A different kind of denier

Holocaust deniers are routinely derided for their ridiculous statements, and rightly so.  But what is sad is that there are so many Christians who perpetuate a different kind of denial about the Jewish people, and that is teaching that they don’t need the Gospel.  For example, transparently false teachers like Chuck Currie parade as ministers of the Gospel who (rightly) criticize Holocaust deniers but deride those who seek to share the Gospel with Jewish people. 

As Greg Koukl points out in Tactics (great book – go read it!), people who criticize those who try to change the religious beliefs of others live in contradiction to their own views.  After all, Jesus commissioned Christians to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:19-20).  That is one of our important religious views

So if Chuck or some other critic thinks we shouldn’t do that, then they are trying to change our religious views.  Apparently they don’t think that is such a bad thing after all, as long as they are trying to change your views and you aren’t sharing the Gospel with Jewish people.   Consistency isn’t the strong suit of liberal theologians.

Jesus shared the good news with Jewish people, most of the early Christians were Jews, the disciples shared the Gospel with Jewish people, Paul had an incredible passion for the Jews and wished he could give up his own salvation if it would save his brethren (Romans 9), and so on.  The Bible is clear that Jews need Jesus.  He’s their Messiah.  In fact, if He isn’t the Messiah then there will be no Messiah.

To paraphrase Currie, the Gospel simply cannot be denied and those that do (like him) should have no place in positions of authority in any church.

Denying important truths, whether temporal like the Holocaust or eternal like the Gospel, is a profoundly bad thing.

0 thoughts on “A different kind of denier”

  1. I’ve always been fascinated by this view. “It’s okay to believe what you want … as long as you don’t believe anything that affects me. It’s okay to be religious … as long as it doesn’t affect anything you do. It’s NOT okay to be judgmental … and we’ll be judgmental of anyone who has an opinion different from ours. It’s NOT okay to try to change someone else’s religious views … and we’ll do everything we can to change yours to agree with us.” Like a misquote of Emerson: “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”


  2. Chuck, you’re just such an easy target. I detest false teachers and you’re one of the poster boys. Pro-abortion, a bad mix of religion and politics, seeking to take other people’s money by force (i.e., taxes) for your pet causes and claiming it as charity on your part, denying the truth about Jesus being the only way, pushing other religions, anti-authority of the Bible, pro-“same sex marriage,” you’ve got it all. Which is to say, you have nothing. You are firmly on the side of Satan and I enjoy every opportunity to tell people how beliefs like yours are not Christian. You worship a racist like Darwin more than the true God.

    Remember, you and I both know the truth about how you lied about me on your blog. You can fake other people out but not me. I know what Chuck is really like. I couldn’t care less what you think of me, but I do hope you’ll think twice before manufacturing falsehoods about others.

    Thanks for the link. I remember when you wrote that and thought that we can stop witnessing to Jewish people any time, provided we don’t care about their eternal souls. We could stop evangelizing everyone for that matter (and I see that your denomination has). One has to be wildly ignorant of the Bible to title a post like that.

    Be sure to visit often, Chuck.


  3. Chuck, you have got to be kidding me. Do you read your own blog and the hate and distortions you spew against those who disagree with you?

    I have lots of love for all sorts of people – at work, at home, at church, prison ministry, mission trips, Bible studies, pregnancy center ministry, etc.

    But I’ll tell you what I hate: Lies about Jesus. I expect those from non-believers, but I can’t stand it when those who claim to be Christians spread the enemy’s lies. I know Jesus warned us that there would be false teachers like you, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t highlight the lies and point people to the truth.

    Isn’t it interesting that instead of addressing my points you claim to know my heart? Heh. If you had any honesty you’d apologize for repeatedly lying about me on your blog. But we both know the truth, don’t we?

    Repent and believe, Chuck. One day it will be too late. And you’ll be accountable for all those you led astray.


  4. Chuck, I for one appreciate your linking to your more thorough explanation for why you don’t think Christians should evangelize to Jews, but I find quite a bit that’s troubling about your argument.

