Pajama Pages is happy to provide a translation for you:

I’ve just made a decision in my life that no one human being will take the seat of the throne of lordship in my life, and not one person (and this doesn’t apply to my wife and my kid, because obviously you know that’s a different category) in my life is going to keep me from going to the places that God wants to take me.

Translation: God only wants to take me to really, really neat places. Job is so Old Testament.

You have no idea the relational cost that has to be paid (some of you do, because you’ve paid it) before your ministry can truly grow. And a lot of you have no idea what it feels like to be loved by everyone, but to be known by no-one.

People might not love you, but they sure do love me.

It’s really weird. People come up to me in the restaurant and they’re, like, “Hey, I see you guys are on date night. How did you like the Clemson game Saturday night? I saw you Tweet about that.” And it’s a little freaky; they really know me. And I don’t know them, and I’m trying to have dinner. And usually people are really polite, but still it’s really kind of freaky when you’re, like, “Man, you really know a lot about me,” and I guess I put it all out there, but it’s kind of weird.

I’m really famous, though sometimes I have to talk to little people whom I don’t know.

And what’s more painful than that…

Now think about Jesus. He’s actually invested in these guys and is about to die for them, and they’re sleeping on him. Now think about the relational pain of investing in someone at that level, and then–you know what he says–the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak. And it broke Jesus’ heart.

Jesus should have fired that sorry bunch of losers. I would have.

And the single greatest thing standing between some of you and the level God wants to take you to–the stratosphere he wants to propel you into in your leadership–is your unwillingness to confront one relationship in your life.

I’m already in the stratosphere, so the relationship you need to confront is definitely not with me.

I wish I could take your cellphone right now and start asking you questions.

As you know, I don’t do real good talking to anonymous little people like you, but I’m pretty good with cell phones and Twitter.

Some of you have lazy staff members that you’re keeping in positions that they suck at in the name of loving them. You’re not doing that because you love them; you’re doing that because you love the comfort of the relationship you have with them more than you actually love them.

I still have no idea why Jesus kept Peter around. Evangelist, rock. Huh?

I’m not expecting amens in this session. I’m expecting blank stares.

Especially from you suckers who thought it would be a good idea to bring your senior pastor with you today. Go home and start working on your resumes tonight.

I’m preaching so you’ll delete later, not so you’ll say amen now.

Wow, did I mean to say delete? How did some good advice make it into this sermon? Reset.

I’m preaching so you will be empowered. Look, I’m not talking about being cold and being harsh. If you had any idea how much pain we go through to make sure that if someone ever leaves this ministry we take care of them, and we bless them, and we send them. But the most painful things in my leadership life have not been from critics I didn’t know, but from relationships that outgrew their season and I had to let them go.

I’ve fired so many people I can hardly stand it. Don’t you feel sorry for me?

Here’s what I want to prophetically say to some of you who are mourning over a relationship that God has rejected in your life…

When you have to have to destroy a friend’s career, tell them that God made you do it.

1 Samuel 16:1, God confronts Samuel the prophet who was in mourning over Saul, who wasn’t going to make it as the king. “How long will you mourn over what God has rejected?” How long will you mourn over relationships that God was done with three years ago? How long are you going to keep trying to make it work?

I’m the prophet now, so you shouldn’t read anything into the fact that God solved this problem by having the leader fall on his sword. Absolutely no application there.

Would this be a good time to break for lunch?

God taught me the 5 Purposes of Church at 24, but few paid attention. Now,in my50s,I ask”What 24yrold should I be listening to?

1. Had God been hiding these purposes until 30 years ago? You mean to tell me the Church wandered around for 1,970 or so years without knowing its purpose, until 24 year old Rick Warren comes along and recieves some type of special knowledge from God?
2. Is Warren really hoping to find another man in his 20s who has received new divine revelation?
3. Which 24 year old should you listen to? Pretty much anyone who is clinging tightly to the Word of God. Of course, that wouldn’t be new revelation, but really, really old revelation…but at least it is real revelation.
4. Age shouldn’t disqualify someone from being heard, nor should it be the reason we listen to them. I am sure there are some 24 year olds out there carrying the true message of God…and I would love to hear them. I know for a fact that there are some men in their 60s who are faithfully delivering God’s word.
5. Why is the messenger all that important anyway? The message itself is what matters.

