Pornography in the Church
June 14, 2008 | 42 Comments
6/14/08: Pornography in the Church
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Category:
Church
Comments
42 Responses to “Pornography in the Church”
Leave a Reply
Listen Live 2-4
E-Newsletter Signup
Ask Dr. Brown
Subscribe to the Podcast
Station List
June 14th, 2008 @ 11:21 am
Tomorrow is Father’s Day, but we must realize that the fathers in our churches — in reality, all men in our churches — are under unprecedented attack. The fact is that pornopgraphy is rampant in the Church, to the point that even women are becoming enslaved to it. Never before in world history has so much sexual pollution been available on such a large scale, and for the most, the Church of America is not fairing well. How should we respond?
June 15th, 2008 @ 11:54 am
Didn’t listen to the radio broadcast but here are some thoughts…
I visited IHOP Kansas City a couple of months ago and happened to be there a Sunday when Mike Bickle released a commitment that he was expecting the community to commit to.
He said that literally everyone in the congregation, (whether you were an old lady who didn’t know how to use the internet, or just someone who has no struggle whatsoever in that area), everyone had to purchase strict accountability software to put on their computer.
There were 6 other radical guidelines on there that the community had to commit to as well, to do with accountability and submission to the church.
It was a very strong command, and the impression that I got was “To the extent that you want to be part of IHOP you have to commit to this”, some may think laying such restrictions on a community has the danger of turning to legalism with time if the Spirit isn’t backing it, and I’m not suggesting that it would work in all churches everywhere, however maybe such a strong stance is the only way to combat such a growing evil and temptation?
June 15th, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Jordan,
Are these the commitments? (From http://www.fotb.com/Publisher/File.aspx?id=1000006814)
A. Commitment #1: I commit to refuse to participate in conversations that promote or joke about immorality. If I do speak in this way, I will confess to those I was conversing with that I sinned.
B. Commitment #2: I commit to confess to the same trusted friend (who embraces this covenant) each time I view pornography or have any sexual contact with someone (not my spouse).
C. Commitment #3: I commit to register with the technology of choice that promotes the wisdom and safety of accountability whether or not I struggle with pornography. Accountability Software: These programs track your internet activity and send an email to the accountability partner that you choose. If you uninstall the software it triggers a report to your partner. See http://www.covenanteyes.com ($2.50 per month); http://www.x3watch.com (Free); http://www.integrity.com (free); http://www.accountable2you.com (free). Web Filtering Software: Programs that block sexual content including pornography, gambling, violence: http://www.integrity.com ($49.95); http://www.bsafehome.com ($49.95); http://www.intego.com (For Mac’s); http://www.cyberpatrol.com (39.95).
D. Commitment #4: I commit to hold any confession of my friend’s failure in strict confidentiality. If I do speak it to another then I commit to tell it to the one who confessed their sin to me. The one who breaks confidence should confess also to the one to whom he broke the confidence.
E. Commitment #5: If I “repeatedly” stumble in immorality, I will show the fruit of repentance by going with my friend to confess to the leadership and then accept the boundaries they give me.
F. Commitment #6: I commit to share with the leadership if my friend “repeatedly” stumbles in immorality. I will first tell my friend before sharing with a leader to convince him to go with me.
15 If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 If he will not hear, take with you one or two more…17 If he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. (Mt. 18:15-17)
G. Commitment #7: For leaders: I commit to follow the process of bringing those who ‘continue’ in immorality to the appropriate level of “discipline” instead of offering them “unsanctified mercy”.
20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all… (1 Tim 5:20, NAS)
H. We will not bring public shame to anyone who repents. We hope to never expose one’s sin publicly. There are many levels of discipline that do not require personal exposure.
June 15th, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
Wow… Marcus we must have posted close in time together because I did not see your posting when I posted mine… so please delete my post.
June 15th, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
Asha,
Done. What did you think of the commitments? Too controlling? Or a breath of fresh air to take things so seriously?
June 15th, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
I don’t really know what to think about those comments. I can see pros and cons. It seems like things either in the church swing to the legalism extreme or the “laissez-faire” lax extreme and it’s hard to know how to find balance.
I don’t think I would go so far to require people to install software on their computer, but again I understand why he said it.
I think what it really comes down to is that when we have 100s or 1000s of people in a ministry or church and there is not *real relational* accountability widely established, then it seems the only thing that is left is to put forth blanket requirements to “catch as many folks” as possible.
Also, the church has exalted sexual sin to such a horrific status… there is so much shame attached to it but not other sins (e.g. bad temper, pride, jealousy, etc.) that the culture of shame is a root to why sexual sin is so pervasive. We can’t even talk about sex it seems like without being made to feel dirty. We need to talk candidly and not make sexual sin THE worst sin you can commit. My point is that if we don’t deal with the root of the church’s culture of shame regarding sexual sin and our lack of natural, real relationships with other brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers… we will resort to things like the above rules.
The “rules” didn’t work with the Law back in the OT… I don’t think it will work long-term now. (I guess I got more clarity as I typed.) Again, I understand why Bickle felt the urgency to do something like that, but I just think their our deeper issues that need to be considered.
June 17th, 2008 @ 10:34 am
I didn’t read anything in that list of commitments that sounded like it crossed the line. Usually everything I hear about FOTB and Mike Biclkle is always negative, but this sounds like he is taking a radical stand for righteousness and really making an effort to come against a problem that grieves the heart of God.
-Daniel
June 17th, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
Is this radically righteous, or radically controlling in the name of righteousness? I got a good idea, how about we stick microphones and video cameras in everyone’s house so that we can all be held accountable for what we say and do in private so that we can be sure to curb what grieves the heart of God. Look, if someone wants to willingly be accountable in that way, that’s good, but an imposed accountability from the top down?… that precedence and abuse that came out of it has already come and gone in the church, the so called “shepherding movement”, and confession to a priest. ect.
