Pulpit & Pen wrote a small article in 2016 that utilizes the fallacy of Poisoning the Well. In an attempt to defend their unbiblical beliefs and practices, they decided to label anyone who adheres to and obeys God's Word as a "Sectarian Minimalist," which they then falsely identify as a "heresy."
Pulpit & Pen claims that these people "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church." First of all (and this is embarrassing that it even needs to be explained), house churches are local churches! So how do house church members "minimalize, repudiate, or neglect the local church"? This is a fallacious statement made by Pulpit & Pen. Second, Pulpit & Pen obviously quite clearly does not have a clue what a biblical church looks like. It is abundantly clear that Pulpit & Pen have no clue what a church is because they think that a family unit cannot be a church. Perhaps they missed the verse that says, "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in their midst." If they are missionaries to some foreign country surrounded by heathen, if they are not a church, then when do they become a church? The ignorance of those at Pulpit & Pen betrays them. Third, they are attributing their experience of a "church" as being a biblical church. They are not allowing the Bible to dictate what a biblical church ought to look like and how it ought to function. Their "experience" does not mesh with the New Testament.
Pulpit & Pen also accuses these people of "a minimalist approach to ecclesiology that both insults and rejects the organized church." The organized church is an insult! Perhaps the writers at Pulpit & Pen would care to read more and learn how to research and study correctly. The organized church is no church at all! The early church was a living organism, not an organization. The "organized church" Pulpit & Pen speaks about is a business, designed to fleece the flock by lying to them and manipulating them. If you doubt me, read my book The Biblical Truth About Tithing and see how they lie and twist Scripture in order to line their pockets with your money instead of it going where it should! Every verse they try to twist for their sordid gain is dealt with, exposing them as no better than the charlatans in the Charismatic movement.
Here are some of the things that Pulpit & Pen falsely claim are "Sectarian Minimalist," but which are actually and truly biblical teachings, traditions, and practices:
- The offices of elder and deacon are unofficial. These were never titles or offices, but functions. Shepherds are sheep, too. The people at Pulpit & Pen would benefit greatly from actually reading their Bibles instead of blindly following the traditions of men that make void the Word of God. Jesus said not to give yourselves titles or offices. Jesus said that leaders are to be like children and servants. What kind of authority does a child have? What kind of authority does a servant have? These are not leaders like the world has! Pulpit & Pen ought to know better.
- Taking advantage of charitable tax-status makes you a hypocritical liar and a thief. Your "business" rakes in free money that you pocket without paying taxes? That money is not supposed to go to your pocket or to the building! Read your Bible!!! You are worse than a tax collector and a heathen. "Tithing" just to get something back on taxes is hypocritical, too. That is not sacrificial giving, nor is it charitable giving; your motive is tainted by sin. Giving is supposed to be voluntary, without wanting anything in return! You do not help the poor and needy because you will get something back out of doing so. You can explain it away all you want, but we both know it is sin. If you did not receive a tax slip at the end of the year, would you be giving at all? Most likely not!
- Preaching (a monologue of exposition in an authoritative oration), especially for monetary gain, is pagan-influenced and unbiblical. Read the well-documented book Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices. Whether you like the book or not, or agree with it or not, the burden of explanation for your denial of the historically factual sources cited falls on you. New Testament church meetings were open, spontaneous, and every-member participatory (1 Cor. 14:26, 29-31).
- Church membership is unbiblical. In the early church, the only requirement to be a member of the Church was to have a life transformed by the Holy Spirit. There were zero hoops to jump through. Memberships today resemble country clubs, with courses, waiting periods, approval committees, etc. There is zero justification for these legalistic nonsenses!
- The liturgy or "order of service" is also unbiblical, having its roots in the Roman senate and the pagan religions. Again, the people at Pulpit & Pen should read a book (or two or three or a dozen). What they adhere to and believe to be "church" practice was largely installed under Emperor Constantine. That is not how New Testament churches looked! It is certainly not what they practiced! It does not matter what the early fathers said and did; they are not God! They do not get to say how God should be worshipped.
- The doctrine of the "Priesthood of All Believers" is twisted by people and groups like Pulpit & Pen to deny that which the Bible supports, and to support that which the Bible does not even acknowledge. They talk about the "Priesthood of All Believers," but then do not practice it. They fail to grasp the meaning of the doctrine.
