Why I Am Not A Member Of ACBC
I wrote this page to explain why I am not a
member of Association
Of Certified Biblical Counselors (ACBC). I first
discovered this organization in the summer of 2016. On
paper, and in my encounters with others, they sounded like a
great organization. That is, until I became a fan of their
Facebook page and was exposed to their behavior.
I'm not writing this out of a desire to insult or demean ACBC. No one is perfect. It's more an expression of sadness over the prevailing divisiveness within some counseling movements. It's expressing sadness over being lied about.
Mainly, when this article was written, my response was that of an outsider. However, I attended their Faithfully Protestant conference at Jacksonville Florida, so now my perspective is that of someone who's been in and around these conferences, and who has talked with many of their members.
The main reason I cannot be a member of them is that they make prospective counselors take an oath to not use psychological methods or therapies. But if that was not enough, the way they spread half-truths and lies in an attempt to demean what they probably consider their competition makes matters worse.
Keep in mind that my complaint here is against ACBC as an organization, and its main leaders, those few who engage in this ad hominem and hasty generalization. Many ACBC counselors you will meet in the flesh are good counselors who just want to help people. However, in varying degrees, they may engage in the following behavior, due to the example of their leaders.
Fallacy 1: All Psychology Is Evil
The leadership of ACBC, as well as its
patron saints, often erect Freudian-Jungian strawmen when
arguing against psychology. It appears ACBC leadership
comes up with the false arguments, which its followers repeat.
One cannot say that all the observations made by psychology are invalid just because they came from psychology. The way to know if the finding is valid or not is to first understand it. But in repeating Freudian-Jungian strawmen, I ask, did ACBC do its homework?
Also, isn't ACBC's implication that psychology is always wrong an ad hominem attack, much less splitting?
Besides, if ACBC discounts research because all human beings are sinners, what types of beings is ACBC comprised of?
Also, if ACBC believes all psychology is evil, why do they then borrow from it?
Fallacy 2: Integrationalists Are Evil
An integrationalist is someone who believes
that psychology can be useful in a counseling setting.
Examples and/or proponents of this view are Dr Tim Clinton, Dr
Diane Langberg, etc. Keep in mind, the American
Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) stance, my stance, is
that the Bible is supreme and authoritative, though not
In this article, Heath Lambert of ACBC states (edited for brevity):
"[B]iblical counseling is the only approach to counseling
that implements repentance as a fundamental element of
counseling. I know proponents of other counseling models
who would respond to this and say, “Hey, I know
integrationists and Christian Psychologists who call people to
repentance.” I believe that is true, and am thrilled
about it, but would say two things in response.
"First, when proponents of other counseling models call people to repentance they are, in that moment, doing biblical counseling. They are employing a counseling tactic that they learned from Jesus, the Apostles, and those like Luther who follow them. They did not learn about repentance from any other model.
"Second, when folks like integrationists and Christian Psychologists call people to repentance they are not doing something demanded by their model. They are employing an optional method."
Can a person can have regret and remorse that is not godly? If 2 Corinthians 2:7-16 teaches that there is godly repentance, and gives the conditions that accompany it, can there also be a non-godly repentance?
Second, don't Heath Lambert's statements create a false dichotomy, as if only biblical models teach or utilize repentance? Don't plenty of unsaved people repent and make restitution? If repentance is defined as feeling guilt or remorse, changing one's behavior, and making restitution to those who have been harmed, then isn't repentance possible without a deity? Can making restitution for one's wrongs be a step towards realizing that there's a deeper problem?
Third, Heath Lambert claims that repentance isn't demanded by the model of the Integrationalist. I would like to provide evidence to the contrary: Caring For People God's Way by Dr Tim Clinton mentions that repentance is part of the various models and methods of counseling various client issues:
- Pg 77, under "The Spiritual Disciplines in Counseling": "Christian counselors need to develop the ... spiritual disciplines associated with care-giving.... Spiritual disciplines included ... repentance...."
- Pg 89, under "A Seven Step Process" in the "Gaining Insight" section: "It should be noted ... it is in this part of the counseling relationship that confession and repentance take place."
- Pg 151, under "What Causes Depression" in the "Spiritual Factors" under "Sin": "Possible sin-related causes of depression include ... guilt and lack of repentance over sinful behavior or attitudes...."
- Pg 283, under chapter on Sexual Addiction, under "Cognitive/Behavioral", the 18 principle approach: "Accountability begins with confession and a spirit of repentance (Neh. 1)."
