Paul Carter on covid-19, non-compliant pastors & the televangelists of the 80s

 

For many years I have watched with gratitude - from a distance - as Rev. Paul Carter (of Cornerstone Baptist Church) has contended for the faith in his own denomination.  I was once a part of the CBOQ and watched with real interest the developments over the years. I have prayed often for him and other men fighting the good fight for biblical fidelity in a denomination awash in liberalism.   With the apostle I can say that for many years I thanked God upon every remembrance of him (Philippians 1:3).  

More recently we have found ourselves on opposite sides of a contentious issue.  That issue, of course, is covid.  From the beginning Carter has been calling for quiet obedience to the magistrate, whereas I have been calling for obedience to God.  

To be fair, Carter says that his obedience to the magistrate is in obedience to God.  In order to obey God he says he must - in this case - obey man.   

He and I haven't had any interactions on the subject because we travel in very different circles.  I am a reformed presbyterian and he is Baptist.   All that to say we have never sat down to discuss anything let alone covid.  

But I have noticed the arguments he and other Gospel Coalition men are making are similar to those made by men in my own circles.  While I have never attempted to respond specifically to Carter, I have refuted those arguments more than once and have yet to hear a single Biblical answer to any of the following:

• Above the Law? (March 11, 2021)  
• When to Disobey (November 15, 2020)
• Our Compromise in the face of Covid-19: an open letter to the Church (April 22, 2020) - I received a lot of criticism for this post.  Many were angered and offended (and even outraged) by it; but I don't remember anyone writing to biblically refute the argument made there.

Lately Carter seems to have taken a different tone.  

I can't say that with any certainty because I am not on Facebook, and he has inexplicably blocked me on Twitter (though I have never written to him or about him).   

Here's what I mean about the difference in tone...  Lately Carter has come out attacking the character of those who disagree with him.  More on that in a moment.

Of course, I want to be fair.  We have also used strong language.  We have used words like cowardice, compromise, folly, etc.   And we stand by those words.  

But I have been deliberately careful to avoid attributing those characteristics to any specific man.  I have not named names.  I am of the opinion that it is safer to characterize patterns of behaviour rather than specific men.  I believe certain actions (and patterns of action) demonstrate cowardice, for example.  But I am unwilling to name names and say - for instance - that "John Smith" is a coward.  I don't know what is in his heart, and I certainly don't know all the reasons for what he is doing.  Before his Master he stands or falls.  

And so I won't hesitate to speak strongly about sinful behaviour in the same way that I do in the pulpit; but I have almost always avoided naming names.  The only recent exception is the article I wrote on Ravi and Coates. 

Carter, however, does not seem to have the same scruples.  The irony is that he does it while calling for more charity, more grace, more humility and admonishing others for their failure in those areas.  

When Jacob Reaume and the elders at Trinity Bible Chapel (TBC) were first charged for gathering for worship Carter took to Facebook to say that they were an embarrassment.  Carter quickly removed the post but never issued a public apology.  When I wrote to him he admitted he had taken down the post but stood by his words and concluded with: "The good news is, I’m a far worse man than you or your friends will ever know."  There was never a public apology.  

Just the other day Carter took to Facebook again to attack TBC.  Citing an article written by Stan Fowler he wrote, "A pastor friend recently said to me that the angry rhetoric coming from some of the most vocal guys on this will set our witness back as Christians as much or more than the televangelist scandals in the 1980's.  I agree."  

He admitted the problem isn't that pastors disagree but the "mockery and vilification."  "That" he wrote "will be hard to live down."

Think about that for a moment.  Trinity Bible Chapel has been charged again.  They now face millions of dollars in potential fines.  Jacob Reaume faces up to 9 years in prison and (I believe) 900,000 in fines.  Jacob admits he has lost track.  And a fellowsoldier (Philippians 2:25) - a brother - uses the opportunity to publicly attack him and compare his conduct to that of the televangelists of the 80’s.  And he did so without giving an opportunity for anyone to answer or refute his outrageous claims.  

