Can't help myself today after reading this article, by Pulpit and Pen, which comes really close to presenting legitimate criticisms of Apologia Church, but seems to preferentially spend words misrepresenting Jeff Durbin.

Don't get me wrong, I am the last person on earth who has any right to criticize someone for wasting words on unworthy topics; it's the misrepresentation that bothers me. I don't think we should misrepresent our friends or our enemies if we can help it. The truth is always best, even if it means truthfully divulging the actual content of beliefs with which we disagree.

I went to Apologia Church for a while, and so I hope I don't poison the water when I say I quite like Jeff, and I find his ministry and theology to be generally agreeable. I do disagree with him on a few adiophoral points (about eschatology and politics, mostly), but for the record, I don't personally see a problem with Christians drinking alcohol together as long as it does not lead people to sin. The difference between medicine and poison is the dose, right? You get a little alcohol whenever you use vanilla extract; there's nothing wrong with it. Scripture plainly allows alcohol, but draws the line at drunkenness.

The argument made in the article is that "most consider [alcohol] a vice". I don't know what weight P&P puts on the word "vice", but I think it's fair to say that there's a difference between partaking in something which "most" consider to be a vice, and partaking in sin. Again, scripture draws the line at drunkenness, so any distinctions prior to drunkenness are left to the conscience of each person. The question, then, is, 'has Apologia caused someone to sin by drinking'? P&P gives the example of White's son-in-law. I happen to know a little about that story -- details which I'm fairly certain P&P does not know -- because I was attending the church at the time. I do not believe that White's son-in-law's actions were a result of either Apologia's tattoo-fundraiser or the beer-flights which the article references over-and-over. And I think it's very insensitive of them to use the event as an attack on Pittman; what if White's daughter reads P&P's article? The only legitimate example I see of Apologia potentially causing someone to sin is when P&P heard about Apologia's ministry and then judged it in a way contravening Romans 14:3b.

And to answer their quote from Ryan Denton (who I've never heard of), let me give a quote from Martin Luther: "Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!"

But on to the misrepresentations in the article. I don't want to spend much more time picking apart the article, so I'll just give a few. One should be enough, really.

First, they evidence that they haven't really kept up with Jeff's teachings by saying, "Durbin claimed only several years ago to hold to theonomy". I mean.... try several weeks ago! When was the last time these guys listened to any of Jeff's sermons? There're tons of them on youtube!

Second, They say that Apologia is not confessionally reformed. That's a surprising statement, since all the kids in the church are memorizing Piper's Baptist Catechism, and when I was attending, Jeff introduced nearly every sermon and communion by describing the church as one which adheres to the 1689 Baptist confession. I get that they don't mention 1689 on the website, but does that really matter? Really?

Third, they say "Durbin seemed to agree with Robert Jeffress last year that there are many saved Roman Catholics". I mean, wasn't there some context to that statement? Jeff Durbin regularly preaches on why Catholicism is wrong. I used to think Catholics were saved, until I listened to Jeff! Not surprisingly, the link for P&P's reference on this point was to one of their own articles. But even if we only look at what P&P actually did quote from Durbin in their article, how does the clause, "despite the Roman Catholic church", add to the meaning of that sentence? It seems like an important clause to me. I have to give credit where credit is due, though -- they used the word "seemed", which basically means they have no idea what Jeff actually meant, and everything after that word is an extrapolation intended to support their prior points.

In any case, P&P and JD Hall are primary reasons why I intentionally do not categorize my blog as a polemics journal, Christian news outlet, or really anything else if I can help it. What I write here are just my thoughts -- mine alone. I'm sure P&P does plenty of good when they're not skipping the first two steps of Matthew 18:15-17 (which, in a sense, is what I've just done). The world needs more Christians writing good things about Christianity online, so God bless and sanctify us all.

"Durbin again made headlines when..."