In recent days, there has been a flurry of accusations of adultery and/or inappropriate behavior against singer Adam Levine. Some of his comments give real insight into the contradictions of human nature. So, Levine claimed, it’s not in our male genetic makeup to be monogamous. But when we do cheat, we feel miserable...

Adam Levine, Human Nature, and Adultery | Article | AskDrBrown

In recent days, there has been a flurry of accusations of adultery and/or inappropriate behavior against singer Adam Levine. This, in turn, has led to the unearthing of a 2009 Cosmopolitan interview with Levine before he was married. 

Some of his comments give real insight into the contradictions of human nature.

In the interview, he was asked “why do guys cheat?” 
He responded, “Instinctively, monogamy is not in our genetic makeup. People cheat. I have cheated. And you know what? There is nothing worse than the feeling of doing it.”

So, Levine claimed, it’s not in our male genetic makeup to be monogamous. 
But when we do cheat, we feel miserable. What a picture of our human nature!

We are created in the image of God, because of which we have a conscience and recognize the difference between right and wrong. But we are fallen human beings, because of which it is in our nature to sin and do evil. 

We were created by God for lifelong monogamous relationships, which is why we get married. But as males, Levine said, we are prone to adulterous thoughts and actions. Yet if we act on those impulses, we feel guilty.

In short, we are walking contradictions, often condemning in others the very things that we do ourselves. As Paul wrote, “Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things.” (Romans 2:1)

We look down on others and say, “What wretches!” And yet we ourselves do those very things.

As for the internal contradictions we live with, especially outside of God’s grace and help, Paul famously wrote this: “For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, sold under sin. For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” (Romans 7:14-15)

He continued, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” (Romans 7:18–20)

In Levine’s case, he said what most men already feel: We do not seem to be wired for monogamy. It’s all too easy for us to have sinful, even adulterous thoughts. We have to reign in our fleshly desires. Yet we want to be married and we want to be faithful. How contradictory. And if we are unfaithful, we feel terrible. Yes, said Levine, nothing feels worse than cheating.

So, you gratify the flesh one moment and you feel miserable the next.

You affirm the beauty of marriage and your desire to be with one person for life, then you allow yourself to get pulled into adultery (or you yourself lead the way). Why?

To quote Paul again, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Romans 7:24)

The reality is that it can often feel “natural” to do what is wrong and evil. It takes determination to do what is right.

It’s more “natural” to be lazy than to be disciplined, more “natural” to overeat than to control our appetite, more “natural” to sleep in than to get up early.

But catering to what’s natural leads to destruction. It also leads to guilt.

Catering to our fleshly desires is also antithetical to being disciples of Jesus. As the Lord said, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” (Mark 8:34)

Where, then, does that leave us? Is there any hope at all? To quote Paul once more, “Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25) 

Of course, Paul had much more to say about this, but in short, we can summarize his thoughts with these three words: we need Jesus.

With His grace, our very nature can be changed to the point that we love what is right and hate what is evil. 
To the point that we can lead disciplined lives. 
To the point that we can be faithful to our spouses.


As for Adam Levine, his wife, and his accusers, let’s pray that each of them have a real, life-changing encounter with the Lord.

If He could forgive and transform the likes of you and me, He could forgive and transform anyone. 

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

I had the pleasure of spending 4 hours in face to face dialogue with Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec, best known for their jointly-authored books on "NAR" the "New Apostolic Reformation." Our purpose was not to debate but rather to have a constructive discussion...

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation) | Article | AskDrBrown

This past Saturday, August 13, I had the pleasure of spending four hours in face to face dialogue with Doug Geivett and Holly Pivec, best known for their jointly-authored books A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement and God's Super-Apostles: Encountering the Worldwide Prophets and Apostles Movement.

Our purpose was not to debate but rather to have a constructive discussion about what they would classify as “NAR.” Where did we agree and where did we differ? (For the rest of the article, I’ll drop the quotation marks around “NAR” so as not to be redundant. But whenever I say NAR, I mean, “What Doug and Holly describe as NAR.”)

