Why I am “Toxic”
I often observe myself. Do you do that? I think as Christians, we are conscious of what we do and say. That might surprise some readers here as I know it seems like I throw caution to the wind. That’s because you don’t see the stuff I edit out: “No, better not say that—too harsh.” Hey, just stop it; I believe there is such a thing as harshness.
This self-observation leads me at times to question why I do what I do. In this case, my resolve to NOT “let it go and move on with life.” Folks, unless there is reconciliation, nobody “forgives and forgets.” That’s just a fallacy—anybody who works with victims knows this. Who are the ones that you are unreconciled with? The Bible has a name for them; “enemies,” this would seem fairly evident. Granted, the Bible tells us how to relate to this category of relationship in our lives, and it is different from that of “brother.” And true, to some degree, the Bible instructs us to have a thick skin in matters of little consequence. This is often an issue of spiritual maturity.
Let me further this point a little. The letter of 2Thessalonians addressed a specific problem in the home fellowships of that geography. Because of errant eschatology, brothers had become idle in everyday work. Paul said to “warn them,” but to continue to treat them as brothers and not “enemies.” In other words, those who are unreconciled. The point can be made here that Matthew 18 is not a one size fits all situations.
I was once invited to write an article for a theological journal. However, the editing committee rejected the article based on issues with me personally; i.e., he is “toxic.” I wasn’t offended; after all, it’s true. But why am I “toxic”? I have figured it out. I think I have always known, but have never brought it to the forefront of my mind and highlighted it. And I think it sets me apart, for better or worse, from most evangelicals.
Simply stated: ONE person, or ONE family, is NOT expendable for the sake of unity. Salvation is not in an institution, salvation is in love. Love and unity within the institution is an excuse not to love anyone in particular. One saint is not expendable for the betterment or preservation of the whole; that’s Plato, not Jesus Christ the Lord.
This is where Reformed theology, which I detest as I learn more and more about it, separates us from our Jewish roots. There is a Jewish proverb that states,
He who saves one life, saves the world.
That’s my heart in a nutshell. Why? Because if one life is expendable, the whole world is expendable. If the happiness of one person is expendable, the happiness of the whole world is expendable. If one marriage is expendable, every marriage is expendable. And be sure of this: if justice for one person is expendable, justice for the whole is expendable as well. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between Plato and Jesus Christ. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between The Republic and the Bible. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between St. Augustine and the Jewish philosophers.
And this is the fundamental reason that the Biblical counseling movement of our day cannot help anyone and will not help anyone. In the beginning it did until the motto, “We are just producing better Pharisees” put an end to the “first generation” of biblical counseling. Now all they are doing is making us better Reformed Platonists. People that think they are being helped are just learning to detach themselves from the “flesh realm,” or in other words, this present life in totality. Plato despised human existence. The contemporary Reformed mindset in this country is simply producing funerals where there isn’t a wet eye in the place. I was at one just weeks ago. It was truly a time warp to the Stoicism that always placates the Reformed and masquerades as spiritual superiority.
What is more obvious in the present-day biblical counseling culture that the one marriage, one family, and one lamb are expendable for the preservation of the 99 [institution]? They are fooling themselves. They are utterly self-deceived; if you don’t care about one marriage, you don’t really care about any marriage save maybe your own. If one human life is expendable, any human life is expendable. If you have a bag of diamonds, you care not just a little if you lose one.
This is why I am “toxic” to many in the biblical counseling movement. The leaders of that movement celebrate St. Augustine who was an avowed Platonist. I only regret that little ole’ me has limited means in toxicity.
And for you other discernment bloggers out there, perhaps this post is defining for you. It may not be about you as much as you thought; it may be more about the idea that if they disregarded your wellbeing, they don’t regard anyone’s wellbeing.
While the biblical counseling movement claims to be the vanguards of the gospel, they know nothing of it. They peddle Calvin’s gospel of perpetual repentance for the maintaining of salvation that can only be found in the institutional church invented by St. Augustine. Hence, anyone that hinders the institution by demanding justice should not only be disregarded, but executed. Supposedly, the souls of “the group” depend on it. The souls of the “missional community.” While they hide this fact in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers, the biblical counseling community’s association with the likes of James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are well known. These are men who speak fondly of contemporary Hindu Juggernauts that you are either on or getting run over by, and human catapults. Their only punishment is to be silently ostracized by those who share their sacred ideology.