Is righteousness a good thing? Absolutely… How about accountability? Yes! But if it is by means other than writing the Word of God on the hearts of God’s people by the anointing, then we are relying on other means to produce a result, and this reliance on other means will quickly prove to be destructive. controlling someone’s will, even for a right purpose, is an unjustified means… and it astounds me that Christian people can look at a situation like this with a nod of approval; such control is worse than porn.
It’s a good thing for you to willingly make personal sacrifices, and provide for a local widow or send bibles to China, but it would be theft for me to take money from you for those purposes. In the final analysis, God would not be glorified by giving that is rooted in theft; and God will not be glorified in a (form of) righteousness or accountability that is rooted in the usurpation of someone’s free will.
June 18th, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Hey folks,
This is a ministry that has been very effective in helping many people become free from sexual sin. http://www.purelifeministries.org/
At FIRE, the leaders have made themselves accountable to one another and/or their spouses or others in using internet software that would report the visiting of any sexual sites, and I have challenged others outside of FIRE to do the same. Really now, why wouldn’t godly people want to have a safeguard like this on their computers? Do we have anything to hide?
June 18th, 2008 @ 9:50 am
Shouldn’t our desire to be accountable to someone or install software on our computer be voluntary?
June 18th, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
I did not mean to make the above post anonymously. I thought my name was on there automatically. I don’t disagree with having the software, or the principles in the commitment above; I do disagree strongly with the way it’s being carried out.
“Really now, why wouldn’t godly people want to have a safeguard like this on their computers? Do we have anything to hide?”
Not hiding, Mike. I have confessed to my wife when I have had struggles with lust from early on in our marriage, and have had accountable relationships with other men as well. Just concerned that this will set precedence in other ways in other ministries. Look, I still hear from people who have been trampled by the “shepherding movement’s” misemphasis
Are we going to make a litmus test or out of this? Sunday attendance? Check. Pay your tithe? Check! Porn accountability software? Check. Good job, you’re in. All the meanwhile someone who wants to can have a second computer in the house with out the software, they can go to a local store and get pornography, I mean they can jump through this accountability hoop, have the right appearance and still love what God hates. All these things in the absence of authentic face to face fellowship.
I think it’s a hideous monster rearing its head when ministry tries to do things like this, not by persuading free will, but by intimidation and subtle threats of rejection.
“released a commitment that he was expecting the community to commit to… He said that literally everyone in the congregation, (whether you were an old lady who didn’t know how to use the internet, or just someone who has no struggle whatsoever in that area), everyone had to purchase strict accountability software to put on their computer.” and “It was a very strong command, and the impression that I got was “To the extent that you want to be part of IHOP you have to commit to this”
I think we all consent to the end, but my issue is do you consent to the means? Is it OK with you?
June 20th, 2008 @ 10:33 am
I believe the best way to conquer sexual sin is to analyze it a bit more, it approaches us all from different angles but it affects us in the same way. For most, it is self worth; that’s how it begins. Vanity has a strong presence in our lives, you see this in your life as a direct reflection from the way the that our society emphasizes it. But do not blame society, for you allow yourself to be consumed by it. It is your choice. The way it gets you, is self worth, “I hope this chick checks me out, that way I will feel good about the way I look and know that I am still attractive.” So innocent right? But you have to consider the end result, where might this lead you? Let’s say you are bold enough to strike up a conversation with her, still innocent? Sure, that is what you want to believe. But then you want to know for sure that she is attracted to you physically, so you ask her questions, you probe. You want to know more. Why do you want to know more? There is a thrill, a new relationship sparks, new uncharted territory to be examined.
Why don’t you just let it go, she is really not that interesting, and come to think of it, she is really not that attractive….but she thinks you are attractive. That is when the impure thoughts decide to pop in your mind. It’s still safe, you are not touching her, nor does she touch you. That is the mentallity that most people take, deceive yourself, and it works. At that point, lines are blurred, lines are crossed. Ultimately you find yourself caught up in a situation that you really never wanted to be in the first place. All because you did not consider how far down you would allow yourself to sink.
You have to make a conscious decision to not seek out physical reassurances. Your whole life is made up of choices, further, your whole day is made up of choices. You choose to fall for this girl just as you choose to get up in the morning to go to work. That is why I do not sympathize with people that get caught up in drugs or sex or whatever. I will empathize with them, “Oh I am sorry this happened to you.” But you chose that, you chose to become addicted to this sin or that sin. That is why I believe that it is a choice to be homosexual, just as it is a choice to be straight. One of them is the right choice, the other is not. It’s a choice to be anti-semetic. I don’t feel sorry for those people. I don’t say, Oh the devil made them see Jews as such. No, I say you listened to some propaganda and you chose to believe it. Just the same with replacement theology, you chose to believe that too.
The main theme of your life, boils down to two things, barah (choice) and aharit (or the “ah ha” moment). That is why Hashem gave us freewill; so that we could learn how to use these tools and apply them to our daily lives. Consider the aharit of eating too much that you became overweight, the barah was when you decided to eat all those twinkies. Same principle when it comes to Sexual Sin.
Thanks
June 23rd, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Hello,
I wanted to share that we recently installed software to use filtered internet. I work in web development so the computer is an essential part of my every day life. I’ve tried accountability software and I’ve tried filtering software, but this is definitely the best solution for us.
It will log every website we go to and notify my wife of the top sites which are blocked, so we kind of get the benefits that accountability software provides.
At the same time, it doesn’t allow access to blocked sites so you can’t stumble and go places you shouldn’t go. This is something I strongly prefer over accountability software and which is similar to filtering software.
I like filtered internet better than filtering software, however, because it means that I can’t really disable it the same way. A lot of my experience with filtering software either handicaps the performance of your computer, is easy to disable and uninstall, doesn’t do as good of a job of filtering bad content, or a combination of all of these.
I’m sure there’s other filtering services out there but a friend recommended Christian Net Online to us, at cnonline.net. I’m not selling it and I don’t work for the company, but I’ve felt so freed by it I really felt urged to share about it. Having the filter really makes the internet less of a worry.