- Pg 322, chapter on Eating Disorders, under "Challenges to identity, denial, and faith": "Repentance is also required in that the client, through spiritual pride, has concluded, 'I must handle life on my own.'"
- Pg 426, ch 19 Adult Survivors of Sexual Abuse, "Repentance is verbal, certainly, but it is far more than verbal -- it is transformation from the inside out, demonstrated over time."
- Pg 428, same chapter, "It is difficult to find a balance between expecting far too much ... and settling for a superficial apology that the client is too quick to name repentance."
- Pg 453, ch. 20 Post-Abortion Syndrome, goal #2 in treatment planning and intervention with PAS clients involves repentance.
The integrationalist viewpoint of Dr. Tim
Clinton and the AACC does indeed call people towards
repentance. Heath Lambert is engaged in bearing false
witness, and promoting it. This is unbecoming both a PhD
and a Christian.
It also would not be the first time. Note that Heath Lambert apologized for attacking Eric Johnson in September of 2017. In October of 2017, I heard Heath Lambert attack Eric Johnson in a speech given at the ACBC conference in Jacksonville, Florida. See below for more information.
Fallacy 3: Setting Up Straw Men Rather Than Addressing Root
I attended a marriage seminar taught by Dr.
John D. Street.
Dr. Street did an excellent job in this marriage seminar. I learned a few new things. I would recommend that people attend Dr. Street's lectures and marital seminars, as 99.999% of what he says is true.
However, I'd like to point out some problems.
Dr. Street said that all personality theory
is broken. He said there was a Biblical reason, but didn't
Dr. Street set up a straw man by referencing the ancient Greek Four Temperament (not personality) theory. Even the Wikipedia page for the Four Temperaments points out that this theory has declined in popularity and isn't even part of psychology. Street didn't cite Meyers-Briggs or Big 5. Big 5 is a scientifically validated personality test.
Dr. Street thus commits hypocrisy by saying personality theory is broken but then advocates an equally flawed temperament test that pre-dates psychology and is not taught by the Bible.
There are also reliable temperament tests available, like Shipley's The Four Lenses, which is used by United States Air Force. Why not use something with more credibility than the Greek temperaments?
Given the popularity of personality tests, maybe Dr. Street could have given one or two more sentences to explain his position. Dr. Street did not present the full truth on this topic. I am curious how many audience members lost faith in people in the helping industries over this. But this type of divisive behavior is normalized within ACBC.
All theories of personality and temperament are unbiblical, in that they are not mentioned in the Bible. Hence, Dr. Street just recommended something unbiblical which goes against ACBC's core beliefs.
Maybe Dr. Street is reacting to how misused personality and temperament tests are in churches. If so, I can agree with his sentiment: personality tests can be overused and abused in some settings, but that's more the fault of the practitioner than the system. Widespread misunderstanding of personality concepts is evident in social media.
Borrowing From Psychology
ACBC claims to be against psychology.
However, Dr. Street, in his speeches, used information from
First, Dr. Street mentioned family systems theory (Dr. Murray Owen) in his lecture. The Bible doesn't overtly teach family systems theory.
Second, Dr. Street borrowed from behavioral psychology ("it takes 21 to 28 repetitions to make something a habit"). The Bible doesn't mention how many times you have to do something before it becomes habit. Dr. Street even used the word "habituation", a word invented by behavioral psychology. This goes against ACBC's core values.
But this wouldn't be the first time ACBC has borrowed from psychology. Elyse Fitzpatrick, in her 2001 book Overcoming Fear, Worry, and Anxiety, borrows the "downward spiral" principle used by Seligman in 1973 in referring to depression. Fitzpatrick's book is on ACBC's approved reading list: ACBC is borrowing from psychology.
Fallacy 4: Nothing Works But Our Own Programs
In a podcast, ACBC representative Dr.
Heath Lambert and Mark Shaw ridicule the 12 step programs
because they've become "inclusive." I have a few problems
with his statements regarding 12 step programs: they are bearing
- Mark Shaw says that admission and confession are not the same. My thesaurus says they're synonyms.
- He says that 12 step programs don't include confession to God. Mark Shaw just demonstrated his lack of understanding of the twelve steps, as step five is admitting to God and to another person our wrongs, and step nine is to make amends to all we have wronged.