Stanley the Younger is a lead-by-example advocate of CEO pastoring and wants to run through the Bible with a large bottle of whiteout to get rid of the tricky bits that describe Christ-modeled pastoral ministry. Since Downing linked to this article last week, I haven’t been able to get this section out of my head:

Should we stop talking about pastors as “shepherds”?
Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Jesus talked about shepherds because there was one over there in a pasture he could point to. But to bring in that imagery today and say, “Pastor, you’re the shepherd of the flock,” no. I’ve never seen a flock. I’ve never spent five minutes with a shepherd. It was culturally relevant in the time of Jesus, but it’s not culturally relevant any more.

Absolutely. That word needs to go away. Think about that and how confidently it appears to have been uttered. This site has chronicled recent appalling disrespect shown to God’s Word by Furtick and his staff, and this Stanley quote shook me with the realization of just how riddled the Turnstile Church is with a low opinion of God’s written revelation.

Some related thoughts on Stanley and the horde of leaders who imbibe his wisdom:

• They worship culture more than the creator of culture. Who created the sheep? Who taught man to care for those sheep? Perhaps there was a shepherd standing nearby when Jesus spoke, but that’s only because before the foundation of the world God had ordained his profession and his activities that day. The illustration was the product of a Creator, not of a culture.
• They consider themselves equal to Christ. When Jesus said “Follow me,” Stanley apparently thought he was talking about Stanley, as in, “Follow Stanley.”
  

  “Follow me.” Follow we never works. Ever. It’s “follow me.”

  Stanley refuses to follow Jesus’ on shepherding, yet appropriates Jesus’ words to clear the deck for himself and bludgeon his followers into submission.

• They blaspheme the Word. Jesus is the Word, yet Stanley thinks the best he could do was search for an about-to-expire metaphor because it happened to be close at hand. Jesus was so inept with his references to shepherding that Stanley claims they were irrelevant as soon as Acts. “By the time of the Book of Acts, the shepherd model is gone,” he said. In other words, Jesus’ own words were stale by the time the New Testament was written. If we can dismiss Jesus so easily, why pay any attention to anything the other old, dead guys wrote?
• They strip the Word of inconvenient truths. The obligations of a shepherd don’t feel like they fit our more advanced times, so we shouldn’t even try to deal with them. Stanley cites Bill Hybels as inspiration for dismissing the Bible as too anachronistic.
  

  It’s going to be the best corporate institution it can possibly be, and we’re not going to try to merge first century –

  The church wasn’t an organization in the first century.

  Not an organization? Don’t tell Paul or any of the supervising apostles in Jerusalem. How shortsighted was Jesus not to anticipate that the church would grow so much it would one day turn into an organization? You can’t expect too much business foresight from a young rural carpenter, though, so we’ll give him a break. He founded a pretty useful brand name, so we’ll keep him around.

• They misunderstand the role of the pastor. Stanley allows that we can still see glimpses of shepherding.
  

  Nothing works in our culture with that model except this sense of the gentle, pastoral care.

  Yes, the shepherd could be gentle, but he was responsible for the life of his sheep. He fed the sheep, disciplined the sheep, and even sacrificed his life for them. Does David strike you as a gentle-all-the-time kind of character? Me neither.

• They abandon the saints to the wolves. This was yet another important function of the shepherd, and how our aforementioned hero developed the skills that let him fell a giant. If the shepherd was a disposable metaphor, how do the references to heretics as wolves make sense? Note Jesus’ warning in Matthew 7:15:
  

  Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.

  Note Paul’s last words to the church leaders on Ephesus in Acts 20:28-30:

  Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.

