New book: 'The way of Balaam' - How the Emerging Church links to Gnosticism

The Way of Balaam: False teachers and the re-appearance of ancient Gnostic beliefs

Why do some Christians pray to God as ‘mother’? Why do some Christians use labyrinths and mandalas? Why do some believe that different religions are all part of ‘one truth’? What do actively homosexual Bishops have in common with militant feminism, ‘interfaith’ worship, and the watering down of core doctrines of the faith? Are these trends mere signs of an aberrant but harmless spirituality or are they sinister and toxic to orthodox Christian faith and practice?

It has been said that Christian orthodoxy (correct belief and behaviour) is never more than one generation from extinction. In other words, as is emphasized many times in the New Testament, we must be on our guard against false teaching. This is because false teaching is a poison to the Christian Church. It undermines the true Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby bringing spiritual death to people in need of salvation. It subverts the truth revealed to us, and promotes ‘the lie’ – thereby colluding with the ‘father of lies’ himself.

Not least, false teaching brings the judgement of God upon Churches who allow it. I believe that the precipitous decline over the last 40 or 50 years in many of the Protestant denominations of North America and Britain is the direct result of the infiltration of unbiblical and in some cases outright heretical teachings. As an example, the Anglican Church of Canada declined 75% in attendance figures from 1961 to 2009; this is a church which embraces the belief that homosexual unions are good and normal, and perform ceremonies blessing them.

But what are these false teachings, and how do we recognize them? This is the main concern of my book, and I have tried to write it in language that everyone will understand. The issues are complex, but I believe they can be set out in a way that clarifies them. We need to know how to counter these false doctrines – it is not enough to quote a verse or two of the bible (correct though it is to base our responses on the Word) , we need to have a thorough and sound doctrinal understanding of what the Bible teaches.

Readers will perhaps have a question mark in their minds as to what Gnostic belief is and what it has to do with Christians today. As I explain in the book, Gnostic sects were among the first groups to twist the Christian gospel – they had a huge influence and led many astray into darkness in the times of the early church. They were groups that mixed Christian belief with the pagan religions of the Roman Empire, and eastern philosophies. Their teachings have reappeared from time to time in the history of the Christian church, but are reasserting their influence in our day and age, especially because of the impact of eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism in the West. They are subtle and once again will deceive many – but they can be recognized, and they can be countered.

The book chapter headings give an idea of the book contents, and so I list them below:

Introduction: The Way of Balaam and the implosion of the Western Church
1. The Quest.
2. Enter the goddess.
3. Gnostic Doctrines I: The primacy of experience; the nature of humankind; the problem with the world; the person of Jesus; the place of Holy Scripture.
4. Gnostic Doctrines II: Salvation through altered consciousness; the Resurrection; Mysteries that transform; Time and History.
5. The Coming Chaos.
6. Called to shine as lights in the darkness.

Many of the examples that I use in the book are taken from events that are occurring in mainline denominations, such as Anglican, Baptist, Reformed and Lutheran churches. However these false teachings are beginning to infiltrate large Free Evangelical and Charismatic/Pentecostal churches through the very influential leaders of the “Emergent Church” movement. Western culture has long abandoned its mooring in Christian thought and belief and the effect of this will be felt not only in North America, Britain and Europe, but throughout the world. Many prominent and respected Christian thinkers are warning us that we face the rise of a new world order that is totally pagan in its foundations and which will threaten the Christian Church in a way that has not been seen since the days of the Roman Empire. Not only is this new world order post- Christian, it is anti-Christian. Frederick Baue the Lutheran theologian tells us that what is coming is “a phase of western or world civilization that is innately religious but hostile to Christianity....or worse, a dominant but false church that brings all of its forces to bear against the truth of God’s Word”. If we are not prepared, if we do equip ourselves by seeking a deeper understanding of Christian truth and a deeper knowledge of our faith, we will be swept away by what is coming on the world. I hope that my book will go some way in helping people to gain that deeper understanding and so stand strong and be able to offer a sound and clear defence of their faith.

I believe that the Christian church today as never before needs believers that love the Lord Jesus and are committed to standing for the truth. My prayer is that my book will ignite a spark of renewed passion for the Lord among believers and a clearer understanding of His glorious Gospel.

“The Way of Balaam” is available from the following Bookshops:

Christian Connexion
and
Christian Book Discounters,

Or directly from the author: davedoveton@gmail.com price R120 + R10 postage


Rev Dave Doveton is an Anglican Priest, and serves in the Diocese of Port Elizabeth. He is the rector of the parishes of St Barnabas and St Philips, and also serves as the Anglican Dean of Studies of Stellenbosch Theological Seminary.

COMBATING THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT WINGS’ OF CHURCH COMPROMISE

COMBATING THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT WINGS’ OF CHURCH COMPROMISE

Every now and then it is worth ‘zooming out’ and taking a wide lens perspective on what is happening to the church. The reality is that we are in the midst of a large scale international spiritual ‘down grade’. The culture is like a river flowing in full flood downstream. Unless one decides to actively swim upstream against the current, you, your family and your church will be swept along by it. In this context, all of us have to make the decision that Joshua did JOS 24:15 “But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.". Further than that, we must be prepared to pay the price to stay faithful to the Lord – if that means, moving church, job, country, school or whatever.

Historically, spiritual downgrades have followed a pattern ‘Revival turns to passive spirituality to compromised spirituality to liberal unbelief (church without faith) and then if not reversed to extinction (abandonment of faith and church). I hear lots of talk about revival, but I don’t know any church in South Africa with a spiritual state anywhere close to revival. The best churches are mostly at ‘passive spirituality’ stage. In other words, they believe the truth, but the lost are not hearing it from many in the church. Most professing evangelical churches are compromised with their ‘idols’. Numerous churches that twenty years ago were at passive stage have moved to liberalism and man made religion. In another generation, such liberal churches will probably close their doors – as they have in Europe already.

THE ‘RIGHT’ AND ‘LEFT’ WINGS OF COMPROMISE

There are two main forces pulling evangelical churches into compromise. To simplify things, one could call them ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’.

RIGHT WING churches tend to be authoritarian, inward focused and centred around powerful charismatic personalities, and focused on building empires, ‘brands’, or tribes around those personalities. They are elitist, hierarchical although they would usually strongly deny this and in their extreme form, the top leader becomes a substitute for God – making decisions for unthinking followers – who profess to be biblical, but rely entirely on their leader to tell them what is biblical. The kingdom of God is substituted by the religious empire of the leader. Other Christian groups are treated as inferior and there is a desire to dominate them. Such empires will put on the best show on Sunday, but behind the scenes, they will bully, compromise and cover up sin to advance their fascist power structure. Anyone who questions anything is pushed out. Their beliefs vary dramatically, but all such groups are convinced their hierarchy are totally and unquestionably right – even if they change their beliefs over time. Usually there is some distinctive belief making them much more right than everyone else.

They do not follow a biblical pattern of governance and accountability. Usually, leaders of such groups don’t participate in unity initiatives unless they can see a benefit to gain power for themselves – and generally don’t care too much what the rest of the world thinks of them. Every now and then, some top leader goes too far and is exposed in a scandal. But usually, the successor continues a similar elitist pattern. Younger movements are prone to fall into this ‘right wing’ pattern’. More on ‘right wing’ churches problems at www.voiceofreform.blogspot.com

LEFT WING churches on the other hand tend to be desperate to get the approval of the surrounding culture. They will do whatever they can to get the approval of this culture in the mistaken belief that this will somehow help them to make Christianity attractive to the lost. Currently, the worldly culture is postmodern and so, such churches tend to be importing Postmodern culture into the church. Such churches tend to be much lower energy, laid back types without a controlling central leader. More on ‘left wing’ churches problems at www.emergingthreat.blogspot.com

Both ‘left’ and ‘right wing’ forms of compromise are a form of idolatry. Just different forms of idolatry. Churches all over are bleeding off the evangelical mainstream in one of these two unhealthy directions. But our focus should be on God, his glory and his kingdom – neither on the ‘right wing’ of great Christian leaders and movements or on the ‘left wing’ of the surrounding neo-pagan postmodern culture. In many ways, these ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings of evangelicalism have similar characteristics to the ‘right’ and ‘left’ wings of political movements – where the right is associated with nationalism, tribalism and populist leaders and the left is associated with unbounded liberty. But they do not necessarily support such right or left wing political movements.

WHAT IS GOD LIKELY TO DO?

People don’t realize how serious the backsliding is and that God will judge it. In the past, when such periods of backsliding have happened, God has preserved a remnant of faithful people – who have often gone into exile. For example, in the 16th century, during the persecution of Mary Tudor in England where 300 evangelical leaders were burned at the stake, a church of English exiles gathered in Geneva under the leadership of John Knox. When religious freedom returned to England, they went back and seeded the Puritan revival. The same happened again a century later, during the English state church persecution of dissenters. One dissenting church fled to Holland under the leadership of John Smyth. When Smyth turned to believers baptism, the church split. One half went and founded America at Plymouth Plantation. The other half, returned to England and spawned the Baptist church revival movement. During the liberal downgrade in the early 20th century, Gresham Machen left Princeton Seminary and founded Westminster Seminary, which subsequently became a centre for the spread of Biblical worldview throughout the world. In such ways, God has usually formed a ‘Noah’s Ark’ to preserve the faithful few who will spawn the next revival or reformation move of God. The lesson we must learn is the extreme importance of faithfulness at any cost under persecution even if the faithful look very weak in exile – one day, God may use these weak few to re-seed the church in the whole nation with godly influence.

WHAT SHOULD WE DO?