Oh, and one other thing … I came across a URL filter the other day that’s been working very well for me. It filters out content on the websites I go to so that I don’t get ads. A lot of times, even common sites like Hotmail or Facebook can have very bad ads on them. The filter has also helped improve our internet experience. For Opera I use the list posted at: http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/opera/, but I think they have a filter available that works with Firefox if you go to: abp:subscribe?location=http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/fanboy-adblocklist-current-expanded.txt&title=fanboy-adblock
I hope these tools help someone. I think that this is a huge issue in the church and believe that Jesus can and does make us free. I love people who say that there is victory in Jesus and that the fight for purity is extreme but not impossible in Christ who gives us power to do all things through Him. We men of the church need to regain honor in this.
June 23rd, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Oh, and I think Mike Bickle has good sense in recommending software on the computer. It’s like having a giant gateway without any kind of guard rail or restraint. Certainly no outward sign will ever guarantee purity of heart, but I think that outward standards can be very good for helping us pursue the lifestyle we’re supposed to have.
I went to a ministry program that had very strict standards on computer use, dating, speech, dress and other things that some people got very angry about. I didn’t even realize at the time that I began going how much music, television and other things I was involved with had truly affected me.
Once these standards took their toll, and I embraced them with a good heart, they really made good changes in me. In fact, that year I spent at that program changed my life completely.
If I was a pastor I would encourage everyone to have some kind of filter on their internet, just as I would encourage them to not allow their television to have channels they have no business watching. I don’t think there’s anything wrong or invasive about that. It just seems like good common sense to me.
Why not have a guard rail? I absolutely agree with Dr. Brown when he asked “Do we have anything to hide?”
June 25th, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
J Granick,
The oral traditions which eventually made the Word of God of none effect were originally guard rails to prevent the people from sinning, incurring God’s wrath and going back into captivity… ironically, it led them into another type of captivity.
Why is there automatically a suspicion cast when someone doesn’t consent to this, ie, “Do we have something to hide?” It’s because it’s already being made the litmus test for defining who is godly and who is not. They did the same thing to Jesus when he healed on the sabbath, not violating the sabbath itself, but their guard rail for keeping the sabbath. I prefer authentic face to face accountability where not only pornography comes into account but also other issues like are you really loving your wife?, are you entertaining greed?, or gluttony?, or how about a lack of just being real? Maybe you drive the car you do more out to of the pride of life than out of true necessity?? See, there is not a program or a man made guard rail out there for that, but there is biblical provision of exhorting one another daily, which provision keeps us from being hardened by sin. See Hebrews 3:12-13, and 10:24-26 with this in mind, it is the context of exhorting one another that prevents sinning willfully.
Think about it, on the coattails of the second great awakening was the temperance movement which in an effort to fight against alcoholism made alcohol itself the evil; even to the point where they twisted scripture to believe that Jesus turned water into Welch’s grape juice, and the belief is still strongly in much of the church that to even have a bottle of wine in your house is sin and a cause for stumbling. I don’t drink either by the way, other than a sip of wine with communion.
I think you were terribly mistaken in saying that the man “has good sense in recommending the software.” He did not recommend anything, he commanded it. I know the not so Irish Nick O’Laitan would not agree with me, but doesn’t that begin to fly in the face of the Lord’s words here “but you shall not be so”, and, “But it shall not be so among you.”
Luk 22:25-26 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors (a philanthropist, a worker of good, he who confers benefit). But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Mat 20:25-27 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:
Dr. Brown,
I did listen to the show. One thing that got me was the statistics being a bit off. I mean that one stat says 50% of born again Christian men are addicted to porn, and 29% believe that there is nothing wrong with using porn. How can someone be blood washed, repentant, have a new spirit, have God’s own Spirit, AND have God’s laws written in their minds and on their hearts and still believe that using porn is OK. They are obviously strangers to the new birth, yet the survey is calling them born again.
The sin of porn is a real issue to be sure, maybe the root issue is more one of a need for defining biblically what is sin, what it means to repent, what it means to believe, what it means to be saved. Bad root, Bad fruit; so let’s call in the John the baptist brigade and pass out the axes. God Bless, josh
June 27th, 2008 @ 8:26 am
When you mentioned IHOP, the first thing that came to my mind was International House of Pancakes….but that’s just me
June 30th, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Hello Joshua,
First of all, I would like to thank you on behalf of my wife and I. You have made an incredible impact on the both of us since we read your book, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye.”
I agree that man-made “guard rails” can stand in the way of true repentance. Jesus confronts the Pharisees when he speaks:
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matt. 23:27,28)
God cares about our hearts more than our outward “obedience” but He also cares about our actions:
“Who may ascend into the hill of the LORD? Or who may stand in His holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, Who has not lifted up his soul to an idol, Nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive blessing from the LORD, And righteousness from the God of his salvation.” (Ps. 24:3-5)
The standard is holiness. Jesus wants us to have clean hands, but in purity that flows from His purifying work inside of us and not from an outward, man-made “spiritual” act.
In the Old Testament God commands the Israelites to be pure.
“These are the statutes and judgments which you shall be careful to observe in the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. You shall utterly destroy all the places where the nations which you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree. And you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and burn their wooden images with fire; you shall cut down the carved images of their gods and destroy their names from that place.”
God commanded the Israelites to destroy the altars and images of foreign gods from their midst. God’s kind of holiness affects our hearts as well as our atmosphere — it is to be pure and to make our land pure.
Cable TV and the internet pose such a threat because it only takes seconds to open a gateway to a stream of foreign images. Sin crouches at our door but it also comes through our media. Accountability software does not make us pure, and neither does any outward in itself. Wisdom and holiness ask us to destroy the corrupting influence of impurity and to keep it out of our homes (of all places!)