- Dr. Lambert states "Yet, as biblically minded Christians, we
want to have concerns about AA." Dr. Lambert makes the no
true Scottsman logical fallacy. Basically, if you
aren't concerned about AA, you're not a "true biblical
- Mark Shaw states "AA sets itself up as a spiritual
program." Basically, it appears Shaw and Lambert don't
know the difference between spiritual and religious.
However, my own sentiment, and the sentiment of Ed Welch's
book Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave (part of
ACBC's own approved reading, ironically) the success of the 12
step programs highlight the glaring lack of discipleship,
close fellowship, and accountability in many churches.
So at this point, I'm left with a memory of Jesus's own words
about someone who was casting out demons in His name: "He who
is not against us is for us." Who is ACBC or, really,
anyone, to criticize the twelve step programs? They have
no curriculum for addicts. In my opinion, if you're not
helping people, but criticizing those who do, you have lost
- Dr. Lambert states, "and so there has been efforts to try to
rehabilitate AA with some kind of Christianized
version." Why would ACBC be against doing this?
Are they now claiming to be against Celebrate Recovery,
too? Who are they to criticize this completely biblical
12 step program? In addition, to say that adding the
Christian elements back to the 12 steps would be
rehabilitation is to reveal one's lack of knowledge about the
12 step programs. They grew out of the Oxford movement,
a Christian organization. The heritage of the 12 steps
is Christian. Indeed, my non-Christian friends in 12
steps can clearly tell the program has Christian elements.
- Dr. Lambert then tells the story of his mom, how AA helped
her get over alcohol, but that she lived a sinful life (though
sober), and that Jesus saved her and changed her. The
problem with this is that they're creating a false dilemma:
the twelve steps have never claimed to be salvation.
Also, Lambert doesn't reveal whether his mother actually
"worked the steps" or merely attended the meetings. The
12 steps only offer sobriety, and have no opinion on outside
The 12 steps help people get over harmful addictions, not sins, per se: it is into that empty space that God can then continue to speak to the lost. Dr. Gerald May (Addiction & Grace) states that addiction is the #1 psychic enemy of the church. What's one of the main excuses to salvation that the lost give? They often say "I need to stop _____." Insert any sin or addiction into that blank. In freeing people from addictions, hands that are no longer in chains are now free to reach out and find God.
Fallacy 5: Addiction Isn't A Disease
ACBC believes that addictions are completely
a moral problem, and not a disease. They
rail against the disease theory of addiction.
I prefer the biopsychosocial model when it comes to addiction, and additionally the biopsychosocio-spiritual model hinted at by members of AACC. However, when I took the time to try and understand why AA and the other 12 steps call addiction a disease, I was pleasantly surprised that there are strong parallels. I offer that article which summarizes my findings.
In trying to rail against this problem, Dr. Lambert makes the logical error of quoting someone who is not an authority on the matter: Hillary Clinton. Why would the leader of ACBC, Dr. Lambert, quote someone who is not an expert on the matter as his cornerstone for an article?
Dr. Lambert says it's dangerous to think of addiction as a disease, because we might "rebuke" people with "Parkinson's disease" and "offer ... medical care for problems like sinful anger." This massively ridiculous straw man argument is unbecoming a Christian and a PhD.
Dr. Lambert uses scripture to say that gluttony and substance use are sins, and rightfully so. But his tone seems to suggest that addicts can be shamed into obedience. I challenge him to provide scientific research to justify the effectiveness of shaming therapy, and to cite how effective it is. Doesn't the Bible teach it is the grace (not shame) of God which leads us to repent (Romans 2:4)? Dr. May, in Addiction & Grace, aptly states grace is the #1 weapon against addiction. It's right to feel guilt over sin, but Satan uses shame to keep addicts stuck in the addiction cycle.
Dr. Lambert says pursuing a secular disease model of addiction is what has increased the addiction epidemic over the last 50 years. First, Lambert offers no proof of this. Second, Dr. Lambert makes a false dilemma argument. Is the disease model the only possible reason addictions have increased? Could the emergence of refined drugs liek heroine and cocaine also play a part? Could the expansion of global shipping (for instance, from fields in Afghanistan to streets in America) have played a part? Could it be more addictions exist now than ever before? One addictive behavior was accelerated approximately 50 years ago: porn addiction.
Also, Lambert's stance only offers the hollow sound of hypocrisy. The history of the church in America and alcoholism stands as a monument to the failure of the church to help people. Even today, addicts so frequently get kicked out of church rather than helped by church that it's become a commonly heard cliche at Twelve Step meetings.
