John distinguishes truth and falsehood, what proceeds from the mouth of God and what is purported to be truth but is a lie. That’s why John will later urge us to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). How do we test the spirits? How do know truth? By holding fast to the revealed word of God, which is truth (John 17:14-19). 

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either (1 John 2:23, NKJV).
What comes to mind when you think of antichrist? Perhaps a mighty demonic being or a rival to the throne of Jesus, such as described by Paul to the Thessalonians: “The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved” (2 Thess. 2:9–10).
John, however, has spoken to us of many antichrists. Yet whether singular or plural, they are all cut from the same cloth and present us with the same challenge in our walk with Christ and work for Him in this world. That challenge has to do with love of the truth and acting upon it. At stake are matters of life and death.
John addresses believers as truth-holders. “I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth” (1 John 2:21).
Read More
Related Posts:

The ideology of Wokeness, built upon the foundation of Black Liberation Theology and Critical Theory, should be rejected in the church today. Though we should rejoice in ethnic diversity in the church as a beautiful overflow of the gospel which will be present throughout eternity, the means by which that diversity comes about in our local congregations must be thoroughly Biblical, gospel-centered, and Holy Spirit-appointed to stand the test of time.

It was the year 2014 and my wife and I were heavily involved in a church in Indiana that was striving to be multi-ethnic. We eventually decided to move to a different church primarily due to an unhealthy and unbiblical emphasis on racial diversity in the hiring and volunteer selection process of the church.
I noticed this firsthand during my time as a member of the musical worship team. I remember feeling comfortable and encouraged early on to see such a broad spectrum of diversity among the musicians. Our leader was a Latin-American keyboard player, I’m a mix of African- and Irish-American, we had Latin-American bass players and drummers, and African-American as well as European-American vocalists. Surely this was a picture of Revelation’s great multitude from every tribe, tongue, people and nation beginning to develop on earth! I was so glad to be a part of the Lord’s work, until I began to realize that this diversity also came at a significant cost and was strategically manufactured by the leaders of the church. The more I was involved in the ministry, the clearer it became to me that I was merely a tall, multiethnic prop to present a diverse appearance to a crowd. This became painfully clear as I heard the worship leader decide to not allow another white guy into the band because we had enough of them on stage. No, according to him, we needed to keep an eye out for a talented Asian to join us. Wasn’t this favoritism?
Not only were individuals not being invited to join the worship team based on skin color, but the people who were on the team were held to very low standards of accountability and discipleship, yet were still allowed to continue their involvement. To press for greater accountability would risk losing what seemed to be most important: the diverse makeup of the team. I did not understand the terminology or concepts back then, but as I reflect on my experiences now, I was involved in a church hyper focused on being perceived as multiethnic and diverse by the culture.
The main point of this article is that the church should reject the ideology of wokeness. Although ethnic diversity in the local church is a wonderful thing, pastors and Christians must consider biblically the means by which that diversity comes about. In this article, I will look at some of the underlying concepts behind “wokeness” in order to see its foundations. I will then look at God’s Word in order to see clearly how He views ethnic diversity. Finally, I will offer some closing thoughts and practical applications for how true churches should graciously, yet firmly resist this ever-increasing trend of wokeism in broader evangelicalism today.
The Foundations of Wokeness
As it is commonly understood and used today, to be “woke” is to be “aware of” or “awakened to” social injustices against a particular group of people.[1] In his book “Woke Church,” Pastor Eric Mason describes his understanding of wokeness as it pertains to racial issues in the church. Mason writes,