Filtering the internet is like caging a lion. I’m not trying to prove anything to anyone. I just don’t want that in my home … even if it is by accident.
Guard rails are for accidents. They don’t have power to make us straight.
June 30th, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Josh H.,
Thanks for the comments on the stats, which are well-taken.
As for not wanting to use accountablilty software, of course, it’s a personal choice, but it is certainly a useful safeguard for many people that I know, helping them to “flee youthful lusts” or “cut off” the offending hand.
As for the oral traditions, actually only some of them were “fences around the Torah” (to use the rabbinic term for safeguards). Most of them were actually not related to this directly.
Josh. G.,
Are you sure this is the same Josh Harris that wrote the dating book? I assumed not, but perhaps you know something I don’t.
As for the “guard rails,” for many years my family lived without TV, and it is certainly possible to live without Internet. But for those who can use it wisely — just as, hopefully, we are here on this blog — either filtering software or accountability software is quite useful, in my opinion.
June 30th, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
Hello Dr. Brown,
I realized after posting that he may not be the same Joshua Harris. If you are a different Joshua Harris, please accept my apologies, and Joshua Harris the author, wherever you are, thanks.
I certainly agree with you. I feel that giving up the television was one of the best decisions I could make. I also just finished reading chapter 8 out of your book, “Revolution! The Call to Holy War,” called “Uncompromising Holiness: The Standard of Revolution.” It was really refreshing to me to read your view on movies, music and ministry. I think it is unusual in our society to have such a clear and uncompromised conviction about it.
June 30th, 2008 @ 9:37 pm
Dr. Brown and Josh G,
I am a different Joshua Harris, I have lost more hair than that other guy. But I am glad the book blessed you. No apology is necessary.
I think we are all in agreement that practical steps need to be taken to flee youthful lust, to walk in holiness, and I wouldn’t discourage it a bit; I have stated from the first post that I didn’t have a problem with a voluntary use of the software- I have a filter and I am looking into filters that are more effective having been provoked by this thread.
But, there is an issue of unrighteous exercise of authority that should not be side stepped, and it sure seems like it’s being side stepped. That particular congregation, or others who operate according to that principle, will be prevented from coming to the full stature of Christ, and that is the ultimate issue. Is there any virtue with involuntary measures like this?
I don’ t think issues like this would even come to the surface if the congregations were actually saved. I see so many people who go to church on Sunday, and tithe, who have not passed through the narrow gate with a commitment to a narrow way. I am not opposed to these measures, we however are in need of a Lewis awakening in our communities, and these measures seem to be like shooting spitballs at an armored tank to me.
July 4th, 2008 @ 9:56 am
Dr. Brown:
You say:
As for the oral traditions, actually only some of them were “fences around the Torah” (to use the rabbinic term for safeguards). Most of them were actually not related to this directly.
I disagree. I think the vast majority of rabbinic enactments were “fences around the Torah.” I’m not sure where you have come to the conclusion that they were not.
July 4th, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Matthew,
How much of the Talmud have you read? How much of Shulkhan Aruch are you familiar with, or Mishneh Torah, or the Responsa Literature? I’m not asking this to challenge you but rather to understand how extensively you have read rabbinic literature firsthand. Also, how much interaction have you had with learned, traditional rabbis?
Let me know when you can.
July 4th, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
Dr. Brown:
I’m comfortable with all the sources you describe.
Thanks
July 4th, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
Matthew,
Great. Then you should know that the concept of a seyag lattorah, found first in m. Ber. 1, is fairly rare and that the great bulk of the Torah She-be-al-peh contains what claims to be the additional information given to Moses filling in the blanks of Torah She-be-ktav. Note also that the rabbinic sources distinguish between that which is mi-de-oraita and that which is mi-de-rabbanan, the latter including takkanot and gezerot — which are certainly NOT the bulk of Torah She-be-al-peh. I think this is really quite clear according to the rabbinic sources.
July 5th, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
Does it really matter if it is all or some of the oral traditions were guardrails? Regardless, it is undeniably apparent in reading the gospels that the traditions of the elders, for all their good intention, did not keep the nation long from apostasy, but a changed heart would have.
July 5th, 2008 @ 3:46 pm
Joshua,
I was simply correcting a wrong impression about the “fences,” hence my last post.
As for the effect of the traditions, they did keep our people together for centuries (along with God’s preserving help, of course), but you are absolutely right: They had (and have) no salvific power. So, while they did keep the Jewish people focused on the one true God, they completely missed the essential truth fo the Messiah — with a new covenant and new heart.
July 5th, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Dr. Brown:
First of all I should apologize for misunderstanding you. I thought you meant that the majority of rabbinic enactments were not the so-called fences. For sure the majority of Rabbinic enactments were definitely fences (as opposed to commandments like Hallel, or kindling the Channukah lights). I will admit that the majority of the Oral Law on the other hand is scriptural interpretations on how to most accurately fulfill Biblical commandments.
Joshua, I’m not sure what you mean by when you say “apostasy” but from our vantage point, that would include conversions to other religions such as Islam or Christianity, so from that perspective, Dr. Brown is correct that the Oral Law preserved the unique Jewish faith. I’m not sure what you mean by a “changed heart” but it was people who went after their hearts and eyes (see Numbers 15:39) who became Jewish apostates.
Dr. Brown, I would draw the opposite conclusion to wha you say. You seem to imply that the Jews relied on traditions for salvation (which probably isn’t exactly true as they relied on fulfilling the Commandments of the Torah for salvation of whose details were partially dependent on Rabbinic tradition) and that relying on traditions detracted them from accepting Jesus of Nazereth as the Messiah. You may be correct since part of the Oral Law involved certain Messianic expectations precluding Jesus of Nazereth. However, I think even if Jesus of Nazereth had been the Messiah, some tradition would have been necessary for him to be accepted as such.
July 6th, 2008 @ 12:57 am
Matthew,
I think everyone posting here has assumed that you and others were followers of Jesus, hence the nature of the responses. It appears that you are not, which is fine in terms of this blog, but at least we can answer more clearly.