Do you think maybe the church's reluctance to help addicts over the last 50 years may have played a part in the medical community adopting the disease model of addictions? I think the church needs to acknowledge that, for decades if not centuries, addiction was thought to be only a moral problem, and thus few, if any, addicts received help. How much is ACBC spending on helping people with addictions? As of writing this, their curriculum has only one book on addiction, by Ed Welch. How many addiction centers does ACBC administer or contribute to? In my current location, no SBC church is actively doing anything about addictions. The Methodists, however, are very involved in helping people with addictions.
Dr. Lambert doesn't make any specific accusations against specific 12 steps, but instead lumps them all together in a stereotype. He doesn't mention the many 12 step programs which teach first that the addict has no control over their addiction, and that they need to turn their will over to God. I've met addicts in 12 step programs that came to believe there might be a God because of how well the program worked. If 12 steps cast out "demons" of addiction in the name of God, it sounds like they're for us, not against us (Luke 9:50).
Dr. Lambert also, by lumping all the 12 steps together, bears false witness when he refers to them as secular, as Celebrate Recovery is a Christian 12 step program. Anyone who is upset with the toxic influence of ACBC on their church needs to keep that statement in their back pocket, because the ACBC members I've met seem to bring that up quite often.
Thus, Dr. Lambert's article is poorly written and argued. It is also bearing false witness.
Faithfully Protestant Conference
I attended the Faithfully Protestant
Conference in October 2017 at Jacksonville Florida. Here
are my notes. The reader should start with an
understanding that, when the teachers and speakers spoke on the
Word of God, they did an excellent job. It's usually only
the distractions from that, i.e. taking pot shots at psychology,
where they were not helpful.
2 October 2017 Heath Lambert
- Speaker Heath Lambert, in a tearful appeal, said that
without the Bible being sufficient, biblical counselors have
no authority. Isn't the value placed on authority in the
mind of the person we are speaking with? Yes, the Bible
is an authority. This is not to say we should not use
the Bible, so much as to say that unfortunately not everyone
accepts this authority. This is a house of cards
fallacy: the Bible is still an authority whether someone
believes it or not.
- Heath Lambert said that Dr. Mark Yarhouse being "weak" on transgenderism counseling is proof that all integrationalists are bad because they don't subscribe to the Bible. This is a lie through generalization, because I know AACC is not weak on the topic. Indeed, AACC's code of ethics specifically condemns condoning, supporting, or encouraging transgender or homosexual behavior. That does not mean AACC members cannot help such individuals.
- Note that Lambert once gave a speech on a blog in which he said that we should not insult or be divisive in regards to Christian counselors like Christian psychologists. However, his behavior in this speech is hypocrisy.
- Heath Lambert undertook an attack on Eric Johnson, the
details of which have slipped my mind. It had something
to do with accepting something from psychology that disagrees
with the Bible and Eric Johnson essentially saying that the
Christian would just have to get used to the conflict.
Note that Heath
Lambert apologized for attacking Eric Johnson in September
of 2017. This is a month later. It appears
this has been misquoted, as it sounded like Lambert was
referring to the book Eric Johnson edited, "psychology &
Christianity: Five Views. I am currently reading this
book. Eric Johnson wrote the first and last chapter, and
the five chapters in between are all written by leaders
representative of the five views. It would be extremely
easy for someone to "lift" a quote from one of these five that
are rather radical (like the Levels of Explanation view) and
claim it was Eric Johnson. Lambert didn't offer even
very good citing information, so I cannot ascertain the origin
of this quote. But note that Lambert only cites those
that sound radically different than his own organization.
3 October 2017 Paige Patterson
Before I begin, let me say that Dr. Paige
Patterson was instrumental in steering the Southern Baptist
Convention back to Biblical inerrancy. I am very thankful
for his work in this. However, his speech gave me
pause. Given this and his
many other problems, seven months later he
- Dr. Patterson set up a lot of Freudian
straw men. I don't like Freud either, but is
discrediting Freud the only way to make yoHur
case? as Dr. Patterson been to a book store?
People write books about Freud's mistakes. Isn't ad
hominem unbecoming of someone with a higher education degree,
much less a Christian (Eph. 4:31)?
- Dr. Patterson then quotes Unhinged and Saving
Normal as why psychology is broken. First,
Patterson said psychology doesn't change anyone. The
published research of psychology disproves that. Second,
he claimed psychopharmacology is an unproductive scam.
The evidence shows psychopharmacology helps some people.
Patterson's speech pattern reminds me of bullying. I
have written about psychopharmacology here.