In my view, they have painted with too broad of a brush, wrongly grouping together related but different movements, churches, and individuals, labeling all of them NAR, while using extreme examples to negatively color the whole.

In their view, they have been careful, judicious, and fair in their citations, using the very language that NAR proponents would use and rightly describing a global movement that does, in fact, have a number of key unifying factors.

In my view, having worked on some level with a number of the leaders they critique, Doug and Holly are putting the worst construction on the words and ministry philosophies of these leaders.

In Doug and Holly’s view, they are quoting these leaders accurately and in context, and they can point to many examples of people who have been hurt by NAR leaders and churches.

Having said this, I believe in Doug and Holly’s sincerity. I believe they want to be fair. I believe they truly desire to dialogue with those they are critiquing. And, most importantly, I agree with many of their critiques.

That’s why, in preparation for our meeting, my prayer was that the Lord would be glorified and His people edified. And that’s why we met together to have a discussion rather than a debate.

Hopefully, in the months to come, others will be able to benefit from our dialogue, which was videotaped with the goal of future release.

For now, I would propose that rather than continuing to debate the existence or scope of NAR (which has been a major point of contention for me), we focus on the actual issues.

When you say NAR, what do you mean? How do you define it, and what are your areas of concern (or agreement)?

If you say, “That’s a NAR church,” or, “He’s a major leader in NAR,” my response is, “Please tell me exactly what you mean by NAR.” This is not to be argumentative but to gain understanding.

Perhaps we’re talking about two different things?

Have you ever talked with an atheist who told you why he didn’t believe in God, only to respond, “I don’t believe in that God either!”

It could be the same thing when it comes to NAR.

For example, all NAR churches are charismatic, but not all charismatics are NAR, meaning NAR here as defined by Doug and Holly in their writings. Conversely, all NAR churches believe in present day apostolic and prophetic ministry, but not all churches which believe in present day apostolic and prophetic ministry are NAR.

Based on my understanding of the Word and of different ministry functions and giftings, I strongly believe in the continuance of apostolic and prophetic ministry. I also believe that it’s important for the overall health of the church to recognize these ministry functions, just as it’s important to recognize the functions and giftings of evangelists, pastors, and teachers.

Each calling complements the other. Each calling plays a different role in equipping and edifying the Body. And each calling presents a different aspect of the ministry of Jesus to His Church.

At the same time, I reject “the governing offices of apostle and prophet” (this is how Doug and Holly described what, in their mind, is the most fundamental pillar of NAR).

Do I believe that apostles (or prophets) can govern? Absolutely, just as evangelists, pastors, and teachers can govern.

All of them can potentially lead churches or birth movements or serve as spiritual fathers in a region.

Do I believe in the office of apostle or prophet? No I don’t, just as I don’t believe in the office of evangelist, pastor, or teacher.

But, to ask again, what exactly is the difference between ministry function and office?

For some believers, this is quibbling over words and splitting hairs. To others, these distinctions are important.

Either way, if we don’t talk to each other and make efforts to understand each other, how can we help each other grow in the Lord? How can we pursue unity? How can we sharpen each other? How can we learn from each other? How can we correct each other?

During the course of our dialogue, Holly read numerous quotes to me from different NAR leaders, many of whom I knew personally and some of whom I have worked with.

To my knowledge, those I have worked with are fine Christians, true servant leaders, not authoritarian or heavy handed, lovers of the Lord and lovers of the Word, sound in their fundamental theology.

At the same time, when asked if I agreed with the quotes Holly read, I responded consistently, “No, I don’t agree with that position,” or, “I would not put it like that,” or, “Yes, I agree with your concerns.”

I have worked with hundreds of leaders over the years, some of whom I agree with on virtually every point, some of whom I agree with on many points, and some of whom I agree with only on the most fundamental matters of the faith. (One leader said to me jokingly, “Sometimes I don’t even agree with myself!”)