That’s not love, that’s not speaking up for what’s right, and it’s not the gospel.
paul
The James MacDonald White Paper: “MacDonald’s State of Mind”; Post 6 of 20
“And the results? Consider the following quote by ‘Pastor’ James MacDonald:”
Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).
This is a post I wrote this morning, and I think it is very applicable to the folks at Harvest Bible Chapel:
I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:
Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.
Typhoid fever — disease
Spring fever — not a disease
Scarlet fever — disease
Bieber fever — not a disease
Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.
I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.
Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.
Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.
I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.
Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot. Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.
The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture. If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.
Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.
paul
*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.
And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:
“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source, http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).
MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).
NOTE FILE SHARING WIDGET FOR THIS SERIES ON BOTTOM RIGHT SIDE PANEL
Some Clarification on Adams’ Assertion That the Mind Cannot be Sick
I have received some significant pushback for posting the following quote by Jay Adams:
Correction: The quotation is from Donn Arms, an associate of Jay Adams at the Institute for Nouthetic Studies (INS).
Folks let’s get this straight. The mind is not a physical organ. It cannot have a disease or illness except in a metaphorical sense as in a sick economy or a sick joke.
Typhoid fever — disease
Spring fever — not a disease
Scarlet fever — disease
Bieber fever — not a disease
Most of the pushback pertains to a rejection of the idea that the brain is not an organ, but Adams isn’t saying that the brain isn’t an organ; he is saying that the mind isn’t an organ.
I haven’t done a lot of study in this area, but I have done enough to know that some solid conclusions can be drawn from such a study because the Bible, as well as medical professionals make a distinction between the mind and the brain.
Everyone agrees that the mind, unlike the brain, is not observable; hence, the field of Psychology. This is a whole different matter than brain malfunctions that are physical. The fact that there are at least 200 different Psychology theories should speak to the fact that this enters into the realm of theory. One may also note that the most popular theory, Freudian Depth Psychology, perceives the human conscience in a very negative way. And that is very dangerous.
Here we have yet another area of wisdom where Christians are far too ignorant. It is also another fusion debate; in this case, the fusion of medical science and psychology. In other words, the fusion of science and theory. Psychology is mostly theory; psychologists barely agree on anything.
I am not going to preach out of school here, but Christians need to think carefully in regard to the idea that the mind can be sick. Certainly, the mind can be hindered by the brain, but is the mind susceptible to sickness like physical organs? Can the mind catch a cold? The reason we need to think carefully about this is because the Bible explains the mind as that part of the Christian that is redeemed.
Not only is this an area that is biblically defined with many dots that can be connected, it is a paramount consideration with vast implications for the Christian. Another huge elephant in the sanctuary is whether or not the Christian mind is actually redeemed. Our Protestant fathers said, “no.” 90% of all biblical counseling in our day is predicated on the idea that the mind cannot be renewed. Therefore, actions that please God cannot flow from the inner self to outward action.* Many pastors, while not understanding these trends and issues, attempt to counsel parishioners from a contrary mindset. The pastor speaks, and the parishioner hears something totally different because of indoctrination by parachurch organizations like NANC and CCEF with secular psychology as science to boot. Any pastor who doesn’t deem these issues worthy of focus and understanding is functioning in ineptness.
The Bible in fact states that the “mind” of the Christian is regenerated and is the engine behind new creaturehood. Christians are promised that with proper cooperation with the Holy Spirit, the mind can be “renewed.” This is not only a biblical promise; we are commanded to renew our minds with the study and application of Scripture. If the medical model regarding the mind is true, all bets are off—every vestige of spiritual growth is now ambiguous. And look at the contemporary church if you want to see the results of biblical ambiguity.
Christians error woefully by letting the theories of “experts” inform their lives on this issue. And the church owes Adams an immense debt of gratitude for bringing this issue to the forefront.
paul
*The fundamental thesis is that faith can only look outward to goodness outside of us, resulting in experiencing the obedience of Christ imputed to us while not being a participant in goodness that pleases God. This formula enables the Christian to live by faith alone—the same faith that saved us. So, faith is like an eye, it can only look outward to what isn’t inside of us. Any inward look is the dreaded, “existentialism” that is the unpardonable sin in our day.