    First, the UCC’s statement from 1987 invokes Romans 9-11 without seeming to understand the contents of the passage.

    Paul wrote about his anguish for his people (9:1-3), which is a very odd thing if the Jewish covenant guarantees their salvation. In fact, his anguish implies just the opposite. He writes that not all Israelites truly belong to Israel (9:6), and he implies that, unlike the Gentiles, the Jews have not largely attained righteousness, because they tried to attain it by works rather than faith and stumbled over the stumbling block that is Christ (9:30-33).

    Paul prays that the Jews may be saved (10:1), as if the issue has not been settled. Paul then writes that, through Isaiah, God revealed that He would be found by those who did not seek Him while He would keep at a distance a disobedient people (10:20-21), implying that God would embrace at least some Gentiles while rejecting at least some Jews.

    Paul then writes that God hasn’t rejected all of Israel but has instead kept a remnant (11:1-5), and he writes about a grand, divine plan of how Israel’s initial stumbling has led to the Gentiles’ salvation, which in turn will lead — future tense — to Israel’s full inclusion (11:11-12). He writes that some of the “natural branches” of Israel were broken from the vine because of their unbelief (11:17-20) and that part of Israel has been hardened for the Gentiles’ sake(11:25).

    “Just as you were once disobedient to God but have now received mercy because of their disobedience, so they have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy shown to you, they too may now receive mercy.” – Rom 11:30-31

    This isn’t the sort of statement that implies that Jews are saved because of the old covenant, which, Paul argues, no one can fulfill by works. Instead, here Paul suggests that the rejection of Christ by most Jews was an act of disobedience: it’s disobedience that Paul believes a remnant will renounce so the “natural branch” will be grafted back in, but that future repentance must not be confused with present obedience.

    The UCC seems to invoke a passage that says quite the opposite of what they want it to say.

    Beyond this misapplication of Romans, the UCC statement asserts, “that Judaism has not been superseded by Christianity; that Christianity is not to be understood as the successor religion to Judaism.”

    The claim is absurd if one submits to the authority of the New Testament. Christ Himself claimed to fulfill the law and the prophets. The writer of Hebrews explained how Christ is superior to the angels, Moses, Joshua, and the Aaronic priests; how Christ offered a better sacrifice in order to establish a better covenant.

    The claim is also unecessary if one accepts the teachings of the Old Testament. Jewish Scripture itself promised a second prophet like Moses (Duet 18:18) and the Messiah, and more importantly it promised a new covenant (Jer 31:31).

    The Jewish covenant has its own superceding “built in.” It came with its own expiration date.

    Unlike Muslims and Mormons — and, I would add, theologically liberal Christians — biblical Christians don’t pay lip service to Scripture that came before only to turn around and deny its inerrant authority.

    We don’t, because we don’t have to.

    The Jews are (or at least should be) anticipating the Messiah and the new covenant, and so there’s nothing untoward in our proclaiming that Christ and His new covenant is who and what they’ve been looking for.

    In fact, if we don’t believe that about Christ and His covenant, then either we’re preaching a false religion OR we’re preaching that Judaism is false. If Judaism is true but Christianity doesn’t supercede it, then Christianity is false. If Christianity is true but doesn’t supercede Judaism, then Judaism is false.

    The belief that Christ’s covenant supercedes Moses’ covenant is the only option that results in granting both covenants a divine origin.

    The logic of the UCC’s statement is also flawed, arguing, “This denial [of God’s continuing covenantal relationship through Judaism] has often led to outright rejection of the Jewish people and to theologically and humanly intolerable violence,” including the Holocaust.

    To set the record straight, Nazi anti-semitism didn’t have a thing to do with this sort of doctrinal issue.

    Arguably, the eugenics movement that led to the Holocaust had quite a bit to do with Darwinism, but I doubt you believe we should evaluate Darwin’s theories on the basis of the monstrous violence that was ostensibly committed in its name.

    The question of Darwin’s theories isn’t, have these led to sinful behavior? It is, instead, are these theories true?