- Dr. Patterson quotes Carl Rogers about his enmeshed
wife. I don't recall Rogers divorcing his wife.
Perhaps if Patterson understood enmeshment and detachment in
relation to attachment theory and how closely it resembles the
Trinity, he would not have said any of this. Patterson
could've noticed the parallel between enmeshment and idolatry,
in ACBC's language. This speech demonstrates Patterson's
"sermon" was calculated to insult and scoff, not tell us how
the Bible is a superior counseling resource.
- Dr. Patterson then said we should read Freud and
Skinner. But isn't ACBC's stance not to fill our minds
with (what they claim is) rubbish per Philippians 4:8?
Second, Freud and Skinner, while possibly foundational to
modern psychology, are also very dated: why are we reading old
information? Why not newer Christian books by Dr.
Clinton, Dr. Worthington, etc?
- Dr. Patterson brings up the disease model of personality
disorders and addictions. The disease model of
addictions has fallen slightly out of favor since the 90s,
replaced by the biopsychosocial model. However,
the disease model is still
valid. In addition, AACC has put forward a
biopsychosocial-spiritual model which explains addictions even
better, but for some reason ACBC never mentions AACC.
Why doesn't ACBC mention AACC instead of just lumping all
integrationalists into the same camp? Are they scared to
4 October 2017
Jim Newhauser spoke at the final 2017 ACBC
event. I will say that the way he spoke was different than
previous speakers: less rabid antagonism, more logical. In
fact, of all the anti-psychology speakers of the event, by far
Jim Newhauser spoke in a more dignified and truth-filled
way. However, once again, the hasty generalization of
these "Integrationalists" comes out. No one in this whole
conference mentioned AACC, my organization. AACC is
integrationalist, and they are the largest Christian counseling
association on the planet, but they're not the only ones.
- Jim said that integrationalists rejected Jay Adams. I think he needs to read Competent Christian Counseling volume 1. Jay Adams and NANC are mentioned. They are applauded for their work in the 1960s to rescue Christian counseling from becoming utterly secular. However, they are also properly described (as I discovered from first hand experience) as a separatist movement.
- Jim said mindfulness is Buddhist in origin. This may
be, but the spiritual discipline of quiet is almost identical
- Jim admitted that the Bible is not exhaustive. The
crowd was silent.
- Jim mentioned some Mr. Bickman. I've never heard of him.
- Jim mentioned that "sola scriptura" doesn't mean we don't
need anything else, just that the Bible is supreme. The
crowd was silent.
- Jim quoted John Calvin, "all truth is God's truth", but then rejects research psychology as being blind, "it's all interpreted", etc. This is both a contradiction and a hasty generalization.
- Jim agreed that secular counseling can make the world a better place, of which I also agree.
- Jim said that cognitive behavioral therapy is broken. How is it broken if it's very similar to "taking every thought captive" in 2 Corinthians 10:5? If a secular psychologist were to analyze ACBC's counseling methods, they would likely conclude that the ACBC uses a form of CBT.
- Jim then made some off-handed remark about Jungian therapy not being effective.
- Jim disputed the client-focused model. Again, if a secular psychologist analyzed ACBC's techniques, they would likely conclude that the ACBC's model is almost identical to the client-focused/solution-focused models.
- Jim said Integrationalists think biblical counselors should
repent. But he offers no citations, and I've never read
anything within AACC's curriculum that teaches this.
- Jim said "Integrationalists" say you should not call out
sin. See above: I've already proved this wrong.
- Jim admitted that there are things you can learn from psychology.
- Jim accused "Integrationalists" of saying that the Bible lacks nuance. I've never read this: can he provide a reference?
- Jim said it's more about spiritual maturity and knowledge than being a member of ACBC. I am not sure why I needed ACBC's permission not to be a member of ACBC.
- Jim said that counseling is the Holy Spirit working, not the
counselor. I already agree: see AACC's parakeleo model.
- Jim said the psychological community envies the
church. First, why does their opinion on the church
matter? Second, can he please provide a reference?
- Jim said that secular psychology rejects the Bible. Why is it surprising when avowed secular organizations don't use the Bible?
The Internet 24 Feb 2018
In an effort to present both the good and
bad of ACBC, I offer this
video. This video is very good. Up until this
point, most of what I've been exposed to (books and speeches)
within ACBC has focused on denouncing worry and anxiety as a
sin, and rather quickly (i.e. towards the beginning of speeches
and books), which only pushes anxious people who need help
away. This video is a lot better. And it
acknowledges that the emotion of anxiety and/or worry can at
times be useful and good.