May I suggest that you go to my Real Messiah website and listen to the teaching entitled “Are the Rabbis Right?”
July 6th, 2008 @ 7:12 am
Dr. Brown:
Sure thing.
July 8th, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Matthew,
A changed heart before God is the universal need of humanity, both Jew and Gentile. We can see from Genesis 6:5-8, and 8:20-21 that the universal condition of human heart was: “that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.” and again, “for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Both Jew and Gentile have need of a changed heart, or more scripturally a new heart.
Eze 11:19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
Eze 18:31 Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
When I say ‘apostasy’ I mean a return to a life according the evil imaginations of the heart, such apostasy will be evidenced in laying aside even rejecting the law of God. Apart from a national falling away from God, or apostasy, Israel would never have been removed from the Land; the last several chapters of Deuteronomy declare this. Faithfulness to God as a nation would have resulted in the Nation staying in the land with God’s Blessing, or disobedience would result in expulsion from the land being God’s curse on disobedience. Jesus brought to light very clearly in Matthew 15, and Mark 7 how Israel set aside and rejected God’s law through the traditions. I am not saying all the traditions were bad, but in some way they began to take on equal authority with scripture itself, and in that scenario, human beings will choose one and despise the other.
In 1994 I looked at the first of the 10 commandments and I was dead to rights guilty before God and I knew it. For the next three days I inwardly was turned to God with my soul in the dust. I did not weep or agonize, but I had a very real sense that I had made God anything other than #1 in my life, and that my life had personally grieved, hurt, and disappointed Him. I turned to Him with all my heart, and in the midst of that experience I met Jesus in a very personal way. Without arrogance or apology I say that there is a universal need for a changed heart, Jew and Gentile, and the malady’s only cure is found in repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.
July 16th, 2008 @ 3:53 am
It somehow lingers that all who call upon what they regard as the Name or by title God are obligated to live up to their own expectations of Him and His requirements, Jew or God-fearing Gentile. What is contemplated as a result of reading this blog development, is, what does God require of thee, Oh Man, and the simple and direct answer given by the Prophet. Even Yeshua seemed to understand this when He mentioned the weightier matters of the law, and answered the inquiry of John the Baptist’s disciples if He were the One, or should another be sought.
There are existential questions which all may have as a result of inherited identity, life-formed identity, and new heart and mind identity. The questions of the heart involved in, for example, a Jew believing He must stay faithful to his interpretation or community observation of the Torah can become questions of a learned lifetime, a lifetime of experience, new longings, or new directions given by the very Spirit of God.
There remains the challenge to all of us to apprehend what we understand to be our life’s purposes by a knowledge of God as Father. God calls Judah, Israel, and those believing in and accepting the Promise spoken of by Yeshua his children, in tne scriptures, as those in the line of receipt of His Promises of covenants. Even the gates into the city of God are named both of the 12 tribes and the 12 Apostles.
The New Covenant can only be apprehended by its own impartation by its Promised Gift. It is written of as a better covenant, yet, can we respect those promises still extant from the spoken as ensured past covenants made by God, our Father? The Prophets of Old establish that once Israel is reestablished, which it is, God will deal with Israel unconditionally for His redemptive and undeserved blessing.
When the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, will we be ready to embrace all of Israel being saved where any preconceived notion of what that means may stand in the very way of its very fulfillment? How so, the converted soul may ask? What is required of thee, Oh Man, to receive from God, and apprehend His Way, the Prophet knows.
July 17th, 2008 @ 12:07 am
Dr. Brown:
I listened to your talk on “Are the Rabbi’s Right.” I have to tell you that I disagreed with just about everything you said. I did not find your line of argument compelling, coherent, or correct.
It would be too difficult, given my time constraints, to go through point by point what I disagreed with in your talk. I’ll just quickly go through three points.
One is that you go through the story of Rabbi Eliezer and the Chachamim and you seem to make the point that even though divine will seemed to agree with the law as interpreted by Rabbi Eliezer (especially as the Bas Kal seemed to indicate), the Chachamim went against him.
The problem with your argument is that you attribute miracle working powers, and even a Bas Kal, to the pure unadulterated word of God. However, in reality if Rabbi Eliezer had actually been a true bona fide prophet (and his pronouncement of the halacha was according to his prophecy), the halacha would definitely have gone according to him. All he would have had to do was prove he was a prophet. In fact, if he had been a prophet, his prophecy could temporarily overturn even a lav (thou shalt not do) in the Torah. This concept is called a Horaa Shaa (teaching of the hour). But your talk made it seem as if so-called “Rabbinic Judaism” undermines the authority of prophecy. Quite the opposite. The point is that Rabbi Eliezer’s miracles and the Bas Kal, despite their miraculous quality, didn’t achieve the level of prophecy. (In Christian parlance, they fell “short”.)
The other was your statement and implication that miracles and healing ceased to be amongst the practitioners of “Rabbinic Judaism” and transferred to the new Jewish Christians of the time, which you attempt to support with the very words of the Talmud itself. The big problem with this argument is that the Talmud is full of reports of miracles performed by the very practitioners of Rabbinic Judaism (many long after Jesus died). So you may dismiss these reports as untrue or unlikely, but then what makes you believe the Talmud’s reports about the miracles performed by the new Jewish Christians? (Or for that matter the story about the string around the scapegoat not turning white exactly the year that Jesus died?)
In general, your Talmudic analyses were quite unsubtle and immature (I’m not saying this to be demeaning) and indicated you knew quite a small amount about Talmud study in general. First of all, nobody would ever think that “al pi” means “by mouth.” This is simply a hint to the Oral law. (Think of it like a “type and shadow”) but by no means a direct proof of its existence. And I wouldn’t take his statement at face value that he really believed that the Oral Law was greater than the Written Law. This section is clearly aggadita which must be interpreted with the utmost subtlety.