    Likewise, the question about the belief that Jews should be evangelized, isn’t, has it led to sinful behavior? It is, instead, is the belief true?

    If you’re going to invoke this logic, Rev. Currie, you should acknowledge the monstrous things that have been justified from the pulpit and — having noted those consequences — you should either renounce your ministry or take a vow of silence. To be consistent, for invoking such horrendous logic you should take that logic to its conclusion in regards to your own life.

    Finally, Chuck, while it appears your position that we shouldn’t evangelize Jews is honestly held, it doesn’t appear that it’s an ENTIRELY truthful description of what you believe:

    “While Christianity for me is the truth, I also find truths in other understandings and expressions of God and feel fortunate to live in a time where we are free to move beyond dogma and rigid creeds to examine God’s complexity with new eyes and open hearts and open minds.”

    You believe that Christianity is only the truth “for you.”

    If that’s what you really believe, your post shouldn’t have asked, “Can we stop trying to evangelize Jews?”

    Instead, it should have been, “Can we stop trying to evangelize ANYONE?”

    If you believe that truth is subjective, then criticizing the evangelism of Jews is merely picking at the edges. Instead, it sounds like your real target is evangelism, period.


  5. Neil, this is another good piece of work. Great perspective and good summary. People skipped over the fact that the 1st converts were Jews….


  6. Great job Bubba.

    I don’t get the impression that you are filled with hate.

    Yet that is a scriptural response to false teaching.

    Revelation 2:6
    ” But this is in your favor: You hate the evil deeds of the Nicolaitans, just as I do.”

    Also note that the hatred is of the deeds, not the people.


  7. Yes, phenomenal job on Bubba’s part. That’s a keeper.

    Good point, Edgar. Jesus thought He should tell the Jews about Jesus.

    SST, thanks, and good verse. Chuck probably makes a swell neighbor. I just hate false teachings.

    And the truth sounds like hate to those who hate the truth.


  8. Very nicely done Bubba. I’m sure Rev. Chuck will disappear quietly after that one.

    I’m no trained Biblical scholar, but I’ve read the Gospels enough to know that…

    “While Christianity for me is the truth, I also find truths in other understandings and expressions of God and feel fortunate to live in a time where we are free to move beyond dogma and rigid creeds to examine God’s complexity with new eyes and open hearts and open minds.”

    …is so completely unBiblical as to be laughable. Jesus claimed to be “THE way, THE truth, and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father except through me.”

    Chuck, how can you call yourself a minister of God’s Word and ignore the words of Jesus Himself? Jesus didn’t say that he’s “your” way, or “your” truth, did he? What part of “No one comes to the Father except through me” don’t you understand? If you want to blame anyone for such absolutist, superior statements about Christ, blame the Christ.


  9. Bubba, dude, where were you when I was leading the ladies’ Bible study on Romans this past fall?? Those 3 chapters (conveniently lumped into one lesson) had me burning the midnight oil in preparation until my head spun (and I still wasn’t sure i really got it. Great exposition.

    Neil, thanks for posting the link (and for your comment on my blog, btw). Now it makes more sense why my old UCC pastor was so anti-evangelism. I didn’t know the UCC subscribed to dual-covenant theology, though. I thought they just didn’t feel convicted about witnessing to anyone because it would make you look like a Jesus Freak.

    Sad stuff.


  10. Eric, it gets worse. You referred to John 14:6, but Chuck did a whole sermon on that verse. His conclusion was that Jesus is not the only way. He didn’t know there were 99 other passages pointing directly or indirectly to the same claim and thought his homework was done when he rebutted that one (in his mind).

    He quoted more of the gospel of Thomas than the Gospel of John in his sermon and found the former more authoritative than the latter. He apparently went to the Jesus Seminar School of Theology.