Personally, I don’t have the slightest problem when a colleague says to me, “Mike, I think you’re wrong on this issue.” And it wouldn’t offend me in the least if, when questioned publicly about our differences, they said, “I disagree with Dr. Brown on this point for the following reasons.”

Wonderful! Let’s put the issues on the table and have a constructive conversation about them.

Who said we had to agree on every point to have unity? To the contrary, we are more likely to find true unity in the midst of our diversity. And I can say to you as a fellow-leader, “I have the utmost respect for you and I honor you in the Lord, but I don’t agree with this statement you made.”

These disagreements may provide fodder for the destructive critics, but for the rest of the Body, this is a sign of being healthy and mature.

That being said, the big question in the context of this article is: What, exactly, are the distinctive beliefs and practices of what Doug and Holly refer to as NAR, and are these beliefs and practices biblical and helpful or unbiblical and harmful?

To say it again, I believe in the importance of recognizing apostolic and prophetic ministry today while also sharing many of Doug and Holly’s concerns. (I hate to disappoint some of the critics, but based on Doug and Holly’s criteria, I am decidedly not NAR.)

And it is my hope that, in the days ahead, while helping to cultivate solid, mature, biblically-based, Spirit-empowered five-fold ministry, I can help amplify areas of concern when it comes to contemporary apostles and prophets.

Let us talk, let us understand, and let us grow!

Is it true that the Bible supports the pro-choice position when it comes to abortion? After all, the Bible is about making choices, including the choice of whether we go to heaven or hell. How should we respond to this line of reasoning?

Is the Bible Pro-Choice? | Article | AskDrBrown

Is it true that the Bible supports the pro-choice position when it comes to abortion? 

After all, the Bible is about making choices, including the choice of whether we go to heaven or hell. But the Bible is not about coercion, because of which, the argument goes, we should not pass laws forbidding abortion. That is the woman’s choice. 

How should we respond to this line of reasoning?

In recent days, well-known TV personalities like Whoopi Goldberg and Rev. Al Sharpton have made this argument.

Goldberg stated that God gave us “freedom of choice.”

Rev. Sharpton said, “The Bible — if you’re using this as a religious argument — the Bible is about choice. You can go to heaven or hell; there’s nowhere in the Bible that says you have to go to heaven. So where do we get this theology of forcing something when the reality is that you can’t even biblically base that?”

He added, “If you are a minister as I am, you can preach to people to convert them. You do not make laws to compel them.”

On the one hand, God did give us freedom of choice, and we should all be thankful for that. None of us want to be robots who are preprogrammed to behave in a certain way. None of us want to be automatons. In fact, next to our existence, the thing we prize most is our freedom.

It is also true that God does not compel us to follow Him.

He draws us and calls us and appeals to us and reaches out to us and admonishes us. But He does not force us.

As expressed by Moses in Deuteronomy, “This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Deuteronomy 30:19–20).

Or in the words of Joshua, “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your ancestors worshiped beyond the Euphrates River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD. But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:14–15).

Or in the words of Jesus, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (Matthew 7:13–14).

We choose the gate; we choose our fate. God does not force us to come.

But what does this have to do with making laws concerning abortion (or, for that matter, making other laws)? Absolutely nothing.

Laws are put in place for the good of the society, to maintain order and to enhance safety.

That’s why it is illegal to drink and drive.

Yes, it’s your choice. But when your choice can potentially affect other people’s lives, there are laws that restrict your choices. Make the wrong choice, and you will pay the penalty.

In the same way, it is illegal to possess or sell heroin.

Yes, it’s your choice as to whether you put drugs into your body. But certain drugs are considered a danger to society, because of which laws are passed against their distribution and use.

More broadly, even though someone can choose to steal or murder, it is illegal to do so, and all of us (aside from the lawbreakers) are glad these laws are in place. Without them, society would collapse overnight. There would be chaos and mayhem on an unprecedented scale.