- Religious education in organized settings like Bible College and Seminary are unbiblical and are not necessary or needed. Even Charles Spurgeon did not believe in ordination. Martin Lloyd-Jones had some very scathing things to say about such organized religious institutions. Both of whom, by the way, had no formal training. Neither did John Bunyan, of whom John Owen said he "would gladly give in exchange all [his] learning" if he "could possess this tinker's ability to grip men's hearts." Perhaps if Pulpit & Pen read more instead of blindly following the traditions of men, submitting themselves to Popes of their own making instead of subjecting themselves to the full and complete authority of the Bible and nothing else, they would be less prone to such blunders.
Pulpit & Pen makes other grave erroneous assumptions as well:
- They place a greater value on historical theology above and beyond that of biblical theology (that which is taught in the Bible, by Jesus and His apostles). Their argument is that these church fathers said these things, therefore we are to obey them, even though they oppose and contradict the teachings and traditions of Jesus and His apostles. The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern; not on those who desire to follow it.
- Their ignorance believes that the ordinances can only be observed with a "duly constituted biblical authority," which is not how the New Testament church functioned. If Pulpit & Pen bothered to read historical books, they would see that this practice eventually crept into the church via authoritarian dictators by use of the heresy of apostolic succession. Any mature Christian may administer the ordinances. The false idea that only a priest/pastor can administer them cannot be substantiated in, from, or by the Bible. A non-clergy administering them is only blasphemous and condemned under these men's judgment; the Bible does not support their argument of it being so under God's judgment.
- Their ignorance confuses what does and does not fit the qualifications or marks of a biblical church. House churches predominantly fit the qualifications of a biblical church to the letter (ones that follow the institutionalized hierarchy do not). Organized institutions falsely called "churches," patterned after the Roman senate and pagan religions, do not! Again, the folks at Pulpit & Pen would not be able to identify a biblical church if they crossed paths with one.
Pulpit & Pen have a disinterest, contempt, and repudiation for well-documented books like Pagan Christianity?: Exploring the Roots of Our Church Practices, of which they cannot refute. The information in that book is historically factual, and yet Pulpit & Pen, in their ignorance and contempt, reject its facts in favour of the practically-Catholic traditions their denomination has spoon-fed them. Forget thinking for yourself and studying history and the facts; Pulpit & Pen would rather keep their eyes covered, their head stuck in the sand, and blindly follow the false traditions they have been handed. Their authority is not the Scriptures, but rather their denomination, their system of theology, etc. Like the Catholics, they will turn to what early fathers said and make that authoritative rather than turning to the Bible and letting it be authoritative without them twisting the context and forcing Scripture to support their unbiblical hierarchical organizations.
What Pulpit & Pen attempts to do with their article is badmouth, demean, and demoralize biblical house churches. They claim that if you are not part of a "local church" (their idea of what constitutes a local church), then you must be a rebellious apostate who is not really a Christian at all. I would love to see them try to answer such local churches as Atlanta Reformation Fellowship. The burden of explanation ought to fall on those who deviate from the New Testament pattern; not on those who desire to follow it. Without twisting random, isolated verses of Scripture and ripping them out of their immediate context, they need to prove that the Bible—not historic man-made traditions—supports their model of "church" and "church government." It does not! The Bible supports the house church model. If Pulpit & Pen bothered to do their homework (on a number of levels), they would know that in countries where the Gospel is prohibited, the Church flourishes by means of house churches. They cannot get permits to build such useless buildings as we use in the West, that predominantly sit empty and suck up people's hard-earned money in order to sustain them. God gave patterns and commands for the Tabernacle and worship under the Old Covenant. What Pulpit & Pen fails to grasp is that He also gave patterns and commands for His Church and worship under the New Covenant. God decides how He is to be worshipped; not men! Adhering to the traditions set down by Jesus and His apostles better allows the Spirit to create love, unity, community, and commitment in a body of believers.