And the results? Consider the following quote by “Pastor” James MacDonald:
“Why spend your life doing something neither required by the Lord, nor welcomed by others? Frankly, I gave up the job a while back, but felt constrained to make my decision known to all who read this blog. Don’t be disappointed if you don’t see me at my post, I am really done this time. Yes, for me it’s over. No more fixing people—I resign ” (James MacDonald: My Resignation; April 30, 2013, The Vertical Church blog. Online source, http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/my-resignation/).
MacDonald then goes on to explain, in essence, that it is his job to primarily show forth more Jesus, and as folks gaze on that, Christ will either change them or not change them according to His sovereign will. Like the vast majority of pastors in our day, MacDonald has merely returned to Luther’s radical construct that often brought the charge of antinomianism from his contemporaries (Martin Luther wrote down the following disturbing sentence in one of his letters to Melancthon in 1521: “Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ more strongly, who triumphed over sin, death, and the world; as long as we live here, we must sin.”).
Repost: Crowns Lexington Concert; Mark Hall Sends Mixed Messages About Truth
Oct. 23, 2011
Susan and I just returned to our home in Xenia, Ohio from a weekend getaway to attend the Casting Crowns concert in Lexington, Kentucky. We have both attended their concerts on multiple occasions (a total of eight between us). My prior reviews have been 100% positive.
The concert was part of a 40-city tour with three other acts: Sanctus Real, The Afters, and upstart Lindsay McCaul. Among the warm-ups, I enjoyed McCaul most who was indicative of the sincere humbleness that embodies those who can’t believe where God has brought them. Besides that, she is mega-talented—I will definitely buy her CD. Sanctus Real and the Afters employed worldly openers that were a real turn-off; the lead singers opened by mingling among the crowd with a wireless microphone. Gag. It’s kinda like, “Look at me, I’m a big star willing to mingle among the common folks. Or, “I think I will give the peasantry a thrill by actually walking among them.” Could my reaction be biased because this concept was started by God- rejecting rock stars? Probably. Moreover, I think these acts have too much separation in talent; McCaul seemed to be a perfect fit while the other two pale in comparison to the Crowns’ phenomenal song writing ability. However, I get the idea from this concert that Crowns lead singer and song writer Mark Hall would say that Jesus writes all their songs for them. Maybe the other two bands need to start letting Jesus write for them more than they do.
That bit of sarcasm brings me to the theme of this review. Christianity needs to start being honest about the silent debate going on and the importance of truth in general. Is the new birth part of the gospel or not? And if it is—is the new birth a mere display of what Jesus does, or are we working also? And don’t give me that separation of music and preaching load. These concerts impart spiritual ideas through music, and in a very strong way. In our day, how many pastors who are responsible before Christ for the souls of His sheep critique the contemporary music their parishioners listen to? They don’t, probably because of something like Hall proclaimed during the concert: “[paraphrase] the world needs to hear more about how we are just train wrecks receiving mercy than what we are against.” Oh really? First, the apostles did not describe Christians as anything like “train wrecks” and they had plenty to say about what they were against. In fact, of the seven letters Christ wrote to the churches named in Revelation, He was against things going on in six of the seven churches. I also have some news for Hall: Christians couldn’t be that hypercritical if one of the most popular Christian songs of our day is the blasphemous “More Like Falling in Love” by Jason Gray which is nothing more than an antinomian anthem.
Today’s Christianity is saturated with Gospel Contemplationism as a primary means of spiritual growth. Let go, focus on the gospel, and let God. The so-called new birth just refers to the new obedience produced in us by Christ as we contemplate the gospel. We don’t participate and colabor as born again new creatures—we are the prepositions in the gospel narrative, and verbs like “obey” are truly four-letter words because they imply participation on our part. And how do we know if Christ is obeying for us, or if we are trying to obey “in our own efforts and talents”? Well, as Jason Gray says, it will feel like love. Likewise, in a book that is all the rage in Christian circles, Francis Chan tells us that when we are working in our Christian walk, “it feels like work,” but when we are loving, “it feels like love” (Crazy Love p. 110). Do we really want to be teaching Christians that biblical love is validated by good feelings? And is Mark Hall any different? I wonder. In his new song, “The Well” he states: “And now that you’re full of love beyond measure, your joy’s gonna flow like a stream in the desert.” Hall wrote the lyrics with Matthew West who also wrote the song, “Strong Enough” which implies that Christ doesn’t work through us until we give up: “I know I’m not strong enough to be everything that I’m supposed to be, I give up, I’m not strong enough.”