The post seemed to take in everything Jacob and Trinity Bible Chapel (TBC) are doing.  He mentioned mockery and vilification but offered no proof.  He spoke of angry rhetoric but never attempted to demonstrate that the angry rhetoric coming from Jacob (and others?) is any different from the angry rhetoric used by the Lord Jesus himself.  And no one from the other side can respond or interact with him because most everyone who disagrees with him is blocked.  

When I read those words yesterday I was stunned. 

I didn’t remember the particulars, but I knew the scandal of the 80s was bad.  So I looked it up. It was called a scandal for a reason.  These evangelists were pilfering their followers.  They were like wolves devouring the sheep and fleecing the flock.  They were charlatans, pretending to be on the side of Jesus Christ while preying on the innocent.  And part of the scandal was that along with the theft there was sexual misconduct on the part of some of them.  

So take that in...

Paul Carter was speaking about Jacob Reaume and the TBC.  The article he cited was a response from a Heritage professor to their being charged again.  

Now pause for a moment to remember what is happening here.  

Jacob Reaume and the elders of TBC are gathering for worship in obedience to Jesus Christ.  Bear in mind, it is not he and the elders who have changed.  Reaume and TBC are doing now what they were doing in 2019, acting on the same principles that have governed the Church for centuries.    As a result they have been repeatedly charged and now face possibly years in prison.  The civil authorities are after them, the media is hounding them, the unbelieving public is attacking them, and what do their brethren do?  

Remember Christians are the minority in this province.  If anyone will come to Jacob’s defense it will surely have to be fellow Christians - his Christian family.  

Even if they aren’t doing the same thing surely men like Fowler and Carter can appreciate where he is coming from and why he is doing it.  Surely they can stand before a hostile world and defend a brother.  

They know the biblical reasons for what he is doing.  They know that his actions - like mine - are in keeping with those of our forefathers.  They know this.  But instead of speaking in his defense, these men join the attack.  Actually, Stan Fowler has repeatedly sided with the world against a brother who he knows very well is acting in good faith and in service of the same Saviour.  That brother is Reaume.

And so what does Paul Carter do? He picks up on what Fowler has written and adds his voice to the mix.  

But he doesn’t just disagree.  Remember, he has said that there is nothing wrong with godly men disagreeing.  But Carter doesn’t just disagree.  He compares the actions and “rhetoric” of men like Reaume with the tele-evangelist scandal of the 80s.  Their impact, he says, on the witness of the Church will be the same or worse.  

So on one side you have charlatans who are guilty of stealing, lying and sexual misconduct. 

On the other side you have a courageous pastor gathering his people and suffering for it - and his “angry rhetoric.”  The comparison is outlandish and silly, but it's worse than that.  It’s wicked. 

Here’s why.  

First, it was said publicly by a man with authority and a following.   

Second, it was not substantiated.  It was stated as a fact without any supporting evidence.

Third, it can’t be refuted because Carter seems to block everyone who disagrees with him on covid issues.  

Fourth, it is a terrible misrepresentation of reality.  Jacob Reaume, like Aaron Rock, Joe Boot, Michael Thiessen (and myself and others) is sincerely and honestly trying to serve both his Master and his congregation.  He has lied to no one, stolen from no one, and there is no hint of anything ungodly in terms of sexual purity.  

So what’s the problem? 

Here it is: He’s gathering his congregation for worship and publicly rebuking the compromise of church leaders who have bowed to the State.  

I would personally be interested in knowing what “angry rhetoric” Carter is referring to.  We all know the kind of language used by the prophets.  They were imprisoned and killed for a reason.  It had something do with the rhetoric.

Most of us also know the kind of language used by the reformers and then the covenanters.  They too were hated for a reason.  But are anger and rhetoric the dirty words so many make them out to be?  Not if we are to take our pattern from the reformers and covenanters.  Certainly not if we are to take our pattern from the prophets.  I have a book on my shelf on preaching called Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric by Robert Dabney.  It was published in the 19th century.  In those days preaching was rhetoric.  They understood a man can’t preach without rhetoric.  And certainly Jesus didn’t preach without rhetoric. 

But then what about the anger?  Paul actually says “be angry” and then he cautions “and sin not.”  The anger isn’t the problem.  God is angry with the wicked every day.  Jesus was so angry He made a whip, overturned tables, and cast people out of the temple. 