    I analyzed the sermon here after listening to the whole thing – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2007/07/28/heretics-r-us/


  11. Thank you all for your kind words. 🙂

    Marie, if you ever want to get back to taking a closer look at Romans, I recommend without hesitation John Stott’s commentary for the Bible Speaks Today series:


    It really opened my eyes to a book that is otherwise pretty daunting, and I think it helped me see part of what had such a big impact on changing Martin Luther’s entire life.

    Specifically, though this point is made only very briefly, it helped me realize that I should not base my relationship with God — and my self-identity — on my obligations to Him, since that will always lead to disappointment. Instead, I should base these things on God’s promises to me, since He is always faithful to fulfill what He promises.

    More broadly, I’ve come to believe that justification by faith alone is true but is only the beginning of the good news: because it is God who works in us (Phil 2:13), I believe that santification is by faith, too. By faith we submit to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and it is by the Spirit that God not only reveals His will for us but empowers us to accomplish His will. That takes a huge load off my shoulders, since I used to have the wrong idea that, after God adopted us into His family, He left us on our own to grow into maturity. The realization that that’s not the case changes nothing and everything: my duties are still the same, but they are no longer the basis of my live of devotion to Him.

    Anyway, there is that line that, if I see far, it’s only because I stand on the shoulders of giants — giants like Stott, who in turn stand on the shoulders of titans like Paul.


  12. That’s great stuff. Thanks! I will definitely check out the Stott reference for my own interest. We were using John Macarthur’s study on Romans, so I went online and looked up additional commentary by him, as well as using the notes from my own study Bible. I also downloaded a couple of John Piper sermons on those chapters in Romans, and someone else’s commentary which escapes me right now.

    The problem is that I got a bit bogged down trying to grasp the doctrinal implications of those 3 verses, and you can’t go into a women’s study toting a slew of commentaries and lecture notes. The ladies’ eyes will glaze over if you get too deeply into the doctrines of grace (some are rather new Christians). They want us to keep it simple and practical, which of course is fine, but as the leader I want to have a solid grasp of everything so that I can just explain it clearly and simply. So, I like to do a little extra homework beforehand to really know what I’m talking about, and Scott seems like a great resource. Thanks again!


  13. You’re so filled with hate. Your heart is like a stone. Is this the person you really want to be?

    Cold-hearted snake, look into his eeeyy-eyyees. Sorry, got distracted there.

    I have a theory, and I think this quoted statement may reveal a lot. Mr. Currie believes that, by telling someone their wrong, it is equal to hating them (strangely enough, this excludes telling conservative Christians they are wrong).

    Granted, most people who are told they are on the side of Satan won’t take it too kindly, but this is exaggerated all the more so in light of the previous paragraph.

    But my point is, based on the post Currie linked, he does believe that telling someone they are wrong is equal to hating them. He pretty much says so – correct me if I am wrong – that trying to evangelize them has caused much hatred (to be sure, Christians have hated Jews). But this is where conservatives and liberals diverge. Liberals are convinced that to disagree with homosexuality means hating them, to tell others they have the wrong religion (especially Jews, which are politically lucrative to liberals – except the ones living in Israel), is mean.

    And there it is, liberals believe that to “love” someone is to avoid causing them displeasure, to make them “happy.” That is why, in general, liberals are more permissive parents, why they support a government that lets people do whatever they want and not take responsibility, and why they dismiss parts of the Bible that involves not being “nice” to people.

    The ideal way, on the other hand, believe in acting toward people in a way that is best for them. Disciplining them even if it makes them cry, having the gall to tell a poor woman she can’t kill her unborn baby, and telling a Jew or anyone else that they need Jesus, that their religion isn’t good enough.

    To be fair, you can go to the extreme, you can discipline without love, have a merciless government that does nothing for the underprivileged, and not having tact or love when dealing with people of different faiths. It’s not like conservatives are always perfect.

    To summarize Bubba’s argument: Based on the New Testament, the Law, and the Prophets, the only way to reconcile the Jewish and Christian faiths is to realize the Jewish covenant has been superseded by the new one.

    Mr. Currie: Telling Jews their wrong isn’t nice.

    Do I have this correct?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s