Blind Leading the Blind: Frank Wright's Criticism of Evangelicals

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/biblical-infidelity-in-top-evangelical-institutions-leaders.html

I repeatedly tried to comment on this article but the so-called Christian Post seems to have blocked me. Anyway I post the response here and then will add some further comments below:

Well, I might agree that heresy is running rampant in the Church today, but I find it a little rich coming from someone who has tied himself to the legacy of D James Kennedy - the compromiser with TBN and one of the bringers of the Dominionist heresy to the Charismatic Movement. Most Kennedy sermons I've heard start with 'The Founding Fathers' or 'Capitalism' or 'Socialism'.... the man never preached the Bible. He preached Christo-Americanism and Dominion Theology which are in fact heresies - and from the sounds of it, Wright is continuing the legacy.

Andy Stanley is hardly a heavyweight but at the same time (not to defend him) I could say -well, I guess the apostles in Acts 15 blew it when they  more or less dismissed the Mosaic Law and seemingly had no interest in imposing it on the Gentile world. I guess they were least in the Kingdom according to Wright's read of Matthew 5. Fulfillment is not the same as mere dismissal.

The truth is the issue of the Law is a little more complicated than the simplistic critique offered by Wright. And while there are forms of antinomianism running rampant in the Church today, Judaizing Dominionism presents just as much of a problem.

And now to expand on this comment and to address and interact with some of Wright's other concerns:

First, I would consider the question of Chick-Fil-A. The notion that this company represents Biblical values to begin with is absurd. Run by a billionaire who enriches himself by means of usury and by investing his money in the financial machine of the US Empire – the discussion is over. We could further talk about the fact that the company does not pay wages commensurate with a Christian man supporting a family. I am of course not speaking of the middle class lifestyle which the Evangelical world so cherishes but rather enough to survive on a minimalist basis.

Has the company compromised? It did from the beginning.

The National Association of Evangelicals has always been about compromise – it's been a vehicle for a big tent approach to Christianity in the name of influencing culture. To no one's surprise (except perhaps Wright) the culture has won and has instead transformed Evangelicals. Seeking relevance in the world, the Church finds itself in a labyrinth which is in fact a trap. But for a D James Kennedy-ite to criticise the NAE – and to utilise the very insidious Heritage Foundation to make the case – is frankly as Biblically compromised and offensive as are the proposals of the NAE.

Likewise the Southern Baptist Convention is reaping the harvest of both its heritage and (ironically) the Dominionist reorientation the denomination took more than three decades ago. Once again, the obsession with cultural transformation leads to accommodation. Francis Schaeffer laboured this point in 1984 and yet (like the Right-oriented leaders of the SBC) was blind to the fact that his efforts – had led to that very accommodation.

While it's right to lament to the political correctness and the infiltration of identity politics – where's the lamentation regarding the open and overwhelming embrace of Donald Trump? Is this not a tragedy? The earlier generation of Evangelical leaders would have thought so. The embrace of Trump was the repudiation of the moral character argument the Christian Right was so determined to promulgate. That the message has been abandoned for raw politics should certainly concern Wright – but we don't hear it. And given that the few lone voices of dissent like the already compromised Albert Mohler have now thrown in with Trump – we're hardly surprised.

With regard to the PCA, the denomination has always been plagued by confusion. Ostensibly Confessional, the denomination in reality is fairly well dominated by what could be called an Evangelical spirit and while some in the denomination have moved over to the social and political Right – there have been other forces at work in the denomination for more than twenty years – in reality since its 1973 inception. The obsession with cultural transformation, Right-wing politics and in some cases Confederate heritage which characterises the PCA was bound to produce a backlash – but one largely based on the same 'culturally relevant' assumptions. And that's the irony. D James Kennedy didn't preach the Bible, he was a culture salesman. His moorings were not Biblical and so to it's no surprise that others within his denomination have repackaged the message and like Kennedy have chosen to selectively utilise passages of Scripture to their own end.

Yes, the PCA has a problem. They've got sodomites in the fold and the conservatives are starting to jump ship. As denominations are unbiblical to begin with my concerns over this are minimal. It could like the OPC try to impose a strict Confessionalist form but this is likely to fail. Well do I recall my time in the PCA more than twenty years ago when Confessional Subscription was one of the pressing issues of the moment. Few could seem to agree on what it meant or how far to take it. Because the truth of the matter was that almost everyone had some issue at some point – and the American Revision of the Westminster Confession, the lingering debates over Theonomy and the 1990's Worship Wars only amplified the dissent and the dissonance.

Obviously Wright is a fan of president Trump and this explains his frustration with Christianity Today. While the magazine has indeed moved in the direction of theological liberalism and was flawed from its very inception – the truth is that the Evangelical movement of the 1950's-2000's would have been hostile to the likes of Trump. Is Wright so unreflective to have missed the profound shift that took place during the Obama years and with the rise of personages like Sarah Palin? Has he missed the Libertarian swing within the Christian Right – the abandonment of Social Conservatism and the embrace of rank individualistic Right-wing politics?