Your point on the majority rule is a much better question (only because this section of the Talmud is actually dealing with halacha) and I’m sure that many Rabbis through the ages have asked it themselves. But I would submit (even before having carefully studied it myself), that the proof is in the actual wording of the text (few proofs from Talmud are like this). It is more likely that there was some sort of redundancy in the text and that the point gleaned from the redundancy is that majority rule is what determines halacha, and not presence of miracles. (Because there could be other reasons for the presence of miracles and we do not base our faith upon them.)
I had multiple other problems with things that you said in your talk I would love to submit perhaps at another time (especially vis-a-vis what it means for an individual to have a relationship with God).
July 17th, 2008 @ 2:53 am
Matthew,
Thanks for taking the time to listen to the tape and for outlining your differences. I expand on the points from the tape in much more detail in the fifth volume of my series on Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus ,due out in 2009, God willing.
For the moment, however, let me state that I reject your analysis of the Talmudic material, material that I have also discussed in depth with different frum rabbis over the years.
As for b. B.M. 59b and Rabbi Eliezer, the question is not whether he reached the level of prophecy; rather, it was that God was clearly backing his position in various supernatural ways, hence the words, “My sons have defeated Me.” Your analysis is more of a pilpulistic attempt to avoid the obvious conclusions of the text (and I don’t mean that to be demeaning to you). You also miss the point of the butchering of the text from Exod 23. It is not based on a redundancy but rather of an abuse of the text, one which Rambam actually tries to justify grammatically.
As for the use of al pi, I have heard such impossible interpretations from the lips of frum rabbis in Brooklyn. But even taking your point that it’s supposed to be a hint, what kind of hint is it? The injunction in Exod 34 is to write down the words of God, and upon the written text the covenant was made, plain and simple. To use this as a hint of an oral torah is to abuse this text as well.
I understand, of course, that you will have differences with my position, but I can back up all the points made on the lecture quite easily while you will have a difficult time defending them (not to mention defending the myth of an oral torah going back to Moses in unbroken form).
July 17th, 2008 @ 9:50 pm
Dr. Brown:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.
I noticed that you didn’t respond to several of my points (especially your habit of selecting out parts of the Talmud which you believe in and are convenient for your argument as undisputable fact, but denying other elements).
Per Rabbi Eliezer, I never said that the question was whether or not he was a prophet or not. You said in “Are the Rabbis right” that prophecy/miracles are not important in “Rabbinic Judaism.” I countered that of course they are important, but it has to be proven that the message is prophetic (not anyone can say they are a prophet). Further, miracles alone (and even a Bas Kal) doesn’t cut it. One has to claim that they are a prophet and prove it by predicting something in the future. Then the prophet has all sorts of authority (in Jewish law) to set halacha. That’s the reason why nothing was ever lost from the Oral Law during prophetic times. And of course, “My sons have defeated me” is not to be taken literally. No Jewish scholar would ever take this argument of yours seriously. The point here is that it was always God’s will that the Halacha should go after the majority, but he wanted to test the resolve of the Rabbis who may go after miracles or even a Bas Kal. This is rather obvious from the text.
By the way, I think “butchering the text” is a little bit extreme. There is a hermeneutic that exists and we stick to it. You might not agree with it, but please show a little respect. You yourself said that the sages were not wicked or unintelligent people. By the way, my analysis is not “pilpulistic” (is that even a word). You have to see pilpul to know what it is. In any case, I stand by my argument. You haven’t said anything substantial to counter it. If you have a reference from the Yad Chazaka, I’d be interested in looking at it as I’m sure Maimonedes’ argument is better than you give it credit.
I’m glad that my interpretations are along the same lines of frum Rabbis in Brooklyn. It shows that we are thinking similarly. The hint is that there is an Oral Torah along with the written Torah. Just because the covenant was made with the written text doesn’t mean that it wasn’t made with a set of Oral laws. (You sound like archaeologists who claim that the children of Israel couldn’t have possibly have traveled through the desert because no artifacts have been found there.) We believe the two go together. I’m sorry, but I don’t see it as an abuse of the text. Anyhow, we don’t believe in the Oral Law because of anything that is written in the text. It’s part of our faith to believe in the Oral Law and certainly nothing you said on your recording could ever shake that faith. (Why do you believe in the New Testament?) Perhaps you see things this way simply because you are so vehemently opposed to the idea of an Oral Law.
I have clear differences with your position, but I’m inviting you to try to change my mind. It’s funny that you say that I will have a hard time defending my position as I feel as if I am having quite an easy time doing so (with the top counter-counter-missionary in the world mind you whereas I am at best a counter-missionary hack). As I told you before, I am in the middle of my surgery rotation in medical school (one of the hardest and most time demanding rotations) and I can assure you that surgery is a lot more difficult than responding to your points. If it is so easy for you to defend your points on the tape, why haven’t you done so yet? So far you have not responded to all my points, and “defended” your position by 1) saying that you have discussed your position with Rabbis, 2) stated that sages “butchered” the text, 3) compared my analysis to Rabbis in Brooklyn, 4) by saying you could easily defend your points and that I would have a hard time doing so, and 5) calling the Oral Law a “myth” (again, show a bit of respect).
I eagerly await your response.
Matt
July 18th, 2008 @ 12:44 am
Matt,
I apologize if I failed to address some of your earlier post. That was certainly not intentional. I’ll respond to your main points here seriatim, and I do appreciate you taking the time to answer me.
First, you misstated the point I was making on the tape about prophecy and miracles. I argued correctly there that miracles and even prophecy do not override the voice of the majority according to rabbinic tradition, which I based partly on Bava Metsia and partly on the Rambam, who claimed that 1,001 sages overrule 1,000 prophets, even if all of them were of the caliber of Elijah!