* We must be prepared to pay the price to be faithful, whatever that is. Jesus warned us the cost of following him and in evil times we will be forced to surrender all to follow him.
* We must choose who we mix with carefully. Especially our pastors and leaders. Likewise who our children mix with. We are social animals and we mustn’t fool ourselves into thinking we can endlessly fend off temptations of social pressure.
* Put in safe boundaries against temptation.
* We must be careful not to let our love grow cold due to the increase of wickedness (Revelation 2; Matthew 24:12-13).
* Don’t be deceived by the substitute religiosity of the ‘right’ and ‘left’ wing.
* If you see your church falling for the ‘right wing’ or the ‘left wing’ errors, do what you can to steer it back to the central focus on God and his kingdom. If you can’t, then move to a church which is focused on God.
* Realise that we cannot expect the same type of ministry fruit during backslidden times as in revival times, but continue to be faithful and focus on the different roles required in such times – (such as the example of Elijah and Jeremiah – rather than Joshua).
* Remember the message of the scriptures and of history, that God does revive – continue to pray faithfully year after year and make ourselves available to God.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SENTIMENTALITY TRUMPS TRUTH?

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SENTIMENTALITY TRUMPS TRUTH?

As most Western churches slide deeper and deeper into postmodern thinking, more and more decisions are based on sentimentalism rather than truth - gradually this affects all aspects of church life. Officially, such evangelicals claim to believe what biblical Christians have always believed, except that when decisions are made feelings and relationships are put before objective truth. Trying to argue from the Bible with such people is very difficult because they will always affirm the Bible, but in practice feelings come first - before God and the Bible. Most of the time, they just ignore the Bible and statements of belief and follow their feelings and personal relationships. It is quite easy for anyone including me and you to make such a mistake, but increasingly this is becoming the norm rather than the exception - by people who really should know better. Let us consider some real examples.

* DIVORCE COUNSELLING: A wife comes to a pastor at a well known evangelical church and complains about all the faults of her husband, saying she wants divorce. She gets his sympathy. Then they have counselling as a couple. The husband says positive things about his wife. Officially, this church opposes divorce except where there is adultery (which was not the case). Nevertheless, instead of quoting the Bible or repeating the official position of the church on divorce, the pastor just gives relationship counselling - sympathising with the wife who talked to him first. Eventually the wife does divorce her husband and the pastor fails to speak up against it.

* HOMOSEXUALITY COUNSELLING: A generally mixed up young lesbian comes to a church counsellor for help. Instead of using the Bible to challenge the girl to repent of her sexual sin and to change, the counsellor just listens and affirms her (in accordance with the methods mostly taught at universities). The lesbian has found some clever arguments twisting the Bible to defend homosexuality on the internet and repeats these to the counsellor. Instead of saying that this is error, the counsellor just tells the girl how clever she is. When challenged, the counsellor claims she is opposed to homosexuality. Nevertheless, it is emotional feelings and not the Bible which come out in the counselling.

* CHURCH DISCIPLINE: A senior pastor commits adultery. He pleads for mercy and argues that public exposure will damage his marriage. His associate pastors, ignoring the Bible's standards on eldership and procedures for disciplining leaders (1 Timothy 5:20), feel sorry for him and decide not to inform the congregation. They give him private marriage counselling instead. Those doing the discipline ignore the Word of God and the numerous sheep who will be harmed by the ungodly pastor. They are blinded by personal relationship and feelings for the one they are close to. He does it again and the church backslides.

* DOCTRINAL DISPUTES:
- A false teacher, Graeme Codrington publishes an article teaching the heresy that it is acceptable for a Christian to practice homosexuality. Biblical Baptists strongly speak up against this. The denomination condemns the false teaching and takes steps to ensure such views are not published again. Nevertheless, postmodern pastors say they disagree with the false teaching but instead of speaking up against it, they attack the Biblical Christians saying that they have hurt the feelings of the false teacher and those who published the false teaching.
- This is also what happened when postmodernist Rob Bell published his infamous book on hell 'Love Wins', claiming that everyone would get a second change to go to heaven after death. Bell argues from sentimentality that God would never do something so nasty as send someone to eternal punishment. Brian McLaren doesn't defend Rob Bells logic, but just continues the sentimental argument that Rob Bell is his friend and that he has a duty to protect his friend and tries to throw doubt on the logical arguments of Albert Mohler against this.

* WHISTLEBLOWING A SCANDAL: There is a scandal in a church. Someone attempts to bring the truth to the congregation following Matthew 18 process. Nevertheless, the church authorities, re-frame the scandal as a personal relational issue. They ignore the scandal and say that the whistleblower must now reconcile with those he is exposing. When the whistleblower continues to blow the whistle, he is victimised for failing to reconciled.

* LEWDNESS: A professing Christian publishes a lewd photograph on the internet. A Biblical Christian asks him to remove it. A postmodern pastor, instead of supporting the biblical Christian and telling the publisher that this was wrong, instead complains that the Biblical Christian has now caused emotional upset and harmed relationship. Thus by this new feelings-based interpretation, the pro-moral person is the one mostly in the wrong.

* ABORTION: Instead of considering issues like the teaching of the Bible and the Sanctity of human life as it relates to abortion, postmodern Christians look at it from a feelings angle. They don't know the feelings of the unborn child - so that is ignored. They consider the feelings of the woman with an unwanted pregnancy and the feelings of the secular media. From this angle, pro-life protesters are hurting the feelings of women who have had abortions or are considering killing their babies. Do they win the fight on grounds of logic? No. On logic they would lose, but on sentimentality - the person who is seen trumps the person who is unseen. Given the sentimental thinking of the public, pro-lifers respond by trying to profile cute pictures of the unborn in the womb - to pull back some public sympathy - or use harsh pictures of aborted babies. Then they are attacked by the other side for being too harsh. Nevertheless, logic, truth and the Bible have been thrown to the wind and sidelined out of the debate.

A slogan used to promote this attitude is 'Follow your heart and not your head'. It is not in the Bible. Its plain foolish and unbiblical. The Bible says that the heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9).

And one could give a hundred more examples following the same pattern. If your church is not very focused on Biblical truth, probably you will also find this kind of thing going on behind the scenes.

The problem with all of these examples is that the people just evade argument based on truth and the Bible as a standard for truth - while concentrating on feelings and immediate personal relationships. The result is favouritism (forbidden by James 2), where there is no objective justice or investigation of the truth. Those who have personal relationships with powerful people are favoured and those who don't lose out. The Bible is sidelined in favour of personal feelings.

This is not a minor trend or the action of a few postmodernist extremists. Most of the evangelical church has already gone this way, even if it is officially still evangelical. Only a minority are resisting it.

Really such an approach does not help personal emotions or relationships except in the very short term. In the long term, relationships and feelings are trashed on a large scale due to ignoring the teaching of the Bible, God's judgement and the natural result of cause and effect.

WORLD WAR TWO IS DIFFERENT

To win a war, one has to recognise the tactics being used by the enemy. After World War One, which was fought mostly in trenches, France prepared a line of defences against a future similar war. There never was another similar war. World War Two was different. Armoured tanks over-ran Frances Maginot Line defences in days. They were useless. In the same way, the battle for the Bible has changed. We cannot fight it the way it was fought in the last generation. We will lose if we try. We have to see the opposition is using different tactics. So many are claiming to be biblical Christians, while they are actually 'feelings-based' rather than 'Bible-based'. We have to recognise these tactics, recognise the enemy pretending to be biblical, expose them and fight back.

Postmodernists are mostly refusing to engage in logical debate based on the Bible. When cornered as obviously unbiblical, they just argue the other side is causing relational and emotional pain. The reality is that the fight for truth always has and always will cause pain. We can try our best to minimise this, but unless we want to just give up and lose the fight, there will always be pain in such conflicts.

'Feelings-based' Christians leaders who claim to be biblical need to be steered back to the Bible. Those who won't change need to be weeded out of Christian leadership. Lets remind people to follow the Bible first and feelings after that.

SHOULD CHRISTIANS COPY OUR CULTURE OF CRUDENESS?

SHOULD CHRISTIANS COPY OUR CULTURE OF CRUDENESS?

Throughout the Western world since about the 1950s our culture has been getting progressively cruder. There used to be certain subjects, images and words which most people thought were unacceptable in public. What used to be found only in seedy magazines now appears on billboard advertising. In the old days, if a broadcaster swore on air, he would be fired immediately. There were always people who crossed such boundaries, but in polite company among professionals and especially in the church, certain things were out of bounds. If such things were ever spoken about or seen it would be in the context of the utmost care and caution.

The ‘Emerging Church’ is an attempt by Christian leaders to respond to our ‘Emerging Culture’, mostly by adapting Christianity to fit in with the direction of popular culture. There are different streams within this movement. One stream has focused on trying to accommodate Postmodern ideas. Another stream of the Emerging Church, calling itself ‘Emerging, but not Emergent’ however rejects Postmodernism as doctrinally unorthodox, but often follows the cultural trend towards crudeness.

Many Christians will at times say something, they realise later was a mistake, and may utter some embarrassed apology ‘I shouldn’t have said that’. But these Christian leaders are not embarrassed. Instead they have an idea that to be coarse is to be cool. That somehow they can win over today’s youth, if they can swear like them, talk about the same coarse movies and immoral actors they watch, and tell almost as crude jokes. They think those who disagree with such coarseness are legalistic and old fashioned. Some of these leaders come from overly strict ‘fundamentalist’ backgrounds and have taken a pendulum swing in the opposite direction. Other younger pastors have grown up with a crude culture and think it is acceptable for a Christian.

This ‘crude’ attitude then filters into all aspects of church life: trampling on what was formerly considered ‘holy ground’. Jokes and flippant statements about God and sexuality become acceptable in church. For example, a preacher thinks that if his congregation is a bit asleep, he can wake them up by cracking some joke with sexual undertones, making fun of spiritual things or using language formerly considered unacceptable in polite company.

LOWERING STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE SEEKERS

Unconverted persons slip into church, telling crude jokes or behaving in a crude manner – but instead of being urged to holiness, the hyper ‘seeker sensitive’ evangelism strategy believes one needs to lower the standards in the church to accommodate such people. Particularly, in youth groups, unconverted people are welcomed in without needing to adapt to even outward Christian standards of holiness. This then lowers the standard of what acceptable for Christian youth as well. This is a very risky and unbiblical strategy of evangelism, more likely to corrupt the church than win sinners to Christ. Rather unbelievers should be attracted by young people charged with zeal for Christ and the message of the gospel.