As Mohler admitted – to embrace Trump would require him to apologise to Bill Clinton. Because the focus in the 1990's was on character and thus Bill Clinton was considered unfit to lead a 'Christian Nation'. Trump is at least equally unfit in terms of moral character – if not more degenerate than Bill Clinton. Though the sycophants and court chroniclers try to dress up Trump and portray him as something decent – the truth remains – he is an obscene charlatan and criminal and despite the bones he throws to his Evangelical allies his every proclivity and intuition militates against the Gospel and Christian values.

And so as bad as Christianity Today is – their resistance to Trump is actually in keeping with the values that were in place when the magazine was founded.

Additionally the ugliness of the Obama era – that is the ugliness that appeared in Evangelical circles and the subsequent embrace of Trump has certainly fostered a reaction among some Evangelicals. Again, with the culture in mind they have reacted to this shift and have both clung to traditional moral character stands as well as entertained some of the categories and narratives of the Left. It would seem one camp has moved more to the centre while the other has moved to the Far-Right and has embraced and rekindled much of the rhetoric of the John Birch Society. And in keeping with that once out-of-bounds ethos, those on the Far Right label anything that's to the Left of them as 'Marxist'.

This is further confused by the fusion of Evangelical thought with Classical Liberalism and the American narrative – ideas that are also un-Christian and incompatible with the New Testament. These discussions and categories have ranged so far afield that it's hard to know where to begin but while Christianity Today is certainly building a house on a less-than-Christian foundation, Mr. Wright has little to say to them as the same cancers also riddle his thought.

Andy Stanley is the pastor of a mega-church. His ecclesiology is not rooted in the Scriptures and basically he's not a person that I take seriously. I say this acknowledging the sad reality that his following is massive.

I also acknowledge that Stanley like most Evangelicals preaches a sub-Biblical gospel of cheap grace and a truncated notion of saving faith. Something called Evangelism Explosion also comes to mind at this point.

That said, the Dominionist project is predicated on a Judaized reading of the New Testament – reading the New Testament in light of the Old. Their project finds no place in New Testament doctrine and so they have cherry-picked sections of the Old Testament that fit their requirements – to philosophically flesh out a legal and social theory for the project of Christianisation. If Stanley is an antinomian then Wright and his ilk are certainly guilty of Judaizing.

No one would suggest that lying, stealing and the like are sinful behaviour. Indeed these sins were still sins long before the Decalogue was given at Sinai and certainly still are even though the Old Covenant (which includes the Decalogue) have been removed. The substance remains but the form has certainly changed as the New Testament makes clear. Christ has fulfilled the law and as such it is removed and annulled. The Ten Commandments (in that form) were never meant for the nations. They belonged to the Hebrews. They were a covenant document and if anything the New Testament standards are much higher although (as might be expected) they have changed somewhat in form.

The project of putting the Decalogue on public buildings is not just misguided but it actually constitutes a covenant error – it attempts to covenantalise nations and entities which are not in covenant with God and thus confuses the holy and profane.

As far as quoting Matthew 5 – this is ironic as there are many more portions of the Sermon on the Mount that I'm sure Wright would labour to explain away. For example instead of turning the other cheek or acquiescing to one suing you in the courts – Wright apparently believes Christian ethics requires him to file lawsuits and call on the state to use its sword to give his corrupt organisation the justice it desires.*

However, we can simply say this – then apparently the apostles were least in the Kingdom. One wishes Wright would have included v.19 because based on his (obviously mistaken) reading, the apostles were guilty of this very sin in Acts 15 when they said Gentiles were not required to keep the law and laid out only four basic requirements. I guess the apostles were antinomians too.

Indeed, the nations surrounding Israel were not required to keep the Mosaic Law and were never called out for failing to do so by the prophets. That law was covenantal – a concept Wright and other Dominionists cannot understand because they have embraced a holistic epistemology and hermeneutic requiring all commandments to be universal in scope – otherwise their Dominionist project collapses.

Wright is certainly correct in being concerned about the state of the Evangelical world. There are many ominous developments and tales of apostasy and other grievous defections. But sadly Mr. Wright – thou art the man. You, in the footsteps of that charlatan, the late D James Kennedy are labouring to compromise and ultimately destroy the Kingdom of Christ. You too are a false prophet and the fact that you call out other false teachers and bear a grudge toward those who don't fully embrace your specific programme in no way alleviates or lessens your guilt and culpability in leading Christ's flock astray. You have taken the New Testament and turned it on its head and would teach people to worship an idol – the false god Christo-America. It's a Tower of Babel crowned with a cross of Gold. You teach a syncretistic theology – a Judaized Gospel combined with Classical Liberalism and a tortured myth-narrative which glorifies the West, the American Empire and its multitude of wars, thefts and other evils. You have abandoned Scriptural ethics and instead teach mammon worship and a Kingdom built through violence and war.

You are an Evangelical leader who is Biblically unfaithful.

----

*I guess it's understandable. I mean when you make $232,000 a year for your ministry – a mere $19,000 a month – I guess you've got some turf to protect. Of course this doesn't even begin to cover the magnitude of this swindler's compensation as I'm sure he utilises the ministry in many ways to pay his bills and support his lifestyle. Well, he could argue that his 'ministry' has almost $2 million tied up in the markets – he had better protect that. 'Stewardship' demands it. No compromise here. No confusion of the world and the Church when it comes to these ministries is there?

What a disgrace, but then again he's par for the course when it comes to celebrity Evangelical leaders. They're a corrupt lot of Balaam's to be sure.