Second, you wrote: “The point here is that it was always God’s will that the Halacha should go after the majority, but he wanted to test the resolve of the Rabbis who may go after miracles or even a Bas Kal. This is rather obvious from the text.” Exactly! There is absolutely zero scriptural support for this rabbinic viewpoint. Again, I mean no offense here, but you are arguing for the thoroughly unscriptural position which I refuted in the message. As to the fact that “My sons have defeated Me” is not to be taken literally, of course I understand that, otherwise God would not have been pictured as laughing. But what is the whole point? That Rabbi Eliezer was correct in his view and the Lord was backing that view, yet the majority opinion prevailed. That is the one of main weaknesses with rabbinic Judaism. Please show me scriptural support that when there is a dispute between leaders concerning God’s laws, we are to follow the majority opinion.
Third, you wrote: “By the way, I think ‘butchering the text’ is a little bit extreme. There is a hermeneutic that exists and we stick to it. You might not agree with it, but please show a little respect.” Again, I don’t mean to offend you, but there is no other way to explain what was done to this text. Just look at every major Jewish translation of the Torah, and none of them reproduce the Talmudic understanding. Neither the Targum nor Rashi support it. (For Rambam’s argument, check his introduction to his Mishnah commentary.) It does violence to the sacred text of the Torah by taking a verse that enjoins us NOT to follow the majority (in particular, to do wrong) and slices off the end of it, interprets the Hebrew incorrectly (reading the Hiphil as if it was Qal), and twists it to mean “follow the majority.” Please tell me what hermeneutic justifies this. (BTW, “pilpulistic” is an ad hoc adjective I used to convey a point. I do not refer to the specific pilpul interpretation of Talmud rejected by some rabbinic authorities; I refer to this more broadly, as I have seen done many times in writing.)
Fourth, you wrote: “I’m glad that my interpretations are along the same lines of frum Rabbis in Brooklyn.” What I was saying was the opposite of this, namely, that frum rabbis I spoke with in Brooklyn gave a more forced meaning to al pi than you were willing to give it. As to your belief in the Oral Torah, I understand why you believe in it, and your belief is not based on what is written in the Torah; my point, again, is that the alleged hints are bogus and therefore to be rejected. Please supply me with one concrete reference to the Oral Torah within the Written Torah.
Fifth, you wrote: “Anyhow, we don’t believe in the Oral Law because of anything that is written in the text. It’s part of our faith to believe in the Oral Law and certainly nothing you said on your recording could ever shake that faith. (Why do you believe in the New Testament?) Perhaps you see things this way simply because you are so vehemently opposed to the idea of an Oral Law.” Matt, you have expressed things clearly: It is a matter of faith for you, since there is no scriptural proof. As for my position, it is based on faith, but not just faith, since key things laid out in the prophetic Scriptures in the Tanakh (as explained in depth in vols. 1 and 3 of my series) that had to happen before the destruction of the Second Temple took place, as recorded in the NT, and Yeshua’s words have proven accurate to this day. There is evidence along with my faith! Not only so, but I walk with the Lord everyday and see many of the promises of the Word fulfilled in my life. That is another kind of evidence as well. As for not shaking your faith, can we be realistic here? You listened to one 60 minute tape of mine and you are announcing that you are not shaken. Perhaps you’re being a little bit premature? Vol. 5 of my series will contain more than 300 pp. of evidence that there is no Oral Law going back to Moses. If you will study it carefully, you will see that your position is completely indefensible. But there’s good news! Moshiach has come and you can know God in ways beyond anything you ever imagined, even here in this world. On my end, I don’t vehemently oppose the Oral Law. I simply state the truth about it. There is much beauty in it, but it will bring you to God or bring forgiveness of sins or intimacy with the Lord, and ultimately, it is not what it claims to be.
Sixth, you wrote, “I have clear differences with your position, but I’m inviting you to try to change my mind. It’s funny that you say that I will have a hard time defending my position as I feel as if I am having quite an easy time doing so (with the top counter-counter-missionary in the world mind you whereas I am at best a counter-missionary hack).” Matt, again, you listened to one tape of mine and now we’re exchanging a few blogs (in the early stages of dialogue) and you feel that you haven’t been challenged yet. That brings a big smile to my face. Honestly. We have barely begun to engage the issues, you don’t have time to read the detailed writings I have put together on other, relevant subjects (which I’ve asked you to do in previous posts), yet you are wondering how strong my positions are. Again, all I can do is smile. To repeat: We have barely begun to engage, and if you’re sincere and not just here to play games, then take the time to read the books I have written and ask the Lord to guide you as you read, and you will be in for some surprises.
On my end, I lead a ministry school and teach there; host a TV show; do a live radio show five nights a week; take on homosexual activism in our city; travel and preach around the world; write books; answer countless emails every day; spend time with the Lord in prayer and study; spend time with my wife and kids and grandkids, etc. All that to say that I’m busy too!
But if you want to be challenged by the truth, wherever it leads, as I have the time, I’ll do my best to help you come to the light.
Lastly, you wrote, “If it is so easy for you to defend your points on the tape, why haven’t you done so yet? So far you have not responded to all my points, and “defended” your position by 1) saying that you have discussed your position with Rabbis, 2) stated that sages “butchered” the text, 3) compared my analysis to Rabbis in Brooklyn, 4) by saying you could easily defend your points and that I would have a hard time doing so, and 5) calling the Oral Law a ‘myth’ (again, show a bit of respect).” In fact, my response to your last post stands intact, as demonstrated in this post. As for each of your five points: 1) Correct, I did verify some of the rabbinic views with frum rabbis – and??; 2) I properly argued that the sages did butcher the end of Exod 23:2; 3) I pointed out that you misunderstood my point about talking with the Brooklyn rabbis; 4) I have adequately backed my statements while you have failed to do so (please respond to the direct question I raised in this post); 5) in referring to the “myth of the Oral Torah,” I was using the language of Prof. Jacob Neusner, the most prolific scholar of rabbinic literature in the world today, and a graduate of Jewish Theological Seminary.
