Guarding His Flock Ministries

Was the appointment of Matthias apostolically errant?

"Jesus therefore said to them again, 'Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.' And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained'." Jesus, John 20:21-23, NASB

As liberal and emergent Christians seek out a new paradigm for doing church—in their estimation the old one has miserably failed—they exalt the authority of Jesus on the one hand—that’s good—but diminish the authority of the Apostles on the other—that’s not good. To emergent liberals, the apostles stand as obstructers to the kingdom building that Jesus envisioned and taught about.[1] So in questioning apostolic authority, they assume that, in contrast to Jesus, the apostles were only human and as such, made mistakes in their understanding of the meaning of the kingdom and their governance of the early church; and because they didn’t get it right yesterday, we should not assume that their writings have it right for today. In such a way, modern emergents question apostolic authority.

   Send article as PDF to

What might it all mean, and where might it all lead?

"Therefore I make known to you, that . . . no one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12:2, NASB

Amongst pan-evangelicals nowadays, there’s a lot of talk . . . talk . . . talk . . . going on about “Jesus,” the name that bespeaks the humanity of the historical person known by that name. The best selling religious allegory The Shack humanizes Jesus as a relatively unattractive Middle Eastern Jewish man with a “big nose” who functioned as the retreat center’s repairman.[1]

At face value, there is nothing wrong with portraying Jesus as human. In Jesus, God became incarnate. Paul the Apostle wrote, Jesus was “made in the likeness of men . . . [and] found in appearance as a man” (Philippians 2:7-8). Christians cannot deny—though Docetism, an ancient heresy in the early church, taught that His body was not real, that He only “seemed” (Greek, dokein) to have a body—Jesus possessed and possesses a genuine humanity. To counter the false teaching of Docetism, John the Apostle wrote that “the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us,” and that “many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh” (John 1:14; 2 John 7). For reason of His incarnation, no true Christian believer denies Jesus' humanity. But with all this “Jesus-Jesus-Jesus” talk, believers ought to be concerned that a Christ-identity crisis is going on amongst professing evangelicals as they attempt to deconstruct the traditions surrounding Jesus in order to discover the authentic Jesus of the primitive gospel.

   Send article as PDF to

Some thoughts on "Pub Theology 000."

As he begins to rip into "a screaming guitar solo," a band member sarcastically yells out at the audience, "Let's go to church boys!"[1] Welcome to Pub Theology. As the reporter describes it, Pub Theology is "a Sunday night show that's one part church and one part party." Among other posters on the barroom walls, one alludes and adds to the final verse of the biblical chapter on love. It reads, "Faith, Hope, Love and Beer." WARNING: The biblical text reads, "But now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love" 1 Corinthians 13:13, NASB).[2]

Regarding this new outreach--the mega-church's ministerial staff approve of doing Pub Theology--one of the band's members says: "We want to be sincere and authentic and be who we really are, whether that is wearing jeans and a T-shirt or having a beer. I think that is real" he continues, "and I don't think it is wrong or that God is unhappy about that." Sure . . . in contrast to "drunkenness, carousing", one fruit of the Spirit is "self-control" (Galatians 5:21, 23). Relates another band member: "I can drink a beer and smoke a cigarette and play some of my favorite songs and hang out with my friends and maybe meet someone and tell them about Jesus."

   Send article as PDF to

The God of Sex versus Sex God.

Believing in the wholeness and sacredness of matter and energy (i.e., monism/pantheism, the theory that God is all, and all is God), New Age/New Spirituality views that sexuality complements spirituality.[1] Sexual people are spiritual people, and sexual experiences are spiritual experiences. Sex facilitates persons getting in touch with the mystical dynamic and rhythm of life. Being one of the most vibrant experiences life offers, it is not therefore surprising that the new religionists should incorporate sex into their spirituality. As one author puts it, "Sexual ecstasy can transport us into union with the sacred Other, whether soul, God, human beloved, or nature. Uninhibited sexual opening powerfully alters consciousness . . ."[2] In a similar vein, the stunning statement of a radical Anglican priest has been noted: "Sex is the spirituality that reveals the sacramental richness of matter."[3]

Having introduced ourselves to the thinking of the New Age/New Spiritualists, we proceed to set forth their theory that sexuality-equals-spirituality, after which, we will see how this theory seems to be influencing avant-garde evangelical authors, teachers, and leaders, and then submit sex-spirituality to the scrutiny of Holy Scripture.

   Send article as PDF to