JOKING ABOUT SEX IN CHURCH

While just about every glossy magazine offers ‘sex advice’, some pastors think they can sell Christianity by offering competing ‘sex advice’. While there may be some teaching on sex in the scriptures, this is usually given in very guarded and euphemistic language, for example 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. There are many good reasons for this. Sex is a sacred subject meant for the privacy of the marriage bedroom. Churches have a lot of unmarried people. Inappropriate talk on sex can provoke illegitimate desire. Keeping sex special means not talking about it everywhere else. Some other young ‘postmodern’ preachers don’t joke, but try to shock their congregations by using crude or sexually explicit words in church, which maybe make them seem more ‘hip with the culture’ than their young followers.

Related to such flippancy about sexuality with words is a casual attitude towards modesty with the body. Many youth part of this new church culture simply don’t see a problem with viewing nudity on television or movies – nor in this state of numbness about immodesty - with lewdly exposing themselves even when members of the opposite sex may see them. Please see my previous article on ‘nudity’ for a rebuttal of this view. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview/message/452

WHEN JOKING STRAYS INTO BLASPHEMY

Similarly, jokes about God and spiritual things in church can easily stray into blasphemy. We are meant to reverence God – not make jokes about him. Granted, there may be a few ‘spiritual jokes’ which are legitimate, but one needs to be careful that such joking does not undermine the gravity of spiritual truth such as people’s eternal destiny in heaven or hell, the moral boundaries of sin or the person of God. People who make such jokes need to be very careful that they are not offending God in the process. But the new attitude is as though God doesn’t care, isn’t going to get offended and that any caution is equated to legalism. God can judge a church that doesn’t respect him in many ways, and the most common way is that the Holy Spirit simply withdraws.

FOOLISH SEXUAL ADVICE IN CHURCH

One of the worlds most listened to preachers, considered an expert on reaching ‘youth culture’, is offering sexual advice on the internet – with the apparent philosophy that just about anything is permitted provided it is within marriage. And this crude and foolish advice on sexual experimentation in marriage is videoed in the context of an open church meeting. His web site links to other sites offering even more unwise sex advice.

WHY SHOULD WE AVOID JOKING ABOUT SOME THINGS?

The Bible says we should avoid coarseness: Ephesians 5:3 “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” Yes, we can joke and be funny and tell jokes about all sorts of common things, but we should be careful not to joke about the holy and the unclean. The holy we are to respect and seek after. The unclean we are to detest, avoid and not dwell on. Neither the holy nor the unclean should be the subject of jokes.

Joking is often a way people break down barriers. In many contexts that is good and helpful. But we need some barriers. When people joke about sin, they undermine barriers to sin. When people joke about homosexuality or people having affairs, they increase the risks of such sin – and joking often provides a cover for the initial stages of sinful relationships.

While under the New Covenant we do have access to God through a new and living way Jesus has opened for us (Hebrews 10:20), God has provided a very specific route for us to meet with him – through identification with the death and resurrection of Jesus, by various means such as participation in holy communion, repentance of our specific sins and faith in his forgiveness and cleansing by his blood. That specific route does not mean that people who are unrepentant towards their sin and irreverent towards God can simply joke their way into intimacy with God. Such people deceive themselves. God is not meeting them at church.

In the past there was a debate on dress code at church. Some older folk thought you needed to wear a tie to church to show you respected God. This focus on externals is not relevant to worship unless it actually does reflect the attitude of the heart. But the words people say do let out what is in the heart (Matthew 12:34) and a coarse attitude towards sexuality, sin and the holy things of God does not reflect a right heart attitude.

WHY IS THIS TREND DANGEROUS?

* The Bible promotes modesty which applies to the display of our physical bodies and our wealth (1 Corinthians 12:22; 1 Timothy 2:9)

* The Bible gives numerous examples of people who fell under divine judgment for failing to show adequate respect to God in worship. Nathan and Abihu, priest (Numbers 3:4) and Uzzah (1 Chronicles 13:9) were struck dead. King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:19) was struck with a skin disease. These are lessons we should learn from not to do the same.

* Our Hollywood popular over-sexed and blasphemous media culture is seriously toxic to Christian holiness. We should not try to reintroduce the legalism of ‘all movies are of the devil’, but we must use wisdom in managing our exposure to toxic entertainment and sin – otherwise it will numb our boundaries. Pastors who feel they need to keep up with such popular toxic entertainment culture, put themselves at risk and also those who follow them.

* All historic revivals have taken place in the context of conviction of sin, fear and reverence for God and acknowledging the difference between the holy and the unclean. None have ever taken place in the context of joking about sin and the holy things of God. Such compromise with crudeness may fill churches with young people who like it and think their pastor is ‘cool’, but we cannot expect true revival in churches where such an attitude prevails.

WHAT SHOULD I DO?

If you haven’t encountered this problem. Good. You are probably blessed by being in a healthy church. But if your church or people in it are following any of this new trend of crudeness, please show this article to such people as well as your pastor and home group leaders. If however, your church continues with this trend, you may consider moving elsewhere.

BROADENING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF OUR WORSHIP LYRICS

Please support ChristianView Network financially, www.ChristianView.givengain.org

================================

12 August 2011

BROADENING THE DEPTH AND BREADTH OF OUR WORSHIP LYRICS

In the 1980s there was a revolution in church worship music unprecedented in 2000 years of church history. Prior to this date, worship song lyrics were almost all composed by pastors and the songs sung in church were selected by pastors. Martin Luther, for example, used song writing as a vehicle to promote reformation of the church and help people remember what he taught. But in the decades before the 1980s there had been a stagnation in worship music. Most churches were still mostly using songs with lyrics and tunes one or two hundred years old - as many also still used the King James Bible - which younger people had difficulty relating to. In the 1970s a few newer songs started drifting in along with the use of guitars instead of church organs - causing much controversy. One side thought guitars were of the devil, while some younger people felt the same about organs. In the 1980s, the old hymn books started to be thrown out and were replaced with up to date tunes and lyrics mostly composed by young musicians in their 20s with little theological training. Newer churches quickly embraced the change, while many older churches fought bitter 'worship wars' - sometimes having different services with different styles. By our decade most churches have made the shift to contemporary lyrics and tunes. Nevertheless, many complain we have lost something in the process. Most of the newer songs have a very narrow set of themes and lack the theological depth and breadth of the old hymns. Most focus on the personal emotional relationship of the worshipper with God. That is a valid Bible worship theme, but it is not the only valid Bible worship theme. The Psalms, our model for worship, have a much wider range of themes. At the same time, the Christian commercial music industry took control of church music. They promoted most whatever sold best rather than chosing songs for their scriptural educational quality as pastors tried to do before this. Young worship lyrics writers copied the styles of whatever sold best, producing more and more of the same narrow set of best selling popular themes. But are the Psalms popular themes? A lot of them are actually on very unpopular themes of repentance for sins of both individuals and the nation as a whole. Many are about the wrath of God and punishment of the wicked - not so popular today. But this is the spirtual food that people need, but are not always going to want to listen to as background music in their car. To their credit, some Christian musicians have taken old hymns and updated their tunes - creating a good combination of theological depth and popular style. The rising ideology of postmodernism has also favoured songs with a focus on personal emotional feelings for God and a neglect of other themes - such as the greatness of God and the wrath of God.

Why does this matter to Christian activism? Because worship music is an educator as much as preaching is an educator - and Christians with a narrow focus on emotional personal relationship with God will also likely have a narrow focus in their prayers and influence on society. Worship and service are indivisible. Service needs to flow out of our worship, just as Isaiah was motivated to preach an unpopular message to Israel (Isaiah 6) after a greater revelation of the holiness of God in worship.

In 1996, in frustration at the theological narrowness of the new worship lyrics, a group of the worlds most respected Bible scholars published "The Cambridge Declaration", calling for amongst other things a return to pastoral control of church music "Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness..."
http://www.theopedia.com/The_Cambridge_Declaration_of_the_Alliance_of_Confessing_Evangelicals

But some will say, most of these theologians are from a traditional Reformed camp. Nevertheless, Paul Yonggi Cho, pastor of the world's largest church in Korea, Pentecostal has expressed the same concern - and encouraged the singing of older hymns with modern songs to compensate their theological narrowness.

Unfortunately, the Christian music industry which controls most Christian music ignored this call - as did most pastors - who continued to surrender their authority over church worship lyrics to young mostly theologically uneducated church musicians who would thus attract youth to church. Christian radio tend to play songs based on popularity based on sales figures from the commercial music publishers and from listener requests rather than the need to select for theological breadth. Thus, the cultural update to worship music has continued and resulted in a theological narrowing and downgrade of worship music lyrics. Many of todays church youth only know the new lyric themes and don't know what they are missing.

For many years, Hugh Wetmore, a board member of ChristianView Network, former leader of the Evangelical Fellowship of South Africa has been emailing me worship songs he has composed on a broad range of themes. They have often been an encouragement and inspiration to me. Recently he has published these in a book "Lyrics to lift your life" which includes a very wide range of topics and theological depth. Each is indexed by topic. In addition to songs in the usual categories of the Life of Christ from His Incarnation to His Return and major Biblical Doctrines, less usual themes include: The Ten Commandments’, ‘Creation vs Evolution’, ‘Work’, ‘Protection while traveling internationally’, ‘Refugees’, ‘Herod’s Massacre of the Innocents’, ‘Xenophobia’, ‘21st Century Culture’ and ‘South African Context’. Songs about the human condition: ‘Loneliness’, ‘Stress’, ‘Poverty’ and ‘Hunger’ ~ in addition to the usual and necessary themes of ‘Lostness’ and ‘Repentance/Faith’, ‘The Church Growth Song”, “The Inside-Out Church”, “The Suffering Song” and “The Identity Song”.

"Lyrics to Lift your Life" is available (R80.00 + R8 pack+post) from the author-publisher, Hugh G Wetmore 109 Beacon Hill, 32 Roberts Rd, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa. Tel/Fax +27(0)33 3429012. email: wetmore@pixie.co.za. The songs are also available with musical score, as backing tracks and on audio mp3 CDs (as a set of 13 CDs). Why not order one for your church?