The problem is neither the anger or the rhetoric.  The problem is when God’s house of prayer becomes a market.  The problem is when men build monuments to dead prophets and kill the ones God sends them.  The problem is when what belongs to God is given to Caesar.  

And if there is any problem with anger it is when that anger is used sinfully.  So it behooves men like Carter to explain what they mean and to demonstrate that there has been sin involved.  But to simply equate these faithful courageous men with the charlatans of the 80s is ghastly. 

I know that the world is not thrilled with what my church and TBC and other churches are doing.  But we must be very careful to distinguish between a witness (like that of the televangelists) which brings shame and dishonour upon the name of Jesus Christ and a witness (like that of TBC) which honours Him.  Just because worldings don’t like it doesn’t make it a bad witness.  Jesus said they hated Him and they will certainly, then, hate us (John 15:18; John 7:7; Matthew 10:24-28).  If - that is - we are like Him. The problem isn’t when worldly men speak ill of us but when they speak well of us (Luke 6:26).  Note the distinction Jesus made: “Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake… (Mathew 5:10)”   The televangelists were certainly taken to task by the world for what they did.  They suffered for it.  But what they suffered for was their own wickedness.  

What Reaume and TBC and others here in Canada are suffering for is righteousness.  I would simply remind you that until 2020 the saints considered gathering for worship righteousness.  

Until 2020 the saints believed that submitting to the authority of Jesus Christ over His Church was righteous.  They believed that it was righteous to sing His praises, righteous to turn no one away, righteous to greet each other with some symbol of affection (beyond a wave), righteous to exclude only the duly excommunicated, righteous to do worship how God commanded, and righteous to render to Caesar only what was his.   

Men like Carter fail to see it, but their churches are gradually becoming state churches.  They give lip service to the authority of Jesus Christ but honour instead the dictates of the premier.  They gather when they’re allowed and how they are allowed.  They sing if allowed to sing and stop when told to stop.  They excommunicate, too, but now they do it upon the authority of the premier rather than on the authority of King Jesus.  How do I know?  If vaccines are required they will require vaccinations.  If masks are required they require masks.  If 10 are allowed they will turn away the 11th. 

And this will not stop... because the principles that once governed the Church have already been given up.

Paul Carter doesn’t appreciate those who criticize what he and other church leaders are doing.  Actually no one enjoys criticism. And of course he is free to make his case as he has so often done.  If he wants to accuse us of sin he can do that how and when he likes… though he will one day answer for it.  I speak for myself and my friends when I say that our consciences are clear because captive to the word of God.  But the obvious anger and defensiveness demonstrated in his repeated attacks on Jacob and TBC suggest to me a troubled conscience.  

I don’t expect a response to this article, though some clarification or apology for what has been publicly said about Jacob and TBC is warranted. I write here not to defend my name and reputation. I write to defend a brother and a friend in Jesus' name.  I write for a brother, and I write for my King.

It’s one thing to see the police, the media, and the word attacking a brother.  It’s another thing entirely when I see brethren offended and so betraying “one another (Matthew 24:10).”  It is this more than anything that makes my heart sick… and in this case I decided it deserved a response.

- Steve Richardson

* Correction (June 25, 2021): It has been brought to my attention that the article, which I cited was not written by Stan Fowler. That was my mistake. In fact, it was written by Mark Pare of Kitchener Today. The article is titled “Rhetoric on Trinity Bible Chapel is unfortunate, says local professor.” In the article Pare quotes Fowler. Above it reads “citing an article written by Stan Fowler he wrote…” The article, which quotes Fowler, was in fact written by Pare. Note: the quote that I borrowed from Paul Carter is not to be found in the article, nor was I suggesting it was. This is the trouble with Facebook posts. Carter shared the article and then made the comments which I quoted above. I am fully aware that the words Carter used are not to be found in the article. They are words he shared that had been passed on to him by a friend.  

Later I write, “The article he cited was a response from a Heritage professor or to their being charged again.” In fact - as noted above - the article contained a response from a Heritage professor. I certainly should have been more careful about the accuracy of my words, but all of this changes nothing in terms of the substance of the article. Carter said what I have quoted him as saying as did Fowler. I would urge the reader to focus on the words these men used and the response I have offered.