When it comes to our own bodies, we can shave our heads or pierce our tongues or cover our torso with tattoos. Theoretically, we could even cut off one of our fingers or toes if we chose to.

But we don’t have the right to do this to someone else’s body. And when it comes to abortion, the woman is making a choice about the body within her body. That is not her right.

Yes, she has the freedom to make that choice. But it is a choice with consequences, a sinful choice, a wrong choice in God’s sight, a choice that negatively affects another life.

In cases like this, the law should be here to protect the life of that baby in the womb. That is what righteousness and justice (let alone mercy and compassion) require. This is especially true when we realize that, according to the Bible, that baby is created in the image of God and is already a human being with destiny and purpose in His sight.

That’s why, when it comes to abortion, those who honor God and love His Word should be pro-life.

Should We Emulate the Table-Flipping Jesus?

This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of our Lord along with a fundamental misunderstanding of our calling in Him.

Should We Emulate the Table-Flipping Jesus? | Article | AskDrBrown

In response to a recent article I wrote on how to love our political and ideological enemies, a reader responded, “We are past all of this to the table flipping, ‘brood of vipers’ phase now.  This hippie Jesus everyone wants to portray is a blasphemy.”

In other words, there was a time when a pacifistic, hippie-like Jesus could teach such things. But as His ministry continued and the opposition got worse, He adopted a new strategy, denouncing His enemies as a “brood of vipers” and flipping the tables of the corrupt money changers.

To be sure, this negative comment was overshadowed by the flood of comments saying, “Amen!”

Still, we should ask: Is there any truth to this line of reasoning?

Instead, it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the character of our Lord along with a fundamental misunderstanding of our calling in Him.

First, before Jesus ever spoke the words “love your enemies” in the Sermon on the Mount, John the Baptizer had already denounced the religious hypocrites, calling them “a brood of vipers” and threatening them with hell fire. (See Matthew 3:7-12.) It’s not as if they suddenly became bad and Jesus now had to adjust His teaching.

In fact, throughout His ministry, Jesus called out the religious hypocrites. So rebuking them was nothing new.

Second, in the Sermon on the Mount itself, before Jesus called us to love our enemies, He told us that we would be hated and reviled and persecuted for His name’s sake, likening us to the prophets of old (Matthew 5:10-12). Yet it was these very people, those who would hate and persecute us, that He called us to pray for and to love.

Third, the very teaching that Jesus rejected, namely, that we should love our neighbors but hate our enemies, was grounded in a very real Jewish world in which the “enemies” were very real, even deadly threats.

Those enemies ranged from brutal Roman authorities to treacherous businessmen and from deceptive false teachers to cutthroat thieves.

Jesus commanded His disciples to love them, not hate them.

To be clear, as I stated in this same article, Jesus “is not saying that we should stop opposing destructive ideologies. He is not calling for moral or cultural or political apathy. He is not requiring us to soften our convictions or lower our standards.

“Love does not mean passivity. Love does not mean compromise.”

At the same time, Jesus pointed to the example of His heavenly Father who causes His sun to shine and His rain to fall on the good and on the evil. That, the Lord taught, is the example we are called to follow.

Fourth, when Paul called on his readers not to take revenge but rather, if our enemy was hungry, to feed him and if he was thirsty, to give him drink, he had already been brutally beaten and persecuted for the gospel. Still, his words were clear: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (Romans 12:14).

This was not the “hippie Paul.” This was Paul the man of God, calling us to walk in spiritual maturity.

Fifth, and most importantly, the same Jesus who called out the religious hypocrites in the strongest of terms and who flipped the tables of the money changers then laid down His life for these very people just a few days later. As Paul wrote, “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us,” pointing out that we were reconciled to the Lord “while we were still enemies” (Romans 5:8, 11).

So, Jesus not only called us to love our enemies, He led the way by dying for His enemies. And it is that behavior and attitude that the Word of God calls us to follow.

As Peter wrote, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. ‘He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.’ When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly” (1 Peter 2:21–23).