My hope is that some young talented musicians will take these broad and theologically deep lyrics and make them popular - and also follow Hugh's example in composing more worship songs of similar theological depth and breadth. An example of a song on a pro-life theme is given below - you can also sing it at your next pro-life protest against abortion and help save babies lives.

The 1980s church music revolution was good in that it brought a new generation of youth into the church with tunes they enjoyed, but problematic in that it narrowed the depth and breadth of their worship music and took authority over music away from pastors to the less biblically knowledgable young musicians and radio DJs. I don't want to slam the commercial Christian music industry. I appreciate them and my spiritual life has been hugely helped by commercially published music. I have a big collection of such music and listen to it all the time. We do however need to take action to broaden and deepen the theological content of and selection songs - and commercial popularity charts will not do that for us.

One of my personal worship solutions has been to rip my collection to mp3 and then create my own compilations of the best songs to listen to in my car, my private worship and on my mp3 player, which I believe include a more balanced selection. I also love the CDs with old hymns set to new tunes. So to the pastors out there - please don't be over awed by the popularity of certain music and by the greater musical ability of musicians in your congregation - the tunes are the musicians responsibility, but the choice of lyrics has a teaching function and thus is a pastoral responsibilty.

I would recommend also that every commercial music company and radio station employ a theologically educated pastor as a consultant to review their music lyric selection to ensure a breadth of theological themes. Possibly larger companies should have a theological review board to review the publishing selection and give feedback to songwriters. I would recommend every young songwriter who does not have a strong bible knowledge sends his songs for review to someone who does before publication. Let us promote a reformation of worship music to broaden the teaching content of music and put the selection of songs out of the hands of young musicians, commercial companies and young radio DJ's and back in the hands of pastors - who choose songs with lyrics to feed the flock a Biblically balanced diet.

And don't forget - Hugh Wetmore's "Lyrics to Lift your Life" song book is available (R80.00 + R8 pack+post) from the author-publisher, Hugh G Wetmore 109 Beacon Hill, 32 Roberts Rd, Pietermaritzburg 3201, South Africa. Tel/Fax +27(0)33 3429012. email: wetmore@pixie.co.za.

Please forward this email to your pastor and music worship leader.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

---------------------------------

THE PRO-LIFE SONG

God of Justice, God of Love,
twin these virtues from above,
form them in this world below,
that all people soon will show
justice, love to all.

Justice for the innocent,
killed without their own consent,
taken from their mother’s womb,
taken from their cosy home,
justice is denied.

Love for helpless humankind,
all their rights now undermined.
Adult power is cruel and wild
When it’s used against a child ~
love evaporates.

God of Justice, God of Love,
You in Christ came from above.
Mary had the courage to
see her pregnancy right through ~
Loving Justice won!

Words: Hugh G Wetmore (c) 2003
Metre: 77775

================================

ChristianView Network
Tel/fax: +2721 6854500
Mobile: +2782 6768966
Email: mail@ChristianView.org
Mail: Postnet 114, P/Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa
Web: www.ChristianView.org
Donate: www.ChristianView.givengain.org

================================

THE NEW NIV AND XHOSA BIBLE: CAN WE STILL TRUST OUR FAVOURITE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS?

21 April 2011

THE NEW NIV AND XHOSA BIBLE: CAN WE STILL TRUST OUR FAVOURITE BIBLE TRANSLATIONS?

This month, April 2011 both English and Xhosa speaking Christians face a crisis: Can we still trust our favourite Bible? Tomorrow, warehouses are set to release a revised 2011 translation of the popular New International Version.

Until this month, all Xhosa Bibles printed by the Bible society had a red edge. This morning, I watched a Xhosa man walk to the counter of a Christian bookshop and ask for a Bible. The shopkeeper offered him the new Xhosa Bible. He rejected it, asking for a red edged one. The shopkeeper showed him a red edged one to compare with - saying the two had the same text inside. The Xhosa man asked to buy the red one. When told it was not for sale, but only for comparison, the Xhosa man walked out of the shop. He trusted the red edged Bible he had always known and didn't trust the new plain one. The shopkeeper was angry with the Bible society at changing the rim colour, saying they had lost thousands of rands in sales this month.

We all want a Bible translation we can trust. Most of us are not Bible scholars, but we all want a translation we can both trust and understand. We want a translation that isn't biased with some particular groups theological opinion, but just simply translates what it says in the original. That was the reason why in the 1970s, the International Bible Society set about the project of the New International Version. By including scholars from countries all over the world and from the widest ever spectrum of denominations, they hoped to debate and agree on a translation that would remove cultural and theological translation bias. The resulting New International Version (NIV) became and remained the worlds most popular Bible among English speaking Evangelicals, also bringing enormous profits to its publisher Zondervan. Minor corrections were made to the translation in 1984. In 1987, Zondervan, the leading Evangelical publisher was bought by Harper Collins, a secular publisher. At first, nothing changed. At first, Zondervan continued to publish only orthodox conservative evangelical books.

In 1997, however, Christian leaders and theologians were distressed to hear that a politically correct/'gender neutral'/feminist update translation was being planned for the NIV. James Dobson, concerned about the implications for the family, convened a meeting between the team responsible for the NIV (the International Bible society, the Committee on Bible Translation, and Zondervan). Concerned theologians present included John Piper, Wayne Grudem and RC Sproul. At the meeting, the NIV team promised to scrap plans for a 'gender neutral' update to the NIV. (See http://www.cbmw.org/Journal/Vol-2-No-3/NIV-Controversy). The whole group then agreed to a set of principles called the 'Colorado Springs Guidelines' for translation of gender in the Bible. These principles were then endorsed by a further list of Christian leaders who read like a 'whos who' of American Christian leaders of the time. (http://www.bible-researcher.com/csguidelines.html ) The principles in plain English are that we should translate what it says in the original and not try to change that.

Nevertheless, the NIV team then broke this promise by continuing to secretly re-translate the NIV into 'gender neutral' language. When they had finished, just before the publication of the update version called Todays New International Version (TNIV) in 2002, they then sent a letter to those in the original meeting to say that they had changed their minds. The Christian public were not impressed. Hardly anyone bought the TNIV and it flopped. The public continued to demand the original authentically translated 1984 NIV. Angry Christians posted back their copies of the NIV to Zondervan in protest.

At the same time, the neo-liberal postmodern Emerging Church movement rose to prominence. The new Zondervan leadership, lacking the spiritual and Biblical motivation of their pious founder Mr Zondervan, began publishing numerous postmodern books. Much of the evangelical public, trusting the Zondervan label bought these books and thought they were Biblical. But under secular ownership, Zondervan abandoned its faithfulness to the Bible and deceived hundreds of thousands of Christians by publishing postmodern authors like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball, and Doug Pagitt under an evangelical imprint.

Theological scholars attacked the false-translations in the TNIV. One of the problems was that in many places singulars were changed to plurals to avoid giving the gender. For example,'him' became 'them'. This pluralisation detracted from the element of personal relationship of us and God. The NIV team, then responded to this criticism, by re-editing the TNIV to change many of the most offensive mis-translations in a new version called the '2011 NIV'. So now for example, with the well know verse Revelation 3:20, in the current (1984) NIV, Jesus says: "... If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."; in the 2011 NIV, Jesus says: "...If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Anyone who reads the current NIV can see that this sentence is 'masculine general' i.e. meant to refer to both men and women. But in other cases it is debatable and the meanings are subtle. For example, in many places the masculine assumes male leadership in the church, something that feminists evidently don't like. So, for example in James 3, while the 1984 NIV says "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers...", 2011 NIV says "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers..."

In other places, the Old Testament refers to the 'Son of Man' or the 'righteous man' alluding to Christ. Surely the reader should be allowed to decide for himself what it means and not have this meaning edited out by a feminist translator? Theologian Wayne Grudem explains these issues in more detail in http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/What-s-Wrong-with-Gender-Neutral-Bible-Translations

Have you every been irritated with someone trying to 'politically correct' you? How does the NIV team find the audacity to try to 'politically correct' Jesus Christ? Should we not rather listen to Jesus words and on this basis question the whole ideology of political correctness? Should we not rather be outraged that the NIV team are trying to politically correct God's Word?

Scholars are still studying the 2011 NIV to see exactly how many translation errors have been retained from the TNIV and how many have been corrected, but it is clear that it is full of errors http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/CBMW-Responds-to-New-NIV2011 . Initial studies show the 2011 NIV is much more similar to the error filled TNIV than the authentic 1984 NIV. Statistically, about a third of the verses are identical to the TNIV, but different to the 1984 NIV. http://www.gentlewisdom.org.uk/1873/niv-2011-update-first-impressions/

You can compare the two yourself online at http://www.biblegateway.com/ In places, such as Genesis 1:27, the 2011 NIV compromises by changing 'man' to 'mankind' which the feminists would probably still not like. In Psalm 1:1, it changes 'Blessed is the man...' to 'Blessed is the one...' On the term 'Son of man', the 2011 NIV compromises by translating sometimes correctly as 'Son of man' and sometimes incorrectly as 'human being'. But then the meaning of allusion to Christ is sometimes lost. So sometimes the 2011 version translates accurately and sometimes gender neutral. But why should Bible translators decide what gender references reach the public and what gets edited out? Surely we have a right to decide for ourselves how the meaning should be interpreted (i.e. is it masculine general or is it gender specific)?

But apart from being plain inaccurate translation, I argue this is another part of a broad scale attempt to remove gender distinctives from our society - as if gender was meaningless and didn't matter. That is the underlying logic behind foolish decisions like legalising same-sex marriage and sending women soldiers with men into military combat situations in Iraq. This feminist ideology is also undermining male leadership in the family and the church. The Word of God is the light and sword we have correct such foolishness. But now the 'gender-neutral' Bible translators are trying to darken the light of the Word of God with their 'political correctness'. Will the Word of God be a light to the world or will worldly ideology be allowed to edit the Word of God?