I do hope that you are sincere. If so, like many other sincere Jews, you too will come to know the truth and will rejoice in God’s saving acts through Yeshua. If you are not sincere, then I trust that others will read these posts who are, and they will be liberated from manmade traditions, however sincere the authors of those men might have been.
God bless,
Dr. Brown
July 18th, 2008 @ 6:00 am
Dr. Brown:
Thank you for responding to my post in such length and detail. Unfortunately, I probably won’t be able to respond to this until Sunday (I bet you can guess why).
In the meantime, could you give me specific references for the two Rambam quotes you gave me. It seems like one is in the hakdama to his peirush on mishnayos. Where is the reference to 1001 sages overruling 1000 prophets?
Shabbat Shalom,
Matt
July 18th, 2008 @ 11:46 am
Matt,
It’s my joy to respond, and no need to apologize for any delay in responding. I’m not always able to get right back to folks either.
Actually, the 1,001 sages is in the Hakdama to his Mishnayos Perush; as for the aharei rabbim quote, it’s actually in his Yad, so go to Hilkhot Sanhedrin 5:3; 8:1.
Shabbat Shalom,
Dr. Brown
July 18th, 2008 @ 4:48 pm
I’m a little slow on commenting – I just read the comments and would like to share my thoughts on IHOP’s purity covenant. I have been on staff at IHOP for two years and have been closely connected with the ministry much longer. The teaching I have received here has been anything but legalism or manipulation. What I have received is the freedom to pursue true grace-empowered holiness while receiving the deep, unconditional love of God. The purity covenant reflects that. It is simply calling us back to being a community of grace-filled accountability (and most importantly, restoration) that is so plainly presented as normative Christianity in the New Testament. After hearing Mike Bickle and our other leaders share their hearts with us these past few months, I have become so thankful that I am being led by servant-leaders who are actually fighting for my purity and freedom and giving me a vision for the fullness of God in my life. All of my friends and acquaintances here agree. I haven’t talked with one person who is actually at IHOP (not just a distant observer or critic) who shares the negative opinions of some of the posters on this blog.
Asha, concerning your June 15 comments… You put forth the idea that “rules” in the Old Testament “didn’t work,” and therefore they won’t “work” now. When you use the word “rule,” do you take that to mean any concrete, identifiable moral standard that has established consequences for the breaking or keeping of the standard? If we define “rules” that way and reject them on those grounds, it would seem difficult to reconcile with New Testament church discipline passages such as 1 Cor. 5 & 2 Thess. 3, and really, any NT passage calling us to abstain from specific identifiable behaviors, or requiring us to maintain certain behaviors. It isn’t the presence of concrete standards with established consequences that “doesn’t work.” What “doesn’t work” is the meritorious element of earning God’s favor through the keeping of rules. But to jump from this truth to the conclusion that all standards with consequences “don’t work” is not a biblical idea, and it robs us of the full power of grace.
I’m reminded of the chapter on grace in Dr. Brown’s book, “Go and Sin No More,” which demonstrates so clearly that the grace (Gr. charis) that God offers us is not limited only to unmerited favor, but it includes divine empowerment to actually live in holiness and purity in this life (Titus 2:11-12).
Those are my thoughts. I love that Mike Bickle is inviting thousands to get free and stay free in the grace of God.
July 21st, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
Andy,
Thanks for the comments as an insider at IHOP. It was important that someone gave us that perspective here on the blog.
I fully concur with you (and not just because you quote my book!). By all means, purity starts on the inside out of our relationship with God, but the Scriptures often admonish us to turn away from sin, to flee from youthful lusts, to “cut off” or “gouge out” the offending hand or eye, etc., and unless we stay offline completely, I can’t see why every believer (especially every male believer) would not willingly and joyfully use either filtering software (with someone else having the password) or accountability software.
God’s people are under unprecedented assault, and the assault calls for real vigilance. His grace will prevail, and practical wisdom will help to keep the walls high.
July 22nd, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
I googled the Purity covenant and found this clip on youtube… it is about 10 minutes and worth watching. I would like to hear the whole message. In all fairness it seemed to me that he was saying “Here is where the Lord is leading, and here is what the Lord is requiring.” To me that takes on a bit of a different tone than what was posted earlier, and i don’t have an iota of problem with what is on this clip (link below).
I don’t understand why there was a need for people to make a commitment to the 8 principles outlined; they are all biblical, and therefore they are already required of us (except the software part), so why not just teach the scripture? If people are already walking with the Lord, they are already walking in covenant right? And if they are clearly being taught the Word and being doers of the word, then why the need to make an extra covenant? And if they are being doers of the word, they do not need to make some covenant of purity, they need to get saved in the first place. Perhaps the greater need is to examine themselves and see if they are in the faith in the first place.
There is and has been a phenomenon of both ministers and church members being unsaved. George Muller went to divinity school because full time ministry was a good living; he got saved due to a movement among the students. Charles Finney was trained for the ministry by his pastor who was unsaved at the time of Finney’s training. John Wesley was an ordained minister before he was even born again. I remember from reading revival accounts of Finney and Whitfield dealing with the issue of unconverted preachers; Gilbert Tennet preached a sermon in the 1st great awakening titled, “the Dangers of an unconverted ministry”. I heard Paul Washer give the statistics that only about 15% of southern baptists bear fruit of a new birth, so most of the faithful attendees are not even saved. So do the churches need to make purity covenants or do the churches need to get saved? Believe me, I am not shaking my fist; I pray and it’s hard for me not to weep about these things.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRJsqqGMvpc
July 22nd, 2008 @ 8:06 pm
Joshua,
Getting saved first will certainly help!
August 28th, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
I know this thread is pretty old but I have to add that I got into contact with someone at IHOP. He told me the purity covenant is not a mandatory thing, but that it is strongly recommended. That particular brother is obviously zealous for a depth of purity and pursuit of holiness; from what I can tell, the fruit of the “purity covenant” seems pretty good