In contrast, nowhere does the Word say to us, “Grab a whip and drive out the animals from the Temple and overthrow the tables of the corrupt money changers.”

To do that would be to be let loose all kinds of carnal behavior and justify all kinds of sinful acts. “Hey man,” we would exclaim, as we kicked over tables at a gay pride event, “I’m just following the example of Jesus!”

Unfortunately, to this day, people use the Lord’s strong rebukes of corrupt religious leaders as an outlet for their own fleshly anger and judgmentalism, failing to realize that the Lord only spoke what His Father gave Him to speak and that all of it was spoken in perfect love.

And let’s not forget that, in all our supposed righteous indignation, none of us are Jesus. Just a friendly reminder!

Again, that does not mean that we do not hate evil. To the contrary, in the same chapter we quoted from earlier, Romans 12, Paul wrote, “Hate what is evil. Cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9).

We should hate evil. We should burn with holy anger over the destructive works of the flesh. We should be moved to godly action. Yes, yes, and yes!

But we should love our enemies, not hate them. Otherwise, we become like them.

And when we dismiss the words of the Lord as those of a “hippie Jesus,” we only expose our own ignorance of the character and ways of the Lord.

What Does the Bible Say About the End of the Age?

There are some theologians who believe the world will only get worse before Jesus returns, others who believe things will pretty much remain the same until then, and others who believe the whole world will become Christian. How do we sort this out?

What Does the Bible Say About the End of the Age? | Article | AskDrBrown

Let’s be brutally honest here. It would be arrogant and foolish to imagine that, in one short article, any of us could make a definitive statement about the Bible and the end times. After all, these issues have been debated for hundreds, if not thousands of years, and the debate continues to rage until this day. Plus, what Bible are we talking about? And what do we mean by the end of the age?

When talking about “the Bible,” I’ll be referring to the version of the Bible shared by the largest number of people, namely, the 39 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New Testament.

Judaism accepts only the Hebrew Scriptures (called the Old Testament by Christians) as the Bible. And Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians accept the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Apocrypha as sacred Scripture.

But all Christians agree on the Old and New Testament as being Scripture, so for simplicity’s sake, when we speak about “the Bible,” that’s what we mean.

As for the end of the age, we’re asking the question: what does the Bible say will occur at the end of the world?

Even then, we have opened up a hornet’s nest of controversy, as within evangelical circles alone, there are numerous competing end-time systems, including: historic premillennialism; dispensational premillennialism; amillennialism; and postmillennialism (within this, there are also variations of preterism). Is your head spinning yet?

I suggest we major on the majors, looking at the large themes that are repeated over and again in the Bible rather than trying to figure out every last detail. That’s why I’ve told people for years that if they keep a prophecy calendar, they should use a pencil when filling it in.

Here’s big theme number one: In the end, God’s kingdom will triumph. In the end, righteousness will rule. As described in these famous words of Isaiah, “In the last days   the mountain of the LORD’S temple will be established as the highest of the mountains; it will be exalted above the hills, and all nations will stream to it.

“Many peoples will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.’ The law will go out from Zion, the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

“He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.” (Isaiah 2:2–4)

At that time, either literally or metaphorically, “The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:6–9)

This will be the answer to the prayer that Jesus taught His followers to pray, saying, “Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” (Matthew 6:9–10)

Here’s the next big theme: Until that time, we will see parallel extremes, with the darkness getting darker and the light getting brighter until the Lord returns. It will be as if the devil himself stops hiding in the shadows and unveils the full force of his wickedness while God Himself says, “Really? Now watch this!”

That’s why there are many verses that speak of the separation of the righteous and the wicked in that final hour.