Now the counter-argument is that this helps understanding. For a long time we have accepted certain edits forced by cultural knowledge. For example, the Sudanese Bible translates 'white as snow' as 'white as cotton', since the Sudanse mostly don't know what snow is but do know what cotton is - and there is no known special meaning connected here with snow that is lost. But does this gender neutral translation actually help understanding or is this just pandering to feminism?

But political interference in Bible translation isn't new. In fact the much loved King James Version was also interfered with by the non-Christian, homosexual King James who wanted to promote hierachical authority which he felt would be easier to control than the decentralised Puritan congregations who used the Geneva Bible. "Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Whatever the translation and the era, we ordinary readers want a version that faithfully translates what the original says and doesn't try to push a political agenda. That is what the original NIV set out to do but the 2011 NIV sadly fails to do.

Thankfully, the NIV team has not changed any of the references to God as masculine, but other postmodern translators are busy working on a mis-translation that would change that too. The arguments used to defend the gender neutral translation could be used to defend that too. Will the NIV follow in another decade or two?

When Zondervan brought out the TNIV, the continued to publish the 1984 NIV. The Christian public rejected the TNIV and kept buying the real 1984 NIV. But now Zondervan is planning to stop publishing the current NIV. That means those of us who like the translation won't be able to buy it any more.

Today, I went and bought an extra copy of the current 1984 NIV, in case I won't be able to get it in future. In South Africa, the NIV distributors are Lux Verbi. Again, the same problem with Zondervan. Lux Verbi, which used to be the publishing arm of the Dutch Reformed Church, is now part of Naspers, a secular publisher. This is a dangerous situation. Naspers also publishes soft porn magazines Mens Health and FHM and owns Multichoice which was not long ago wanting to offer a porn channel on DSTV. How can the same company be publishing both the Word of God and porn? http://sites.naspers.com/english/print.asp It would be helpful if some wealthy Christians were to buy back these Christian publishers Lux Verbi and Zondervan and put control back in Christian hands.

So, South African Xhosa readers can be reassured, they can still trust the Bible Society's Xhosa Bible even though it doesn't have a red edge, but bad news for English readers, the 2011 NIV is not the same as the 1984 NIV. Pastors should warn their churches, that the 2011 NIV is not reliable as was the 1984 NIV but not as bad as the TNIV. If the NIV stops publishing the 1984 NIV, you can instead buy the New King James Version, the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version which are also reliable translations. Hopefully, if the NIV loses market share to these versions, the loss of profit will motivate the now secular-owned Zondervan to start publishing the real 1984 NIV again.

But no, I am not anti-the NIV. I love the NIV. I recommend the 1984 NIV. I read it every day and plan to continue. I hope it will continue to be published.

Please write and complain to Zondervan and Lux Verbi saying we want them to keep publishing the 1984 NIV and drop the 2011 NIV.
http://www.luxverbi-bm.com/contact-us
http://www.zondervan.com/Cultures/en-US/Company/ContactUs.htm

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

CAN YOU FOLLOW CHRIST AND STILL STAY IN YOUR OLD RELIGION?

25 February 2010

CAN YOU FOLLOW CHRIST AND STILL STAY IN YOUR OLD RELIGION?

Today, Christians around the world are giving thanks for the reported release of Said Musa, an Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity who had been sentenced to death unless he re-converted back to Islam. Turning to Christ in a country dominated by another religion is not safe. While at the University of Cape Town, I often shared the gospel with other students. Usually if they believed the gospel presentation, they would convert. If they did not, they would not convert. On one occasion, however, a Muslim student who we will call Achmed, listened closely as I read the scriptures on salvation, and after I read each he said that he believed it. So, when I had finished, I asked him whether he would like to receive Jesus Christ and confess him as Lord. "No" he replied. "Why?" I asked? "Because my family will disown me" he replied. So Achmed walked away from the gospel. Pained at this rejection of Christ, I called together some Christian friends to pray for Achmed's salvation. But before I could pray, one of them objected that he could not agree to pray. "Do you realise what will happen to him if he converts? Is it right to pray for someone to be thrown out of their family?" He asked. My confused Christian friend would not agree to pray for Achmed's salvation. What eventually happened to Achmed I don't know. I hope he eventually chose to follow Christ. But the cost of turning to Christ in some communities is not just the embarrassment of being called a 'Jesus freak'. It could cost your life or your family. Around the same time, Jewish student I knew who converted was thrown out of his home and went to stay with a Christian family. Many others have similar stories.

The question is: Is there an easier way? Do people from such backgrounds have to pay such a price? Can we get around such problems? For some time, postmodern Emerging Church leaders such as Brian McLaren have been promoting the idea that you can follow Christ and continue following another religion. For example, you can be a 'Muslim follower of Jesus' or a 'Buddhist follower of Christ'. We were used to crazy unbiblical ideas being suggested by McLaren and his postmodern pals and so most of us did not register too much surprise.

All that has changed this month, February 2011, with two shocking publications muddying the water of mainstream Evangelicalism. First, the Lausanne III 'Call to Action' (Part 2C,section4) reads "So called ‘insider movements’ are to be found within several religions. These are groups of people who are now following Jesus as their God and Saviour. They meet together in small groups for fellowship, teaching, worship and prayer centred around Jesus and the Bible while continuing to live socially and culturally within their birth communities, including some elements of its religious observance..." The Lausanne statement continues with a convoluted statement which acknowledges differences of opinion, but legitimises 'insider movements'. It downplays the risk of syncretism and portrays this postmodern trend as something that God is doing and discourages speaking against it. It fudges the issue of 'culture' versus 'religious observance'. What elements of 'religious observance' are acceptable and which are not is not properly defined. Lausanne III quotes scripture out of context in an attempt to justify such compromise by paralleling it with the Jerusalem council decision not to impose the whole Jewish law of Moses on Gentiles (Acts 15:19). The 'Insider movement' and the Lausanne statement, however is doing something quite different in accommodating continued non-Christian 'religious observance' that God has not commanded either in the Old Testament or in the New Testament. While at first glance the Lausanne statement may appear neutral towards the insider movement, it really benefits an aberrant movement and protects it against opposition.

The statement is problematic in that it attempts to synthesise the views of two opposite camps in the Lausanne III discussion, which was actually divided on the issue. These opposite views can't be reconciled. You have to choose one or the other - and the drafting committee of this statement should not have tried to unite opposite views that can't actually be united. A tragic compromise with postmodernism in a mostly helpful document. Sadly it is not consistent with the excellent stand the same document takes against Postmodernism in (Part 2A, section2). It is also contradicts the Biblical teaching theme of the Lausanne III congress, presented by John Piper on the body of Christ based on the book of Ephesians.

Most Biblical Christians were asleep when postmodernists began inserting words like 'sexual orientation' and 'reproductive choice' into public policy documents. Today we pay the price as we see these words used to promote homosexual rights and abortion. In the same way, 'Insider movement' is a 'code word' for the postmodern missionary strategy which means a lot more than it seems to say.

What do they mean by 'religious observance'? Probably many of those who consented to the Lausanne III Call to action statement would take a conservative narrow interpretation such as Messianic Jews observing Jewish religious holidays. But we already know that postmodernists are taking a wide interpretation of it. Many such 'Insider movement' members for example believe in the prophethood of Mohammed, the authority of the Quran, live in obedience to Islamic law and make pilgrimage to Mecca, affirm the creeds of Islam and worship at Mosque. They just read the Bible and claim to follow Jesus as well. Some reinterpret Bible passages about Ishmael as giving legitimacy to Islam. Some downplay and evade Jesus being the Son of God. Certain 'insider' Jews deny they are Christians or part of the Christian church, but say they follow Jesus. These are radical shifts. This narrow meaning and broad meaning confusion is what happened with the postmodern words 'sexual orientation' and 'reproductive choice' remember? When first debated people didn't think it meant much, but there was a very big postmodern agenda being pushed through those few words.

In the 1920's most of the protestant missions organisations were hijacked by liberalism and money donated for the gospel got diverted to the promotion of general good works to help humanity, which left out Christ. Now the Postmodernists attempt to divert missionary effort to a new strategy which accommodates the religious culture of the target group to the point of distorting the gospel. World Missions is being undermined from within by hijacking of the structures of mainstream evangelicalism by postmodernism.

If this sounds alarmist, read the cover article in the February 2011 issue of the American Christianity Today 'The Son and the Crescent'. Postmodernists have published a new Bible translation for Muslims, which edits out the fact that Jesus is the Son of God on the basis that this offends Muslims! It translates 'Son of God' rather as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God." They claim Muslims prefer this version. That is not the point. The point is whether this is the true Word of God. No! It is not. It is dodging a central teaching of the Christian faith. It is undermining Christ's divinity. Every male in the world is a 'son' of someone. 'Come from God' can be taken in a metaphorical sense to be any prophet who is sent by God (and Muslims don't dispute that Jesus was a prophet). This is not just false teaching twisting scripture. They are actually publishing a false Bible and claiming it is a true one. It is plain fraud. Christianity Today has been publishing postmodern leaning articles for a while, but in writing a favourable article about this new fraudulent postmodern Bible, they take a tragic step into endorsing heresy. We can't just take an innocent 'conservative', 'narrow' interpretation of religious observance in Lausanne III - when the postmodern 'insider movement' is already showing its hand with this blatant blasphemy. Such a soft statement opens the door for compromise and heresy and that door needs to be closed.

This is no longer just an intellectual debate. What is at stake is the truth of the Bible, the deity of Christ, the definition of a Christian, the future and unity of evangelicalism, the orthodoxy of our largest evangelical institutions and the future of missions.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED?

* Acceptance of the 'insider movement' opens the door for converts from all sorts of religious beliefs to continue practicing their old religion. There is already a problem in the Western culture, with confused postmodern converts e.g. from the New Age movement wanting to blend Christianity with New Age practices. This compromise will make such practices easier.