  I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

  So much for being irrelevant by Acts. Most on point is Jesus’ reference in John 10 to leaders who abandoned their roles as shepherds.

  I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

  He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them.

  He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.

  Yet according to Stanley and his brethren, shepherd is out, and hired hand CEO is in.

  Good to know.

• They add their own wisdom to their religion. Although Stanley is all for doing away with shepherding, he insists on adding the CEO as an essential part of church leadership.
  

  I think a big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership. One of the criticisms I get is “Your church is so corporate.” I read blogs all the time. Bloggers complain, “The pastor’s like a CEO.” And I say, “OK, you’re right. Now, why is that a bad model?”

  It’s a bad model for the church because it’s not shepherding and it’s not Biblical. It’s an excellent model for Starbucks, though.

• They are building a mass of mindless followers. The followers must be kept quiet and uninformed.
  

  As you increase the number of people, you have to decrease the complexity of the information. Congregational rule, when you’re trying to make a complicated decision, works against the principle. So consequently, the guy with the microphone and the clearest message always wins. The most persuasive person in the room is going to win. Whether right or wrong.

  We don’t want good arguments to persuade people, then they might start doubting the leader. Think of all the time Paul wasted arguing his case to the council in Jerusalem (Acts 15) when he could have been about his business of being a model CEO.

• They are building a guild of authoritarian leaders. Has it ever struck you how much time these head pastors (?) spend talking to us and each other about leadership? When was the last time they held a conference to talk about God in the fashion of a Piper? Steven Furtick noted the abundance of leadership talk and resources last week:
  

  This generation has the most access to leadership development in the history of the world. We had better MAXIMIZE it.

  For what? Historically, the combination of a little bit of religion, compliant followers and authoritarian leaders has usually led to bad outcomes.

• They are building a nursery for heretics. At times, we at PP are pressed to declare that folk like Noble and Furtick are burn-them-at-the-stake heretics. When we refuse to do so, we’re usually told to go away because we’re hyperventilating about stuff that doesn’t matter.

  For the last decade or so, astute observers of American evangelicalism have been complaining and warning about the church’s creeping anti-intellectualism. The Turnstile Church is what you get when you mix that anti-intellectualism with cultural flexibility–a church that looks like the culture it’s a product of, but that can’t see what might be problematic with that. Note how criticism is dismissed without ever–ever–engaging ideas or Scripture. If you can’t defend your ideas, if you refuse all challenges, how would you ever know whether the wolves have entered the fold?

We live at a time where massive churches are led by pastors who quote Scripture like it was Shakespeare (a few well-known quotes repeated over and over), distort it, ignore it or reject it. We are not yet at the stage where we have much blatant heresy, but we’re getting there.

What happens to the generation that comes after Stanley and Warren and Noble and Furtick? The generation that has been encouraged to ignore the study of Scripture. The generation that thinks authoritarian leaders are more important than pastors. That knows there’s no value in Leviticus. That thinks Acts talks about pastors on video screens. The generation that thinks most other local churches are either corrupt or inept. That thinks you can talk about God however you want to.

I shudder.

The problem is that by the time we get there, it’s too late. How do you bring CEOs back to the Bible when they don’t know what’s in it and don’t think it should govern them? By then, the game is lost.

So when do you raise the alarm? When do you scream bloody murder?

Now. You do it now.

NEVER underestimate the importance of chemistry in regards 2 who you work with…doing WHAT u r called 2 do w/people u love is AWESOME!

Lamb thought so too.

Perhaps professionalism should be more important than chemistry, but who am I to argue with success?

Over 7000 people at Elevation this weekend! Over 500 salvations! Eph. 3:20! Thank you Jesus!

500 salvations is a huge number, and praise be to God for those souls. Even though it seems unbelievable, I know through Christ anything is possible. I wouldn’t question the legitimacy of those conversions, but apparently Steven does:

We’ve seen over 5000 people indicate that they placed their faith in Christ in the last 3 ½ years through our weekend worship experiences.  While we can’t make any assertions about which of these conversion experiences were genuine, we’re so thankful that God has allowed us to scatter so much seed and see such an evident harvest in our city.  He will separate the wheat from the chaff.  We’ll just keep sowing the Gospel and celebrating the life change we can see.