To quote Jesus Himself, “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:47–50)

And this: “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.” (Matthew 25:31–33)

As for specifics, a good case can be made for the following (and I’m just citing one or two verses for each point, knowing every points will be challenged): 1) the nations of the world will attack Jerusalem and seek to destroy the Jewish people, but God will fight for them (see Zechariah 12 and 14); 2) the whole world, aside from God’s faithful children, will be deceived by a one-world ruler who will demand worship for himself (see 2 Thessalonians 2:1-11); 3) still, a massive number of people will come to faith from all nations (see Revelation 7 and Romans 11:25-26), yet it will also be a time of great apostasy and wickedness (see Matthew 24:12; 2 Thessalonians 2:3); 4) the Holy Spirit will be poured out mightily in the midst of mass deception (Acts 2:17-21; Matthew 24:10-11; Revelation 13; 16:13-14); 5) Jesus will return and set up His kingdom (Revelation 19).

The end times will be marked by final separation and judgment, by massive upheaval and then setting things right, by parallel extremes. 

That’s what I understand the Bible to say. Let the debate begin!

(For specific details of my own view, called historic premillennialism, see the book I co-authored with Prof. Craig Keener, Not Afraid of the Antichrist: Why We Don’t Believe in a Pretribulation Rapture – but I do not divide over these issues and I encourage you not to divide over them either.)

I was recently asked to debate whether “progressive Christianity” was “another religion” based on critical statements I had previously made about this so-called “progressive” version of the faith. The problem was that the professor who invited me to debate him defined it differently than I did.

What is ‘Progressive Christianity’? | Article | AskDrBrown

I was recently asked to debate whether “progressive Christianity” (henceforth PC) was “another religion” (meaning, a religion other than Christianity) based on critical statements I had previously made about this so-called “progressive” version of the faith. 

The problem was that the professor who invited me to debate him defined PC differently than I did. 

In fact, he denied that my definition of PC was valid.

In short, I claimed that the “progressive Christians” (henceforth, PCs) I had interacted with affirmed the validity of same-sex “marriage,” supported a woman’s “right” to abortion, and denied that salvation was found exclusively through Jesus.

As for the professor, while not clarifying his views on same-sex “marriage” and abortion, he made clear that PCs did not deny that salvation came exclusively through Jesus.

It depends on which PCs you talk to and how you define PC. Some are more orthodox than others. But those with whom I have interacted have been less orthodox in their beliefs, leading to my strong critiques.

In the end, I declined the debate – as much as I love to debate – because it was simply a matter of definitions. It would be like debating whether I am tall (I’m almost 6’ 3”). Compared to most people, yes; compared to your average NBA player, no. The question, then, comes down to how one defines tall.

In the same way here, the question came down to how we define PC.

For clarity, then, allow me to reference some definitions of PC that support my understanding of the term.

It’s easy, of course, to find negative, heterodox descriptions of PC on websites critical of PC.

Some examples would be the White Horse Inn, which notes that, “Progressive Christianity is a movement that is infiltrating and influencing the Evangelical church. Some of the most high-profile Christian leaders are a part of it. This movement seeks to re-interpret the Bible, re-assess historic doctrines, and re-define core tenets of the faith. While claiming the title ‘Christian,’ and boasting a high view of the Bible, it is sweeping up many unsuspecting Christians into a false view of who God is and how he saves people.”

Similarly, the Got Questions website, while cautioning against painting with too broad a brush, states that “the views of many progressive Christians do not fit with biblical principles.”

There are also some writers who speak of PC in very broad terms, like the Contemplative Life website, which lists some of the leading PCs as Marcus Borg and John Hick, liberal scholars who clearly fall outside the lines of the historic Christian faith.

But what about from the mouths of PCs themselves? What do they have to say?

According to the United Church of Christ in Beaverton, Oregon, PC began as a movement in 2006 “an alternative to the Christian faith portrayed in the public realm.”

The statement continues, “The leaders of Progressive Christianity had grown weary of defining their Christian faith in negative terms: ‘We aren’t fundamentalists. We don’t believe the Bible is the inerrant or infallible word of God. We don’t agree that Creationism should replace the science of evolution in public schools. We don’t believe that God hates gays. We don’t believe that people of other faiths are going to hell unless they convert to Christianity. We don’t deny the right of women to choose what happens to their bodies.’” (Their emphasis.)