* An academic theory of missions has been developed at Fuller Seminary which rates the scale of cultural adaptation on a scale of 1-5. One means mild accommodation of the culture, while ‘5’ means ‘insider movement’ and functioning basically inside the structures of another religion. This theory has given the new movement some credibility. Nevertheless, it is argued that the ‘Insider movement’ is going much too far in accommodating culture.

* 'Insider movement' believers in many cases are trying to follow Christ without joining the church. But the church is the body of Christ. Jesus did not die to give us a 'Muslim body' and a 'Buddhist body'. There is only one body and we should all be so grateful to belong to it. It creates multiple identities of different types of Christian. There is only one body in Christ (Ephesians 4:4) and our identity should be in this body and not in a former religion.

* Postmodern 'Insider missionaries' claim to have great success and large numbers of conversions to justify their new strategy. Orthodox evangelical missionaries dispute this claim. In many cases, they say that those 'Insider missionaries' count as converts are not true believers but are just interested Muslims who have never even being challenged properly to convert.

* Many of us are familiar with the Messianic Jewish movement. That is people who are Jewish by race but believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. I am such a Messianic Jew. Some Messianic Jews form congregations which meet on Fridays and celebrate Jewish holidays. Is this wrong? No. There is nothing in the Bible against it. But some of these people take this to an extreme and say that they are not Christians at all, but Jews. They don't identify at all with the rest of the body of Christ and keep their identity totally Jewish - and separate from Gentile Christians. That is not biblical. It is wrong. Our identity in Christ and the wider body of Christ, the church must come first before our culture. This latter group of extremists are part of the 'Insider movement'. That was a development which the apostle Paul viciously attacked in the book of Galatians (2:12-13). Paul had no issue with limited accommodation of Jewish culture to help win people to Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 9:20) but he had a major issue with taking on the symbols of that religion to avoid persecution (Galatians 6:12).

* Baptism is meant as a public marker to separate the new convert from his old religious belief. This has always caused massive controversy throughout the world and sparked major persecution. It symbolises death to the old life and a resurrection into the new. Baptism was Jesus idea - not ours. A Christian is a new man. You can't get more different than that. We must accept this is a central part of our faith and it will offend many of the old religion.

* The 'Insider movement' and the Lausanne statement's condoning of it threaten the definition of Christianity. Evangelicalism was a narrow subset of the broader visible institutional church. It for example excluded the Chinese state controlled 'Three self church', the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Liberal protestant denominations. But so called 'insiders' who continue substantially as part of other religious beliefs and in many cases don't even identify themselves was Christians. It blurs the boundaries and rubbishes the point of a limited Statement of faith.

* Even orthodox evangelical churches struggle with the problem of unbelieving churchgoers who outwardly profess Christianity but are not true followers of Christ. Taking away the outward boundary markers of Christianity will make this question even harder to determine.

* This movement is diverting resources away from gospel centred missions and in places spreading a false and heretical Bible. It needs to be stopped.

* The 'insider strategy' of trying to lead Muslims to Christ by quoting them verses from the Quran implicitly gives the Quran authority. If one does not believe the Quran is from God then is this not misleading and deceptive and likely to confuse the new convert?

* There is always the risk that those who are trying to reach out to a particular other group of people reach too far and then start to accept some of the false beliefs of that other group. They start off with misleading advertising and then start to believe their own advertising. This also happens for example in the pro-life movement with people trying to reach out to those considering abortion or feminists or whatever. They can start of using the rhetoric of the other side then end up compromising their own beliefs and eventually deny that they themselves are pro-life. We are influenced by the people around us which is why God has given us the institution of the church to protect us.

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HISTORY?

* Historically, there have been times when whole Christian communities have been forced to convert to Islam or face death or some other severe penalty. Tragically many did compromise and agree to become outward Muslims by saying a Muslim creed, while continuing quietly to practice Christianity. Those communities have vanished because their children have abandoned Christianity altogether to become real Muslims. The same is likely to happen to the children of 'Insider Muslims'.

* The Israeli secret service attempted to infiltrate the Muslim community by sending Jewish spies to train as Imams. The strategy backfired, when many of these Imam's succumbed to social pressure to marry and raised Muslim children. This caused massive confusion and heartache for all. The lesson is that social pressure in such communities is enormous and confusions of identity are very painful.

* There is no time ever in the history of the Church when so-called 'insider movements' have been accepted as a part of orthodox mainstream biblical Christianity. Insiders claim and the Lausanne III statement implies that God is now doing something new which we should accept. If this is such a good idea, then why did God wait 2000 years to reveal this new idea to the church? And why has respected orthodox Bible believing theologian or Statement of faith ever seen Biblical justification for it before? Answer: Because it is unbiblical.

* Syncretism (mixing of religions) has been a major problem throughout the whole history of the Bible and of Christian missions. The Lausanne III statement foolishly downplays that danger. We have to fight to keep Christianity pure. It is not going to stay that way by default. In South Africa we have millions of so-called 'Zionist' Christians who mix witchcraft and belief in ancestors with Christianity. This is not biblical. And it is a constant battle for mainstream denominations throughout Africa to stop such mixing of beliefs. The same is found in South America, where local ancient pagan gods were just adapted to become catholic saints and still worshipped in the same way they always had been. Ancient Israel had to battle with the influence of Canaanite idols throughout their history. It is not helpful for Lausanne III to issue a statement downplaying this danger. A risk is that the current postmodern missionary strategy of reaching Islam will spawn a new hybrid religion of 'Chrislam'.

CONCLUSION

The Lausanne III statement is counter-productive in dealing with a new postmodern "insider movement' strategy of missions. It threatens the definition of Christianity. The Lausanne III drafting committee should withdraw this clause. Biblical missiologists and theologians need to apply their minds to this issue and come up with a more biblical statement response. The blog, http://biblicalmissiology.org is starting this process.

Please register your objection to the Lausanne III Cape Town Commitment (Part 2C,section4) paragraph on 'insider movements' at:
http://www.lausanne.org/lausanne-staff/lausanne-documents.html and ask them to withdraw it.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

MORE INFORMATION

Christianity Today Magazine spreads confusion on the doctrine of the Son of God.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/february/soncrescent.html

Lausanne 'Call to Action' text on the insider movement.
http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment#p2-4

Afghan convert to Christ released
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/23/aid-worker-arrested-christian-release-afghanistan-prison/

Recommended resource on the insider movement:
http://biblicalmissiology.org/2010/05/03/position-paper-on-the-insider-movement/

A NOTE ON MY PREVIOUS ARTICLE ON LAUSANNE III

For those who read my previous article on the Lausanne III Congress, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianview/message/493, I am sorry, on publication, I looked for the section on Postmodernism and was encouraged by it, while skim reading the rest of the document which is in this instance self-contradictory. Most of the document is very good and helpful but there are problems and I believe this is the most serious. The Lausanne III Call to Action is a very long document in contrast to the much shorter Lausanne I & II documents. The longer the document, the harder it is for everyone to check it carefully for problems. After seeing this problem, I took time to research the issue and discuss with others before responding with this article, which is the reason for the delayed response. I wish I could wholeheartedly endorse the Lausanne III Call to Action. Unfortunately I cannot. To be silent I believe I would be an unfaithful watchman (Isaiah 56:10). However unpopular it might make me, I must sound an alarm.

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2011/02/lausanne-congress-cape-town-call-to.html

This week, the Lausanne Congress released the final version of 'The Cape Town Commitment: Call to action' http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment. The first part (previously released) is a general evangelical Statement of Faith. The second part (released this week) is a call to action based on the discussions leading up to and during the Lausanne Congress held in Cape Town in October 2010. What is significant is that the first article explicitly speaks up against Postmodernism as follows:

"Cultural and religious plurality is a fact and Christians in Asia, for example, have lived with it for centuries. Different religions each affirm that theirs is the way of truth. Most will seek to respect competing truth claims of other faiths and live alongside them. However postmodern, relativist pluralism is different. Its ideology allows for no absolute or universal truth. While tolerating truth claims, it views them as no more than cultural constructs. (This position is logically self-destroying for it affirms as a single absolute truth that there is no single absolute truth.) Such pluralism asserts ‘tolerance’ as an ultimate value, but it can take oppressive forms in countries where secularism or aggressive atheism govern the public arena.

A) We long to see greater commitment to the hard work of robust apologetics. This must be at two levels.
1. We need to identify, equip and pray for those who can engage at the highest intellectual and public level in arguing for and defending biblical truth in the public arena.
2. We urge Church leaders and pastors to equip all believers with the courage and the tools to relate the truth with prophetic relevance to everyday public conversation, and so to engage every aspect of the culture we live in."
http://www.lausanne.org/ctcommitment#p2-1

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

* Firstly, because Evangelical Christianity has been under severe and sustained attack from those who wish to compromise and synthesize Christianity with Postmodernism (called the Emerging Church movement) instead of fighting back against it. Some of our largest Evangelical institutions including for example Zondervan Publishers, many denominations and seminaries have been compromising. These compromisers threaten to destroy the very definition of Biblical evangelical Christianity.

* Secondly, because the Lausanne Congress is the single largest and most influential institution in Evangelical Christianity in the world today. Unlike many other institutions which misleadingly claim the title 'international', it has representatives from all over the world (except for those under persecution whose governments prevented their citizens from participating).

* Thirdly, because the statement is explicit. Unlike many other public statements, it does not beat about the bush. Postmodernism is identified as false, illogical, misleading, a negative influence a threat to Evangelical Christianity and religious freedom.

* Fourthly, because it proposes sensible measures for churches to fight back against postmodernism by identifying, equipping and praying for leaders who can argue against it in the public arena and in educating all believers with the skills to debate against it. ('Apologetics' means defending the gospel against attack). In this context it means defending the truth against the false teaching of Postmodernism.

* Fifthly, because combating Postmodernism in the church in the Western World will greatly assist the forward progress of world evangelism (the principal goal of the Lausanne Congress) and the persecuted church. Read why here:
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-postmodernism-and-emerging-church.html (This article I submitted to the planning sessions of the Lausanne Congress in 2008, encouraging them to make a statement against postmodernism - which is what they have done).