Another thing that could use changing, however, is that they didn't address people with chronic anxiety and/or worry. What of those whose anxiety stems from a neurochemical imbalance?
The problem with the church's response to mental health, for decades, has been to judge and shame the very people who need their help. I'd like to see this type of response pattern go extinct.
Men's Conference 24 Feb 2018
Dr. Stuart Scott came to my church to teach
us about Biblical decision making. I am thankful for the
majority of what he taught us, and for his book The
Exemplary Husband. However, a few of the things he
said, like other ACBC instructors, are not accurate. For
- Dr. Scott said that psychology is just "unsaved men studying
unsaved men." Such a dismissive statement is unbecoming
a person holding a PhD. First, he doesn't cite sources
that prove all psychologists are unsaved. I know a lot
of saved psychologists like Dr. Laaser, Dr. Clinton, Dr. Tan,
etc. Such a dismissive statement is pointless. Dr.
Scott, at the time of the statement, was teaching us that the
Bible is supreme in authority, followed by "hard" sciences,
then philosophy and psychology, and then experience.
Such a statement isn't necessary to make his point, hence it
reveals an agenda to smear psychology. This could've
been said differently, in a way that doesn't insult or demean,
or even stereotype. But that's not what Dr. Scott chose
- Dr. Scott quoted a book by psychiatrists, (I believe Secret of AA but I can't find the book reference) on why Alcoholics Anonymous is only 10% effective. He attempted to discredit the 12 step programs. There are a couple of problems with this:
- He quoted psychiatrists. With as much time as ACBC teachers spend insulting and attempting to refute psychology and psychiatry, and telling people not to believe anything they say, this is hypocrisy.
- He attacked the 12 steps without ample evidence.
Combined with even secular therapy, they increase
abstinence (see Project
MATCH) approximately 30%. ACBC has only
one book on addictions and has no curriculum for launching a
Christian addiction center. Searching for southern
baptist addictions centers on Google leads to very few
results. Given the apparent silence and lack of
involvement, 30% is far better than nothing. Does Dr.
Scott or ACBC have statistics on how many addicts they're
helping and how long they've been sober? It's not wise
to pick on AA when it appears your organization doesn't do
much for addicts. It's like picking on Nolan Ryan for
messing up a pitch when the only baseball you played was in
- His words reveal he may not understand the war out there in addiction therapy versus 12 steps. There are a few in psychology would wish to attack the 12 steps, as they are a spiritual (read: not scientific) program. But psychology more or less stopped attacking the 12 steps because, quite frankly, they work.
- His words reveal he may not understand the history of the 12 steps and their religious origin.
- ACBC has no curriculum on sex addiction (per Dr.
Street). There are four major twelve steps helping
people with sex addiction.
- ACBC constantly lumps all twelve steps together, ignoring
Celebrate Recovery, a completely Christian 12 step
program. Also, ACBC doesn't have their own support
It's really sad he would attack AA randomly
and out of the blue in a sermon series about making biblical
decisions. It's clear that his decision to do so isn't
So I recommend Dr. Scott's writings when he "stays in his own lane." It was refreshing to hear someone from ACBC teach a wider, less restrictive view of how to make decisions. His teachings emphasized Christian liberty.
However, in this matter he "strayed from his lane" to attack others, but without ample evidence or understanding. This is unbecoming someone who holds a PhD and teaches people to not "answer a matter before [they] hear it" (Prov. 18:13).
Note that Dr. Scott allows people to make free use of recordings of his speeches, except Liberty University because their beliefs give him pause. It's sort of ironic to withhold (what he believes is) truth from those who (in his opinion) probably need it.
So to summarize why I am not a member of
ACBC: because they won't let me. And given their rabid
hatred for everything psychological (hasty
generalization), their cherry picking and Google-level
fact finding tendencies, I cannot join them, on principle.
I can learn from them, and I refuse to harbor ill will against
I am sad to say that ACBC often makes me, an integrationalist, their enemy. This sentiment is one-sided. Though I will say that if anything on this page is true and offends you, "Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"
I do not consider any of its members my enemies. If confronted with divisive ACBC members, I choose peace and grace. The Bible is clear: if they are my brothers and sisters, so long as they are not preaching heresy, I am called to peace, and so I will pursue that. This page is more of a footnote of the sadness caused by the divisiveness of members of the body of Christ.