That being said, this same webpage makes clear that they do, in fact, affirm these negative statements. See, for example, their second statement of faith: “THE CHRISTIAN FAITH IS OUR WAY OF BEING FAITHFUL TO GOD. BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY WAY.”

In the same way, the St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church webpage devoted to defining “The Eight Points of Progressive Christianity” offers this for number 2 on the list: “Affirm that the teachings of Jesus provide but one of many ways to experience the Sacredness and Oneness of life, and that we can draw from diverse sources of wisdom in our spiritual journey.”

Number 3 is: “Seek community that is inclusive of ALL people, including but not limited to: Conventional Christians and questioning skeptics, Believers and agnostics, Women and men,  Those of all sexual orientations and gender identities, Those of all classes and abilities.”

Similarly, when it comes to abortion, a 2019 article in The Atlantic explains why some progressive pastors support abortion rights.

And what does the Progressive Christianity website tell us? Listed on the PC board are leaders like Rev. Mark Sandlin, “an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA).” He is a vocal proponent of supporting LGBTQ rights, calling it “the Christian thing to do.”

This website also links to the identical listing of “The Eight Points of Progressive Christianity” cited above.

It is based on lists like this and leaders like this that I have based my critiques.

In short, PC, as defined by some of its leaders, denies the absolute authority of Scripture (stating that it is not the infallible Word of God). It denies that salvation and redemption come only through the cross of Jesus. It affirms the validity of same-sex “marriage.” And it affirms a women’s “right” to choose abortion.

And so, it may call itself “Christian,” it may espouse many excellent causes based on the ethical teachings of Jesus, and it may even reveal blindspots and failings among conservative Christians. But it is not, itself, “Christian.” It has “progressed” beyond (and outside of) the Word of God.

For those who define PC differently, I respectfully request that you make your definitions plain, as in a formal doctrinal statement. That way, we can know where we differ and where we agree.

What the Early Church Said About Abortion

When we look to the Scriptures, it is clear that the Bible describes the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is a child with potential life and destiny ahead, not a clump of cells. So, the pro-life position is easily deduced from the pages of the Bible.

But when we look to writings of the early Church leaders, their condemnation is even more direct and forceful. And remember: this was without the visual evidence of ultrasounds and without today’s massive improvements in fetal viability. Still, they recognized abortion for the evil that it is.

What the Early Church Said About Abortion | Articles | AskDrBrown

While the pro-life position is widely associated with Bible-believing Christians, there are actually professing Christians who identify as pro-choice. In fact, one of my pro-life colleagues was speaking at a church in Michigan when, to his shock, he learned that the pastor had recently taken up an offering to help one of the young ladies in the church get an abortion. How can this be?

A pro-life colleague in Charlotte, North Carolina told me that he knew an abortion doctor in the city who gave a tenth of her earnings to her local church. In her mind, she was doing God’s work.

In that same spirit, Breitbart reports that, “Several left-wing, pro-abortion activist groups led by so-called ‘clergy’ are ramping up their efforts to make sure women can abort their unborn children, including transporting them to states where abortionists are still operating.”

In the words of Katie Zeh, a pastor and CEO of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, “It’s so central to our faith to care for people, so it’s no surprise that clergy [prior to Roe v. Wade] were part of the group helping people get abortion care.”

When we look to the Scriptures, it is clear that the Bible describes the humanity of the baby in the womb. This is a child with potential life and destiny ahead, not a clump of cells. So, the pro-life position is easily deduced from the pages of the Bible.

But when we look to writings of the early Church leaders, their condemnation is even more direct and forceful. And remember: this was without the visual evidence of ultrasounds and without today’s massive improvements in fetal viability. Still, they recognized abortion for the evil that it is.

One of the earliest Church writings from outside the New Testament is the Didache, also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve,” as if going back directly to the twelve apostles.