My desire in this book is to encourage the church to utilize the mind of Christ and to be fully awake to the issues of race and injustice in this country. Pan-Africanists and Black Nationalists use the term “woke” to refer to no longer being naïve nor in mental slavery. We have borrowed the term and redeemed it to be used in the context of being awakened from deadened, sinful thinking. In fact, every believer has been awakened from sins effects and Satan’s deception (Eph. 5:14). Thus, the believer is able to be aware of sin and challenge it wherever it is.[2]
According to Mason, wokeness urgently presses all people to awake from their slumber and to resolve the lingering effects of slavery and oppression still plaguing America. Thabiti Anyabwile passionately supports the concept of the “woke church” when he argues that within the local church context, “we have to teach people how to be their ethnic selves in a way that’s consistent with the Bible and how to live fruitfully in contexts that don’t affirm their ethnic selves. Hence, we need a ‘woke church.’”
Samuel Sey makes a convincing observation that the concept of wokeness in our day significantly overlaps with the tradition of Black Liberation Theology “developed by James Cone in the 1960’s during the Black Power movement as a reaction to evangelical apathy on racial injustice.” He continues,
Black Liberation Theology is Martin Luther King Jr.’s social gospel and Malcolm X’s Black Nationalism in one. Black Liberation Theology exchanges the power of God for Black power. It exchanges the supremacy of Christ for Black supremacy. Black Liberation Theology is built on a foundation of bitterness and victimhood, with social justice as its chief cornerstone.
While Mason claims to have “redeemed” the concept of wokeness for the purposes of the church, we must recognize that it is neither legitimate nor helpful for Christianity to build upon such a shaky foundation. Although distinctions exist between Black Liberation Theology and woke Christianity, vast similarities unify the two theologies into one dangerous threat to the church.
Wokeism is also strongly informed by other philosophical ideas such as Critical Theory which undergirds most contemporary “social justice” movements.[3] This ideology essentially categorizes people into either oppressive or oppressed groups that are unified around various identity traits such as class, economic status, ethnicity, or sex. Critical Theory and Wokeism work hand in hand, for the first promulgates a narrative of oppression and the second demands a reckoning.
As it relates to local congregations, a woke church is a multi-ethnic congregation that strives to fight against racism and injustice by becoming heavily involved in social justice activism in its community. In the particular realm of worship ministry I was in, this meant giving skin color a much greater weight than either musical ability or character. The Woke Church Christianizes an otherwise secular way of thinking which has Black Liberation Theology and Critical Theory loaded into it. But what does the Word of God have to say?
Scripture and Wokeness
As we turn our attention toward scripture, we find that in the beginning, God created one man from the dust of the ground (Gen. 1:26–28). From the rib of this man Adam, God fashioned for him a helpmeet, Eve (Gen. 2:18–24), and every human being since has come from these two people. Genesis 10–11 is where we see the first references to various ethnicities, clans, nations and languages being established and developed in the world after Babel. God disperses and separates various peoples by language and geographic location. It is in these foundational passages where we are introduced to the concept of ethnicity, or what many in our day (erroneously) refer to as “race.” Immediately following Genesis 11, we are introduced to Abram in chapter 12 whom God, by his sovereign decree, separates for himself to become a new people who would be a great nation and a blessing to the other nations (Gen. 12:2–3).
Throughout the rest of the Old Testament, there is a God-ordained distinction and separation made between Israel, God’s covenant people, and the Gentiles, those outside of covenant with God. Though the sinful blood of Adam still ran through Israel, God, by way of covenant, set apart for himself a people who were to be a holy nation and royal priesthood who follow His commands and adhere to His law in the midst of the watching world (Lev. 20:26; Deut. 7:6; 1 Chr. 17:21). It is important for us to note that throughout the Old Testament, Gentiles could indeed become a part of Israel, and thus be woven into the fabric of God’s covenant people, regardless of their ethnic background. We see examples of this throughout the Old Testament as early as the Passover (Exod. 12:38) and in the case of Rahab’s family (Josh. 6:25). To be an Israelite was to be a part of the Old Covenant community of God’s people.
Read More
Related Posts:

Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.

In a recent article (https://www.semperref.org/articles/why-i-am-voting-against-overture-15), Pastor Jim Weidenaar gave his reasons for voting against Overture 15 on the grounds that it “is too general and undefined to offer constructive guidance here. Beyond this, the addition of Overture 15’s language [“Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”] to the Presbyterian Church in America Book of Church Order (BCO) would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds, by creating an atmosphere which stifles rather than guides biblical repentance and fellowship among those who experience this category of sinful temptation, and by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.”
He begins by asking four questions about another overture, specifically, Overture 29, since it deals with the same topic of qualifications for church office. He asks, “What does Overture 15 add to Overture 29 that makes it a necessary addition to the BCO?” His four questions, which are actually objections, are:

Is it the literal use of the term homosexual in his description of himself? 
Is it the fact that the candidate tells anyone about this aspect of his sin/temptation/sanctification experience? 
Is it to single out this sin (or, that someone has this sort of temptation experience as opposed to any other)?
Is it about ontology?

In his first objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that Overture 29 (O29) covers what is required in the character of an elder. According to him, all Overture 15 (O15) adds is the word homosexual and a few other phrases. But his objection rests upon a like-minded culture shared by the church and the culture at large. That may have been generally true 40 years ago. But over all these years, there has been a shift in how homosexuality is defined and accepted. Culture and even the church, has been influenced (propagandized) through television, music, films, and public education by claiming that homosexuality is not sin and should be accepted. It’s now just another legitimate choice. Not only is it possible, but it is entirely likely, that candidates for church office may not even consider their views to be contrary to our Standards. The notion that homosexuality is to be considered sinful is no longer an issue, thus the wording of O29 would be satisfied nicely. Thus, O15, with its clarifying wording, is needed to ensure that candidates for church office must examine their character based on Scripture and not common cultural definitions.
In his second objection, Pastor Weidenaar claims that O15 is designed to silence individuals from confessing their specific sins. He claims that Paul’s example of calling himself the chief sinner is scriptural proof that we must do the same. Thus, with this understanding, not only is O15 wrong but it is heretical. My sense is that  there is some exegetical sleight of hand in using this argument. Paul’s intent is not to mention his specific sins but to express his sinful nature, much like how expressed it here: “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all” (I Tim. 1:15, NASB).
One cannot prove the specific from the general. I did find Pastor Weidenaar’s summary conclusion concerning this point troubling. He states, “And by encouraging the church’s ordained elders to model a heretical understanding of the gospel in which the spiritually mature have moved beyond the need to confess sin.” Does this mean that those who support O15 are heretics? Is this a veiled charge that serves as a warning?
In the third objection, he asks whether O15 intent is singling out one sin as opposed to other sins. The simple answer is, Yes, it is. I take great comfort in the scriptural wisdom of the Westminster Divines. Consider these two questions from the Larger Catechism:
Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.Q. 151. What are those aggravations that make some sins more heinous than others?A. Sins receive their aggravations, (Reasons 1, 2, and 4 omitted here.)…3. From the nature and quality of the offense: if it be against the express letter of the law, break many commandments, contain in it many sins: if not only conceived in the heart, but breaks forth in words and actions, scandalize others, and admit of no reparation: if against means, mercies, judgments, light of nature, conviction of conscience, public or private admonition, censures of the church, civil punishments; and our prayers, purposes, promises, vows, covenants, and engagements to God or men: if done deliberately, wilfully, presumptuously, impudently, boastingly, maliciously, frequently, obstinately, with delight, continuance, or relapsing after repentance.
Homosexuality is an offense against the light of nature. It violates the creation ordinance concerning marriage, family, and filling the earth. It violates the seventh commandment (see Westminster Larger Catechism, question 139).
So, yes, Pastor Weidenaar, it is good and proper for the church to single out this sin, regardless of how it is accepted and defined by secular culture.
Pastor Weidenarr reserves the bulk of his article in question four. He states, “We are all familiar with the rhetoric of our culture which closely ties the personal experience of gender and sexuality to the essence of personhood.” The statement “I am,” can be a mediocre statement denoting a fact, such as “I am tired.” That has no bearing on who I am as a person. But it can be a powerful statement that communicates inner truths.
Jesus used the phrase to describe himself and to communicate deep truths about his person and work.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst” (John 6:35).
Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, “I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life” (John 8:12).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am” (John 8:58).
So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep” (John 10:7).
“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep” (John 10:11).
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).
“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser” (John 15:1).

When I say I am an America, I’m not just saying that I was born in a certain country in North America. I’m saying that I am proud to live in this country and that I love life, liberty, and justice for all. When I say that I’m Italian, I am not saying that I was born and raised in Italy. I understand that I am proud of my ancestry; that my grandfather, as a young teen, made his way to the U.S. and made a life for his family.
Given all the lack of clarity on ethical issues in our society, a person who says, “I am gay’” or “I am a gay-Christian,” is communicating that he has chosen a certain way of life. Like Lot’s wife, who looked back to Sodom, he’s communicating where his true heart and allegiance are. To pretend otherwise is sophistry.
In his summary Pastor Weidenarr states that O15 “would be destructive by wrongfully depriving the church of godly and qualified shepherds.” This is a pragmatic rationale and must be rejected. Jesus Christ is the head of his Church and he will see to its care. I am indebted to Pastor Weidenaar for this article in that it highlighted for me how the church is losing its sense of biblical grounding. And it shows me how important it is for me as an elder to instruct the members of the church in the foundational truths of Scripture. If we fail to provide and act on this ethical grounding we will lose the next generation.
O15 is needed at this point in the history of the Church to provide clarity on biblical sexual ethics.
Al Taglieri is a Ruling Elder in the Providence Presbyterian Church (PCA) in York, Penn.
Related Posts: