askel and for everybody in the family And like I said Tom stop that just just that I have

Scottish bedside manner So don't don't expect much word. Would you knock it off get better?

That's that's sort of how we You know, it's it's sort of like Bravehearts, you know, oh your hands cut off. No big deal

Get back into the back of the fight. Yeah, put some dirt on it. It's fine That's the