It states, “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2).

Both abortion and infanticide were prohibited, regardless of what the rest of the culture practiced. Such was the counter-culture mentality of the Church, being transformed by the Word rather than conformed to the world (see Romans 12:1-2).

Another important source from the early Church is the Letter of Barnabas. It mirrors the Didache, stating, “Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19). It’s a baby inside the womb and a baby outside the womb.

Writing towards the end of the second century, Tertullian said, “In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8).

Skipping ahead 200 more years, to the end of the fourth century, Jerome wrote, “Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13).

And this is just a sampling of the statements of these Church leaders, for whom abortion was a deeply sinful practice. In the words of John Chrysostom, also in the late fourth century, abortion is “murder before the birth.”

In fact, David Bercot, in A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, listed more than 20 relevant quotes under the heading of Abortion/Infanticide, indicating how these Church leaders saw abortion and infanticide as two sides of the same coin. (Note that infanticide was widely practiced in the ancient world, with parents leaving unwanted infants outdoors to be killed by animals or nature.)

The amount of citations gathered by Bercot also points to the importance of the topic for these Christian leaders, the earliest of whom were the disciples of the apostles.

For those of you reading this article who have had abortions or participated in an abortion, it is understandable that these quotations sting deeply. At the same time, there is mercy and forgiveness and healing and restoration at the cross. And if you confess your sin to God and cry out for mercy and grace, the blood of Jesus will cleanse you – thoroughly, completely, and eternally. And this includes the sin of abortion.

And to every Christian leader who claims to find biblical support for your abortion-supporting position, I leave you with the words of Jesus: “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 18:10).

When those babies in the womb – the ultimate “little ones” – are being destroyed, their angels are looking right into the face of the heavenly Father. You will answer to Him on that final Day.

The Problem of Suffering, Atheism, and the Killing of Innocent Children

In the aftermath of the senseless slaughter of little children and schoolteachers this week, the question of “why” comes up again. If God is really there and if He is truly good, why does He allow things like this to happen?

The Problem of Suffering, Atheism, and the Killing of Innocent Children | Article | AskDrBrown

In the aftermath of the senseless slaughter of little children and schoolteachers this week, the question of “why” comes up again. 

If God is really there and if He is truly good, why does He allow things like this to happen? 

For some people, the answer is simple... Read the Full Article on Stream.org

Theology

Adam Levine, Human Nature, and Adultery

How to Have a Constructive Conversation about ‘NAR’ (the New Apostolic Reformation)

Is the Bible Pro-Choice?

Should We Emulate the Table-Flipping Jesus?

What Does the Bible Say About the End of the Age?

What is ‘Progressive Christianity’?

What the Early Church Said About Abortion

The Problem of Suffering, Atheism, and the Killing of Innocent Children

A Friendly Word to My ‘Cautiously Charismatic’ Colleagues

Should We Love Our Enemies Even During a Time of War?

Substitutionary Atonement: Jesus Died for Us

In the End, God Will Be Fully Justified

To the ‘Holy Ones’ in Corinth: Insights into How God’s See the Church

Sickness Is an Enemy

Is Our God No Different than the ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’?

Evil Covid Killed My Friend

Once Again, the Greek Word Pharamakia in Revelation 18:23 Does Not Refer to Big Pharma

Is It True that the Book of Revelation Indicts Big Pharma?

Where Was God When a Speeding SUV Mowed Down Grandmothers and Children at a Christmas Parade?

Our Mother Who Art in Heaven?

No, it is Not Cognitive Dissonance to Proclaim that God is Good When Things Go Bad

When Harvard Hired an Atheist to be the Chief University Chaplain

Pied Piper Preachers and the Gospel of No Responsibility

What’s So Bad About Encouraging Female Modesty?

The Ongoing Intersection of the Gospel with Culture

Do Not Assume that the Kindness of God is a Sign of His Blessing and Favor

If God Does Not Exist then Injustice Does Not Exist