* Sixthly, because they put the call to action to defend the truth against Postmodernism first in the practical part of the document their 'call to action', recognising the central importance of the fight against Postmodernism to the defence and advance of Christianity in the Western World.

* Seventh, because it affirms the definition of Evangelicalism and draws a new boundary. Mainline evangelical Protestantism in the Western World has been destroyed through compromise and accommodation of the ideology of Modernist liberalism. Evangelical Protestantism was then renamed 'Evangelicalism' by those who wanted a description of their beliefs that had real meaning. The meaning of Evangelicalism was being eroded by accommodation of Postmodern liberalism. Old statements faith were not capturing this issue. Now the boundaries have been redrawn to exclude Postmodernism.

Let us build on this victory and see that the 'Lausanne Congress Cape Town Call to Action' against Postmodernism is heeded on the ground!

WHAT CAN I DO?

* Please give this to your pastor and the elders of your church or the leader of your Christian organisation. Forward it by email or print out this email and give it to him. Encourage him to implement this recommendation and educate his congregation against Postmodernism. He can find resources to do so at: http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/
* Thank God for this great victory!
* Pray for any Christian institutions you may be a member of that they will be protected from Postmodern influence.
* Encourage your church and any institution you are a part of to publicise the above clause from the Lausanne Call to Action. Read it out in church or at your leaders meeting.

Let us heed this call and defend the church against Postmodernism.

Post your comments here:
http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2011/02/lausanne-congress-cape-town-call-to.html

Yours sincerely

Philip Rosenthal

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

29 November 2010

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

A new book "Die Trojaanse Perd in die NG Kerk" has just been released (see link below). Amongst other things, it describes the encroachments of the Emerging Church in this denomination - in some ways it has been infected much more seriously than many other denominations. While the acceptance of other race groups is welcomed, since 1994 the NGK has radically softened its stance on morality and biblical truth. When the issue of Same-Sex Marriage was debated in parliament, the NGK parliamentary lobbyist supported state 'same-sex marriage', while not wanting to have it done by their church. He openly professed his view to be postmodern, while calling the Biblical view 'pre-modern'. Why the drastic shift in the NGK? My opinion (not those of the book authors) is three fold:
* Firstly, the NGK by previously aligning itself with other social and political structures attracted many who are not true Christians who joined simply because that was the socially acceptable thing to do at the time. These people have no sincere commitment to biblical truth and have shifted with the winds of culture to what is now 'politically correct'.
* Secondly, the church has handed its theological training over to secular universities, where it cannot control the appointment of lecturers and ensure they are biblical and this unbiblical teaching has been taught to their students.
* Thirdly, they appear to have ended up with a similar crisis of biblical confidence to the Presbyterian church in the Southern United States. Both churches have very similar Calvinist theology. The Southern Presbyterians failed to speak up against slavery until the Northern United States had militarily conquered the South. Then they suddenly shifted their position to 'anti-slavery' after the law changed, without properly explaining to their followers from the scriptures why they had made the shift. The result from their followers was a loss of confidence in the authority of the church. The Southern Presbyterians then tried various 'unity' efforts with the Northern Presbyterians to try to bolster their credibility. In doing so, they sadly compromised their theological principles in exchange for such 'unity' and opened the door to liberalism, which later over-ran their churches. It appears a similar dynamic has occurred within the NGK after the fall of apartheid.

There is a need for Bible believing Christians to speak up for Biblical truth. If you are in the NGK, this book can help equip you to do so.

Below is a summary of one of the chapters on the Emerging Church in the NGK. Please forward this email to your Afrikaans friends

http://www.glodiebybel.co.za/boeke-m/189-die-trojaanse-perd-in-die-ng-kerk.html

Philip Rosenthal

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Die aanslag op die Woord vanuit postmodernistiese denkwyses

Een van die hoofstukke in die boek “Die Trojaanse Perd in die NG Kerk – die kanker van Evolusie en Liberalisme” bekyk nuwe stroming wat tans nie net in die NG Kerk woed nie, maar in die meeste gereformeerde denominasies in Suid-Afrika, en ook op verskillende plekke in die wêreld.
Daar word gekyk na hoe die ommekeer in Skrifbeskouing ook nie Skrifkritiek en Skrifgebruik onaangetas gelaat het nie. Dit het tot gevolg dat Bybelwaarhede soos die opstanding van Christus, Sy maagdelike geboorte, Sy Godheid en selfs Sy plaasvervangende sterwe verloën word. Daar kan selfs gevra word: Is die hart van die evangelie nie uitgeruk nie? Die liberale aanslag het verdoemende gevolge op vele terreine.

In wese is die postmoderne teoloë se verstaan van die Skrif van so ‘n aard dat daar nie juis veel van die Evangelie oorbly nie. Die maagdelike geboorte van Christus én sy liggaamlike opstanding word verwerp. Die kruisdood word deur sommige geleerdes as ‘n wrede daad van die Vader uitgebeeld. ‘n Vader wat Sy Seun doodmaak vir die sondes van ander, moet gehaat word. Die Bybel word nie meer gesien as die ware, geïnspireerde en onfeilbare Woord van God nie, maar as ‘n versameling werke wat niks méér sê nie, as bloot wat mense in die verlede oor God geglo het.

Ernstige kommer word in hierdie boek uitgespreek oor die ongereformeerde rigting wat hierdie strominge ingaan en die traagheid om met leertug teen teoloë op te tree wat meelopers hiervan is. Van hierdie nuwe strominge wat onder die vergrootglas kom , is die Ontluikende Kerk “Emerging/Emergent Church”) en die “Nuwe Hervorming” . Enkele gedagtes word ook uitgespreek oor die Evangeliese Inisiatief (EI).

Die Ontluikende Kerk (Emerging Church)

Een van die mees resente strome van geestelike misleiding het byna ongemerk die Christelike Kerk wêreldwyd oorspoel. Hierdie uiters subtiele postmoderne “herverwoording” van die Evangelie staan bekend as die Ontluikende Kerk (Emerging Church), en is besig om in ‘n toenemende mate ‘n alles-omvattende paradigmaverskuiwing in elke faset van die Christendom teweeg te bring. Die Ontluikende Kerk-beweging met sy gepaardgaande teologiese rigting van postmodernisme, is bo alles ‘n aanslag op die Bybel. Die Ontluikende Kerk sluit aan by en eerbiedig die kultuur van die dag. Dit het min of meer sedert 2004 sterk na vore gekom en dit wil voorkom asof die rigting veral aanklank vind onder die jonger geslag.

Die Ontluikende Kerk is ‘n beweging of ‘n stroming eerder as ‘n gestruktureerde organisasie of kerkverband. Een van die filosofiese uitgangspunte van dié beweging is dat dit ‘n deug is om onseker te wees of twyfel te hê oor geloofsake! Ons kan dit ook beskryf as ‘n verheerliking van onsekerheid. Die vertrekpunt van die beweging is dus dat dit algeheel onmoontlik is om presies te verstaan wat die Bybel regtig leer en bedoel.

Brian McLaren, een van die bekendste ontluikendes, glo byvoorbeeld nie meer aan Christus as persoonlike Verlosser van sonde nie, maar as “Hervormer” van die wêreld – dus tipiese vryheidsteologie. Hy ontken ook Christus se wederkoms en God se toekomstige oordeel van die wêreld. Dit is jammer dat die bekende Bill Hybels van die makro gemeente Willow Creek in Chicago, homself assosieer met hom.

Van die ander name wat in hierdie verband genoem word, is Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell, Tony Jones en Erwin McManus. Kerkleiers in die NG Kerk wat stadig maar seker besig is om in te koop op hierdie subtiele misleiding is onder andere prof. Julian Müller, Nelus Niemand en Stephan Joubert.

Die mees ontstellende aspek van die Ontluikende-infiltrasie is dat hulle veral die Kerklike jeug van die wêreld in hulle visier het. Youth Specialties is ‘n multi-biljoen dollar Ontluikende-jeugorganisasie wat internasionaal opereer. In hul gratis kursusmateriaal, wat wêreldwyd deur jeugleiers en -predikante van hulle massiewe webtuiste afgelaai word, propageer hulle onder andere mistieke Oosterse meditasiepraktyke, homoseksualiteit en masturbasie.

Die leer van die “Nuwe Hervorming” (NH) – 'n radikale breuk met die Christelike geloof

Die Nuwe Hervorming wil doelbewus en radikaal breek met die Kerk- en teologiegeskiedenis van die verlede. Die ekumeniese en reformatoriese belydenisskrifte en die Kerklike dogmas, soos dit deur die eeue ontwikkel het, word verwerp.

Daar is binne die nuwe Godsleer van die Nuwe Hervorming geen ruimte meer vir gebed nie. Feitlik elke aspek van die Bybelse verlossingsleer word hervertolk: Die ontvangenis en geboorte van Christus, die wonders, sy kruisdood as soenoffer en die opstanding. Die uitdaging is, volgens die Nuwe Hervorming, om hierdie verhale as mites te verstaan en akkuraat oor die betekenis daarvan te praat “want die wyse waarop die evangelie die goeie boodskap aangaande Jesus verstaan en aanbied, is onversoenbaar met die moderne wêreldbeeld en Bybelwetenskap”.

Reaksies van die Evangeliese Inisiatief

Nadat ‘n DVD “Nuwe Strominge in die Teologie” van WTL Multimedia Produksies verskyn het, het die Evangeliese Inisiatief (EI) ontstaan. Sommige mense het beweer dat dit ‘n poging was om die “verwarring” wat by lidmate ontstaan het, te help opklaar. Die vraag is egter of dit gaan oor “verwarring” by die lidmate of oor “afwyking” by die leierskap van die Kerk. Dit is sekerlik duidelik dat baie ingeligte lidmate lankal reeds agtergekom het dat daar by die Kerkleiding ‘n radikale afwyking gekom het in hul teologiese benadering!