Nevertheless, I’ll assume those 5,000 converts are real for now. Just a quick glance at the figure in the first quote vs. the figure in the second quote stopped me in my tracks.If Elevation’s largest attendance ever was 7,000, and they have had over 5,000 people saved in the last 3 years, that would mean that at least 70% of Furtick’s audience are new believers.

So as Senior Pastor to such a congregation, what is Steven teaching these infants and toddlers in Christ?

• Here he paints Bible study in a negative light.
• Here he teaches that too much bible study is a bad thing, and we should avoid learning about things like the doctrines of Grace. Gotta be careful about Spiritual Obesity.

I am sure he borrowed the idea from his mentor Perry Noble, who probably borrowed it from Rick Warren. Here’s a quote from Warren on the topic:

“The last thing many believers need is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice. What they need are serving experiences in which they can exercise their spiritual muscles.”

Why do these guys have such a disdain for bible study? It has to be one of the following:

1. They don’t believe it is powerful. Surely if these pastors thought the Word of God held any power, they would encourage their members to study it as much as possible. It would make their job easier. We’ve seen how they don’t want to give individual attention to members, so at least leading them to God’s word would ensure they were being fed.
2. They don’t believe it is God’s word. If studying the Bible is listening to God, then it is impossible to study too much. If God has chosen to reveal himself to us through this book, then we should spend as much time as possible learning about him.
3. They believe there is a better method for hearing God. This is particularly bothersome, considering their dependence on personal revelation.
4. They find it threatening. They are afraid that Christians well-versed in Scripture will start raising questions about things going on in the church.

The next figure to address is the 500 salvations from last weekend. That is 500 brand new converts, thrown into this world where the pastor doesn’t care about their needs, they are told to feed themselves, and directed away from Bible study. 500 people. That’s an entire church…all with no guidance. The church I serve is in a town with a total population of 600.

You have to question what is being done to care for these 500 brand new believers. Have they hired new staff to look out for these guys? Have they made any changes to ensure this group is cared for? Again, you have enough people to be considered a pretty large church here. That’s scary.

Simple. Instead of saying “God told me,” they should lead by prefacing their visions with “I think” or “I want.”

Here are some problems with the God-told-me approach.

1. It claims infallibility. When a leader says “God says,” it really takes the leader out of the equation and suggests that if you think the vision is wrong or unwise, you have a problem with God. We’ve seen specific examples of this kind of thinking from Noble and Furtick. Because God is never wrong or unwise, we are forced to yield to these visions as being perfectly right and good.
2. It demands unquestioning obedience. This follows from the first point. If God said it, every Christian must obey it. If you’re a leader, it’s a wonderful tool to be able to wield, where your very words are perceived as demands from God.
3. It turns questions into fractious divisions. If, on the other hand, we wonder whether a leader’s vision really is straight from the throne of Heaven (PP, for example), we are castigated as not only being against the man, but being against the kingdom of God. As I pointed out yesterday, it gets to the point where Noble considers his critics as being in the family of the Devil more than in the family of God.

Here are some advantages of the I-think approach.