Though Casting Crowns’ lyrics are far more substantive than the vast majority of Christian songs heard today, they seem to be playing both sides of the fence. While “Courageous,” the song they opened with, presents a robust participation by Christians in the sanctification process, other songs by them are indicative of the let go and let Godtheology that saturates contemporary Christianity. Implied in other lyrics by Casting Crowns (and comments by Hall at the concert) is the idea that the only difference between the regenerate and unregenerate is that believers are privy to how helpless we are in being anything, or doing anything for God.
Therefore, if that’s the route they want to take, and in regard to truth in general, let me suggest where their concert planning could use more Jesus in two particular areas. In all three concerts I attended, Hall makes light of the fact that he has (if you believe it’s a valid label) Attention Deficit Disorder. ADD is far from being a laughing matter. Besides the fact many doctors think it’s a fraud, Christian doctor Larraine Day states the following:
“Attention Deficit Disorder and Ritalin have become almost synonymous. Up to 90% of children who are first diagnosed with ADD receive a prescription for Ritalin. At least a dozen other drugs are prescribed for these symptoms as well. There has been a 500% increase in the use of Ritalin alone since 1991.”
And:
“The adverse reactions (side effects) for Ritalin include nervousness, insomnia, joint pains, fever, anorexia, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, headache, dyskinesia, drowsiness, increased blood pressure and pulse, rapid heart rate, angina, cardiac arrhythmias, abdominal pain, actual psychosis. And there is a major warning in the Physician’s Desk Reference regarding drug dependency.”
And:
“The Physicians’ Desk Reference of Drug Side Effects notes that, regarding the pharmacology of Ritalin: “The mode of action in man is not completely understood.” And this is what you’re giving your child! The pharmaceutical manufacturers admit that they don’t even know how it works. They’re just experimenting — on your child!”
And:
“Does the public school system have the right to force parents to accept the drugging of their child? They do in America. But the drug’s side effects, according to vocal opponents of Ritalin, include: zombie-like behavior, growth suppression, behavior or thought disorders (exactly what it is supposed to treat) seizures; headaches, blurred vision, scalp hair loss, barking like a dog and babbling profanities. It can also result in mood swings, depression, drug dependence and inclination for criminal activity.”
And:
“Ritalin has effects similar to other stimulants including amphetamine, methamphetamine and cocaine. There are 6 million prescriptions for Ritalin filled annually. The U.S. pharmacists distribute five times more Ritalin than the rest of the world combined. No other nation prescribes stimulants for its children in such volume. In fact, the United Nations International Narcotics Control Board has on two recent occasions written to U.S. officials expressing concern about the sixfold increase in Ritalin usage since 1990.”
And:
“The American Psychiatric Association describes a hyperactive child – the target child for this drug–as follows:
‘One who exhibits behavior such as fidgeting, squirming, answering questions before being called on, difficulty playing quietly, engaging in physically dangerous activities such as running into the street without looking, or one who has difficulty following instructions.’ That sounds like a normal kid to me!”
Hall needs to stop giving credibility to ADD because medical doctors disagree on its validity and Hall is not a doctor, and at the very least—he needs to stop making light of it.
Secondly, regarding the practice of having an artist create an image of Christ during a song, what part of Exodus 20:4 does Hall not understand? And exactly how does such an image edify? What is that image intended to invoke in the minds of the audience? What’s the purpose?
I see a progression in the Casting Crowns concerts. More confusion with each concert. Is it let go and let God, or the able and courageous Christians presented in the movie that they wrote the theme song for? Truth is both negative and positive. Both have been stated here as I see it. When Christians go to a concert they should interpret what’s being taken in, and what’s being taken in is either truth or not truth. 2 Corinthians 10:5 will be taken seriously or not taken seriously. Taking every thought and opinion captive and bringing it into submission to Christ does not stop at a concert. With all the talk about Jesus at these events, His wish to have every thought brought into submission to His truth seems to be last on the list.
Frankly, that’s all I care about, and I will not be dissuaded by good music, and Hall does write some great music, but truth is waaaaaay more important.
paul
3 comments