Why does Pulpit & Pen blindly attack biblical Christians and call them names, like "Sectarian Minimalists"? Because they are greedy hirelings who want the hard-earned money of other people, which they themselves did not work for or earn. Would Pulpit & Pen be willing to do what they do without receiving money from their congregants? Not in the least! You can be assured that they would head for the door in two seconds if the congregation told them their money was now going to the poor and needy (like it is supposed to) instead of to the preacher's pocket and the building. Yet, they know that they are willfully twisting Scripture, ripping it out of its immediate context and eisegeting it, in order to support themselves being paid by your giving. There is not one single verse that exegetically and contextually supports preachers being paid through the giving of the flock (or to pay for the construction, bills, and upkeep of a building). Their two favourite verses to twist and pervert are Malachi 3:8-12 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Yet, what is the context? There is no command given anywhere in Scripture for Christians to "tithe" (let alone 10%) or give money in order to support a preacher or a building.
Pulpit & Pen can engage in ad hominem and the use of logical fallacies all they want. They can sling all the mud they want and try to sully the names of good Christians. Let them; it is all they have. They cannot defend their position or their beliefs. If they want to be part of an institutional organization instead of an actual local congregational body of Christ, then that is their choice. I am absolutely certain that the heathen at Pulpit & Pen will instantly label me a so-called "Sectarian Minimalist," despite being unable to answer or refute my position and arguments. That is fine by me. Wisdom is vindicated by her children. The Bible teaches what it teaches, and history reveals what it reveals. Authority only resides with one of these, and it is not history and those things spoken by the church fathers, nor with the Reformers and the errors they held onto from the Catholic system as well as those errors they introduced themselves.
Pulpit & Pen has an odd measure as to what "the most discerning men in evangelicalism" looks like, demonstrating that they quite obviously lack discernment themselves. While I respect several of the men Pulpit & Pen is referring to by this statement, nevertheless I have witnessed them botch actual discernment in their own lives. I could direct you to the videos they uploaded in which they demonstrate the absolute lack of a single ounce of discernment. But guess what? They are only human. If their lack of discernment becomes something of a constant consistent issue, then we have a problem. My blog article on ministers who do not know how to lose is spot on regarding each and every single man Pulpit & Pen has in mind with their statement. It does not mean I respect these men any less; they are sinful men like any other, imperfect and prone to error. But the fact they do not know how to lose, coupled with their prideful arrogance and stubborn ego, demonstrates that they have not learned the lessons that need to be learned for such a position and that they are disqualified from such positions. I will reiterate:
Many ministers in ministry today do not know how to lose; they do not know how to lay their lives down; they do not know how to die. They have never been broken; they have never been crushed. They are dangerous. They will defend themselves at the drop of a hat. They do not know what it means to be silent. They do not know how divinity reacts to pressure. They will attack those who sleight them at the drop of a hat. They are unbroken, they do not know how to lose, they do not know how to die, and they are out there serving the kingdom of God with one hand and destroying God's people with the other hand. None of these ministers were ever in community long enough for the Lord to temper, adjust, break, or transform them. Some of them, when things got hot, they left, they ran away. This is not how we have learned Christ Jesus. These ministers are full of ego and full of pride, and when they are under pressure the flesh gets exposed.
So, go ahead, Pulpit & Pen, call me a "Sectarian Minimalist" and falsely accuse me of "heresy," despite the fact you cannot defend your own position except by twisting random isolated verses of Scripture eisegetically out of their immediate contexts and making things outside of the Bible authoritative (such as the words and actions of church fathers). You and I both know you are wrong.
Just to inform those who may be reading this, during the early Church, the Gnostics went around claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit with their "special" knowledge and revelations. The early fathers, aware that claiming what they were doing was actually the leading of the Holy Spirit, knew that would not work. If someone claims to be lead by the Holy Spirit, who is to say that they are not? Well, that is extremely easy to answer: one's conformity to Scripture. But instead of making Scripture their authority, they came up with the heresy of apostolic succession, which is how and why they said and did the things they did that derailed the Church. Though I am sure Pulpit & Pen would reject apostolic succession, nevertheless they prove they support this heresy by turning to what the fathers said and did in defense of their model and understanding of church and church government. It is like rejecting Universalism only to argue that God is drawing all men and that He is not willing that anyone should perish, which means you agree with and support Universalism because that is what your argument leads to.