• It depends on wisdom. Unless a leader can point to chapter and verse (God’s special revelation), anything else is a product of human wisdom. By God’s grace, he has given us wisdom, which should be informed by Scripture with the Holy Spirit’s help. We are expected to use it. To say that a decision is a product of human wisdom does not necessarily mean it’s wrong, but it doesn’t claim infallibility for itself. It is possible, however, that is is wrong.
• It makes leaders take responsibility. When a leader claims God’s revelation for his decisions, he can also blame God for the results. If the leader is leading based on personal wisdom, it forces him to count the cost and take responsibility for consequences.
• It demands responsibility and discernment by hearers. Even though Paul was speaking the very words of God to the Bereans, he consented to having them test his words to discern that they were true. Repeatedly, Scripture tells us to test the words of our leaders to see if they conform to God’s word. If the leader claims divine inspiration, there is no possibility or need to test the words. In the Biblical model, followers must take responsibility for the words of the leader, and need to correct or abandon false teachers.
• It leaves room for disagreement. If it’s possible that a leader’s decisions may be unwise, there is space for criticism and correction. For example, when Perry Noble asked his tweets whether he should wear the grope-your-wife T-shirt, he was asking whether it was wise to do that, and we perceived an invitation to help him with his decision–something I complimented him on in the subsequent discussion. On the other hand, when he said that God told him to play Highway to Hell in church, no criticism is brooked, even though many of us PPers see that as a very unwise act.
• It distinguishes between God’s revelation and a leader’s passion. Noble’s reference to a deeply felt vision a few days ago was a good clue to what these really are–his personal hopes and goals for the church. Every leader should have goals for where he wants to lead, and it is perfectly appropriate to communicate them as such. What is inappropriate is when the leader takes his goals and raises them to the level of special revelation. A Holy Spirit-led leader will often have his goals coincide with God’s purpose for the church, and we pray for our leaders that that is the case. A Holy Spirit-led leader will also know that there’s a difference between what comes out of God’s mouth and what comes out of his, and he’ll be careful to make sure that his followers understand that difference as well.

Let’s look at some examples of each.

1. Infallibility. Furtick specificially told us that when he hears from God, no-one may question him. The only reason that questions would be off the table is if you were sure that what you heard from God, and what you speak in response to it, is infallible. The consequence, as Noble has said, is that the leader must not be doubted.
   

   A leader should never allow doubters to dictate the direction of their ministry…when God speaks our obsession MUST be complete obedience!

   Not only does Noble not want to hear from any doubters, he dare not even think about them.

   When God puts a word inside of you – “what would others think about this?” is a question that completely dishonors Him!!! HE MATTERS!!!

   To ensure the aura of infallibility, they also present their behaviors and words as irrefutable. If you agree with it, it must be true, but if you disagree with it, it must be even truer. See if you can follow the logic in this Noble argument:

   Church planter–do what God called you to do…if people are speaking out against you…it probably means God has spoken into you and you are being obedient.

   Don’t waste the time God has given you on those who don’t like you…ever! If what you are doing is of God then critics can’t stop it!

   Although we’ve addressed the appeal to fatalism on this blog before, this is a more aggressive variation, where because something is is proof that it should be. Under this logic, a leader can never be disobedient so long as he’s being effective and being criticized.

2. Condemnation. If leaders represent God’s truth when they speak and act, the next step is to argue that anyone who opposes them is opposing God. Noble forcefully and literally demonizes his critics.
   

   The only person who would criticize a move of God is a jealous, angry, bitter person. And the other thought is that God would NEVER lead a person to criticize something that He in involved in. Well…uh…let’s see–if the criticism is not God led–then who is responsible? Hmm…just know that if you are doing what God desires…and you are being criticized…then it will help to view the critic as a tool of satan. (I make no apologies for that statement!!!) [emphasis added]

   When it comes to dealing with critics…Jesus dealt with them. Remember the Pharisees? And when it came to dealing with them He pulled no punches, He even referred to them as snakes, vipers, and whitewashed tombs. This is the attitude I have to take–that the religious will always criticize a move of God…and it breaks my heart because when you boil it down–even though the Pharisees were religious–they didn’t have a relationship with Jesus!

   Notice the equivalence. Someone who criticizes Noble is ipso facto criticizing Jesus, which means that they cannot be a part of the family of God.

   Here’s another example of Noble characterizing his critics as heathen, while mixing in his irrefutable logic (that is, if you criticize him, it proves that he is right).

   I honestly believe that a true follower of Jesus Christ will make religious people both uncomfortable and angry…and as long as those are the men and women shooting the arrows at me then I know I am walking in the right path.  (John 15:18-21)

   It’s not that I don’t care about you guys…it’s that I care enough to ignore you!  You see, if what we are doing is wrong and sinful then the Lord will handle us…but if what we are doing here at NewSpring Church is of God…you can’t stop it (Acts 5:35-39) and are actually not opposing us…but Him.  (BTW…you lose!)

There are several notable implications from this approach. First, is it really smart to be raising the stakes so high that you call the faith of your critics into question just for raising a question? Noble is drawing a line in the sand and saying that he’s on the Christian side of it, and the rest of us are on Satan’s side. When you’re a leader of a movement that is sensitive to some people calling it cultish, separating the family of God into saved and unsaved depending on your fidelity to a human leader is hardly going to make those fears go away. We critics are often pressed to affirm that we believe we’re all on the same side. The are you all on the same team? question would more fruitfully be asked of people like Perry Noble.

Second, what are you communicating to your own followers about the worth and dignity of Christians who are outside of your movement and, based on their own commitment to the Word of God, question the beliefs and methods of these charismatic leaders? When you call us sons and daughters of the Devil, what kinds of passions do you unleash and endorse among your true believers?

I sent messengers to them with this reply: “I am carrying on a great project and cannot go down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and go down to you?”

Leave-me-alone leaders use this example to convince themselves and others that they are doing the right thing by staying on the wall and ignoring everybody who points out problems.

An example from Noble:

People are hating on you.  They are attacking you.  They are flat out lying about you.  They’ve never been to your church and they attempt to judge your character by listening to selected portions of your sermons.  (Which would make them superficial!)

Pastor…church leader…don’t come down off the wall!!!

Noble uses the idea to encourage Rick Warren:

Keep up the incredible work…and not to come down off the wall & get tangled up in the web that the enemy seeks to spin through detractors.

From Furtick:

Maybe you’re a pastor squaring up with a carnal deacon board, trying to pursue a God given vision in the face of tremendous scrutiny and opposition.
Stay on the wall, Nehemiah.  That deacon board can’t stop you.   God is fighting for you!  Dream, implement, preach, evangelize, cast vision.
It will come to pass.

There are a number of problems with hiding behind Nehemiah 6.

1. Jerusalem is not analogous to a church. Nehemiah was building a wall that served as a real physical defense against its enemies. By the beginning of chapter 6, the wall was strong enough to withstand an assault, though the doors were not finished yet, so he was racing the clock. Nehemiah’s enemies needed to draw him beyond the walls to be able to attack him. If Perry Noble wants to think of himself as Nehemiah, why is he building a wall to keep people out of church?
2. Nehemiah was responding to a lie. Nehemiah’s enemies falsely offered to talk, but they were really trying to kill him.
3. Nehemiah did reply. Four times Nehemiah engaged them by asking them to justify their request. He wasn’t so busy that he couldn’t respond; he was wise enough to know when he was being deceived. Nehemiah 4 also details how Nehemiah responded to complaints from his own people, even removing people from the work on the wall.
4. Nehemiah faced real enemies. Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem were setting up an ambush to kill Nehemiah. Chapter 4 tells us what their motives were, then chapter 6 details the means of their conspiracy to defeat Nehemiah and attack Jerusalem.

The problem with using Nehemiah’s wall as an excuse to ignore criticism is that it’s unnecessarily divisive. It says that critics are lying mortal enemies of the church. Rather than framing Christian critics as being outside the wall, it would be more accurate and constructive to consider them inside-the-wall co-workers looking for the best way to perform the task.

On many occasions on this blog I’ve been asked to affirm that Noble and I are on the same team. I’ve answered in the affirmative.

What do you think Noble and Furtick would answer if the same-team question were asked of them? Their use of Nehemiah 6 suggests that they would say no.

1. Whine
2. Be sad
3. Get angry
4. Lie and say it doesn’t bother you
5. Ignore it (his preferred response)
6. Explain yourself

UPDATE: Sorry, I just noticed that the sixth option wasn’t actually there.

(We’ll get to that issue in a minute, but first a comment about the over-the-top reaction to the Gary Lamb posts. Before you accuse me of judging Lamb or belittling him or his congregation, please review the content of my posts. The first one was the product of a little bit of research on Lamb’s blog which showed his moves to get close to his partner in the affair. The second criticized his lack of a public apology to Elena. The next simply showed his own sermon titles, which are interesting in the context of the acknowledged affair. Then the following two were more focused on Perry Noble’s self-described legalistic approach to avoiding affairs, the point of which was to prevent more Gary Lamb-type stories. I don’t see where the offensive judging is, especially when Lamb himself broadcast news of his affair.)

Should we judge? Of course. The folk who are accusing me of judging are themselves judging me for judging, so it is apparently something even the best of us cannot help but do. That’s just as well, because the Bible clearly calls us to judge, especially church leaders.

For all who quote the “do not judge” verse, let’s look at it in context from Matthew 7:1-6:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.

This is not an absolute prohibition on judging; it’s a warning that the standards that we hold others to will be used to measure us. It’s really a warning against legalism. If we condemn men for riding alone with women in elevators, for example, we are fair game for being condemned if we do the same thing. At the end of the plank-in-eye lesson, the judging brother does actually remove the speck. Note, also, verse 6. After the words about being careful about judging, Jesus challenges us to judge so that we can identify the dogs and pigs.

Look, also, just a little later in the same chapter. From Matthew 7:15-16:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.

We are to watch the prophets’ words and actions and judge whether they are true or false. My goal on this blog is to match the words and actions of various high-profile leaders against the standards of Scripture. That is the measure that I’m trying to use, which is already the measure that God uses to judge me. (I can think of one exception when I criticized Cooper for deleting Tommy’s comments from his blog. That is not a scriptural standard, but having measured BCoop by that standard, you are all welcome to judge me if I retroactively delete users’ comments.)

Let’s deal with a few more specific questions about judging.

1. We’re all on the same team. Aren’t you just being divisive? Yes, therefore yes. The Bible requires believers to hold teachers to high standards of truth. The Bereans were commended for testing Paul, who was at the time teaching inspired truth. 1 Corinthians 11:19 tells us that disputes over propriety in worship are useful in helping us find truth. 2 Peter 2 warns us to be vigilant against false teachers, who are, by definition, not obvious. They can only be smoked out by rigorous testing against Scripture. If anything, we should be much more vigorous in testing people on our own team. Look at 1 Corinthians 5:12-13:
   

   What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from among you.”

   Let the unbelievers be wrong, but we must insist on what is right inside the church, to the point of expelling immoral members.

2. Should you be doing this in public? Preferably not, but it’s not such a bad thing. Almost the entire New Testament is written against the backdrop of doctrinal disputes–first Jesus and the Pharisees, later Paul versus the other apostles and then against false teachers in the churches. Those disputes are part of God’s Word to us, which is the foundation for evangelism. It is the Holy Spirit that draws men to Christ, so why would a conversation between Christians who are seeking to properly apply the Bible to our worship and living be so debilitating? Do we want to be telling the world that truth and holiness don’t matter? Truth is attractive, though not always serene.

   A second reason is that there is no other available forum. I think I have stated this before, but my initial reaction when I first encountered the anti-Christian content on Noble’s blog was to write him a private letter. Long before I wrote the billboards newspaper article, I repeatedly approached Noble through the official channels in his church. As we’ve seen over and over, Noble refuses to engage his critics privately. What we have, then, is a church leader who defames the Christian church loudly, frequently and publicly. I would argue that we are left with a moral responsibility to defend the church loudly, frequently and publicly.

3. But you and your church aren’t perfect. Correct, but I and my church are not trying to start a Reformation. We are not leading hundreds of other pastors and church planters and trying to define for them what the church is. I respect Noble/Furtick/Warren etc for being the influential leaders that they are (recall all the times I’ve defended Noble’s salary on that basis), and I take what they say seriously.
4. Can’t we all just get along? Sure. Once you all agree with me, think how happy you’ll be.