Dit het vir lidmate duidelik geword dat daar ‘n heeltemal nuwe benadering gekom het tot die Bybel as die Woord van God. Dit is so eenvoudig soos dit is. Lidmate het waardering vir die Skrifgetroue prediking by die byeenkoms van 13 Oktober 2007 wat onder leiding van die Evangeliese Inisiatief by Moreletapark gereël was. Hulle het ook waardering vir die getuienis wat dit uitgedra het ten opsigte van die waarheid wat vir ons erns is. Of die Algemene Sinode of die teologiese fakulteite egter hulle teologie rondom die Skrif en die hantering daarvan gaan omkeer, bly ‘n ope vraag. Sal predikante vanaf 2008 nog steeds opgelei word deur dieselfde dosente wat ons in die afgelope dekades leer ken het? Dink ook aan dosente van ander kerke wat byvoorbeeld by UP (en elders!) betrokke is!

Samevatting

Opsommend kan gesê word dat die postmodernisme ‘n reaksie is teen die noukeurig-gedefinieerde waarheid van die Bybel. Wat behoort ons antwoord te wees ten opsigte van hierdie aanslag op die duidelikheid van die Woord? Dit kan niks anders wees nie, as dat ons doelgerig en volhardend die Woord sal bly handhaaf en suiwer sal verkondig. God neem deur Sy Gees die verantwoordelikheid om deur die waarheid van Sy Woord, te doen wat Hom behaag. Só bring Hy Sy Goddelike plan soewerein tot uitvoer (Jes. 55:10-11).

----------------------------------------------------

If you are in the NGK, why not order your copy at:

http://www.glodiebybel.co.za/boeke-m/189-die-trojaanse-perd-in-die-ng-kerk.html

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

THE TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF OUR CULTURE INFLUENCES THE CHURCH
DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?
WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT: CATEGORIES OF TRUTH
FOCUSING THE BATTLE
JESUS TEST OF A TRUE SHEPHERD
ISN’T IT UNLOVING TO FIGHT HERESY?
WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?
THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH IN CHURCH HISTORY
FROM HISTORY TO TODAY

Should we tolerate Christians teaching whatever they want to or should churches set boundaries on what we will allow?

THE TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF OUR CULTURE INFLUENCES THE CHURCH

The attitude of our culture is to let people say just about whatever they want provided they don’t expect me to believe it. Christians influenced by postmodern culture will argue: Isn’t that’s free speech - our Constitutional right – a freedom people fought and died for. So are we in the church going to throw that away by dogmatically demanding that people can’t teach contrary to our church’s beliefs? Do we want to go back to the Middle ages where people were burned at the stake for what they believed? Do we want to be like the Taliban or some sect of narrow minded fundamentalist bigots? Or will we promote free thinking, enquiry, conversation and debate? If we try to silence teaching with which we disagree aren’t we being unloving? What harm do people do just by sharing their ideas – even if wrong? Surely we should give them space in the free market of ideas? Is it not okay to allow publication and preaching of incorrect teachings so long as the truth also gets a voice? That is what most of our culture says. But is that what we should practice - and what does the Bible say?

The biggest debate in the church today is not about what is true, but what teaching should be allowed. We believe a lot of different things. People in the same local church congregation often have different views on lots of things. There is even more diversity in the same denomination. People grow up in churches and adopt different beliefs to their parents. Should they be thrown out or silenced? Who should be allowed in the pulpit? Who should be allowed to publish in church magazines and newspapers? If we hear something with which we don’t agree in the pulpit should we keep quiet or object? And does this really all matter?

DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?

Yes it does matter. Why? Firstly because ideas have consequences. What people believe influences what they do – and people get ideas from teaching. In the most serious instances, false teaching can result in people going to hell. Secondly because false teaching spreads. It spreads especially fast when it tells people what they want to hear (1 Timothy 4:3). This is usually whatever is most popular with worldly culture at the time. Thirdly, because false teaching must be stopped first if we are to maintain moral discipline in the church. If people are allowed teach falsely on ethics, then we can’t later take disciplinary action against others who follow their teaching on those issues. Thus we have to control what is taught. But how much do we control it?

WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT: CATEGORIES OF TRUTH

It is helpful to divide what we believe into three categories of truth. Firstly the essentials we need to believe and practice to be a Christian avoid risking our eternal salvation. Secondly, the distinctive beliefs of our church group, which make us who we are. Thirdly, other debatable matters. When someone comes with a teaching we don’t agree with, we must discern which category their teaching fits into before we decide how tolerant we will be. Sometimes an issue is not simple to place in one of these three categories. Then we must ask how that teaching affects other teachings and practices and what categories those fit into. The more significant issues a false teaching affects, the more significant it is.

When someone teaches something that undermines the essential truths of the gospel needed to be a Christian, then we have to be intolerant and fight them – otherwise people may go to hell as a consequence of the false teaching. When someone teaches against the distinctives of our church group, then they can’t be tolerated inside our church group, but we can still have Christian fellowship as a friend in another group. Local churches need statements of faith to define and make clear what teachings are non-negotiable for them. For example, for Baptists, believers baptism and congregational accountability of leadership are non-negotiable distinctives. People who don’t believe in these are brother Christians, but can’t join a Baptist church. It is not enough to just say ‘we believe the Bible’, because most erroneous cults also say that but interpret it differently. Other debatable issues, we have to tolerate differences of opinion even inside our local church.

But can’t things get really complicated in deciding where an issue fits? Yes, they do. That is why we have to think critically about the popular teachings of our day in the light of scripture. In New Testament times, there was a massive controversy over circumcision. At a superficial reading, the apostle seems inconsistent on this issue. In some instances he seems to be arguing that the issue doesn’t matter all that much, other times in favour and other times against. Was he just fickle? No. Paul wasn’t too concerned about the issue of circumcision itself, but rather how it affected the gospel. When, for example, people came to Galatia and taught that circumcision was necessary to be a Christian, then he came out strongly against them (Galatians 5:2 and Acts 15:1). In another situation, however Paul himself circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3) to avoid offending people. Paul was not wanting to fight about circumcision itself, but to protect the gospel. Today, similarly we have Christians who peacefully disagree on the issue of whether one should baptise children as infants or only when they are old enough to decide what they believe. But when people teach that one must be baptised in order to be saved, then such people we have to fight with, because that affects the gospel.

FOCUSING THE BATTLE

Since there is so much we could fight about – and arguing causes division and pain in the church - we need to focus most of our attention on the first category: defending the essentials where false belief or practice can put a person’s eternal salvation at risk. The Bible has very harsh words about these kinds of teachers. It calls them ‘false prophets’ and ‘wolves in sheeps clothing’ (Matthew 7:15; Acts 20:29; 2 Peter 2:1). We should never use such harsh labels casually against brother believers with whom we disagree in the second category (of denominational distinctives) or the third category (of debatable issues). Such wolves must be silenced (Titus 1:10-11) and disciplined by excommunication (1 Timothy 1:19-20) until they repent. We do not give them equal space in the pulpit or our magazines or web sites or lecture halls. It does not matter how nice they are, how many good works they have done, how many theological degrees they have, how popular or senior they are or how many friends they have. If their teaching or behaviour is undermining the gospel, then we have to be intolerant. If they repent, they may be accepted back, but otherwise not. Usually such false teachers will have found the protection of some group of deceived followers that protects them from any such discipline. In these cases, we have to simply speak up against them to warn people and to disassociate with them.

JESUS TEST OF A TRUE SHEPHERD

Now always there will be some nice Christians who will say that this is unloving and will criticise the pastor who does this. How do we answer this? Firstly, the word ‘pastor’ means ‘shepherd’. Part of the job of a shepherd is to defend the flock from wild animals that might harm them. It isn’t the nicest part of his job, but Jesus defines it as the test between a true shepherd and one who is just in it for worldly reward “JN 10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.” The pastor who defends the flock will risk serious counter-attack. He might lose his job. He might lose his reputation. But he is a true genuine servant of God. We must not forget that Jesus crucifixion was triggered by his public attack earlier that week against the false Jewish religious leaders (Matthew 23). Sadly, today such people are a minority in church leadership which is the main reason the church is in such a mess.

Jesus introduces a third category who are neither wolves nor true shepherds. He calls them ‘hired hands’. They will not do anything scandalous or teach falsely themselves, but they will happily tolerate those who do. Such people often enter ministry full of zeal for the gospel, but somewhere along the line they lose focus and forget their mission for the gospel. Some just go into ministry with a vague desire to ‘spread the love of Jesus’ and help people. Maybe they never understood the requirement of a pastor/elder to defend the flock in the first place (Titus 1:9). Some maybe don’t understand the truth clearly enough to be able to defend it. Such people won’t risk their jobs or their denominational pensions or their reputations to defend the gospel. They want to be popular in the community and rationalize that being so helps them do their ministry work in contradiction to Jesus warning that we would be persecuted (Matthew 5:11-12). Sadly, they will often fight to defend the organisation and its power and hierarchy, but not to defend truth. Probably in the life of every Christian leader our loyalty to the truth of the gospel will be tested at least once – will we be true defenders of the gospel or will we be passive ‘hired hands’. The Lord in his sovereignty allows false teachers to test our loyalty to him (Deuteronomy 13:2-3). Will we pass the test?

The number of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ within true biblical churches who teach things that undermine the essentials of salvation tends to be very small. This is because either the biblical denominations discipline and remove them or their teaching will spread and the biblical denomination will soon cease to be biblical. In the Western world in the last hundred years, such people have usually been called ‘liberals’. But the number of ‘hired hands’ who will tolerate such people is often very large. Such people often call themselves ‘moderates’. When challenged, they protest that they are doctrinally orthodox on every point – and they are. But they will happily leave the door open for the wolves to prey on the sheep. They are pacifists in the war of theology and our culture. This makes the fight complicated, because the true shepherd and those believers who support him – who are often called ‘conservatives’ are up against not only ‘liberal’ wolves – who cast doubt on the essentials of the gospel, but also often an army of ‘moderates’ who can’t discern wolves and think it is unloving to fight wolves. In church history, thus usually the main conflict has not been between wolves (liberals regarding the Bible) and shepherds (biblical conservatives), but between ‘hired hands’ (biblical moderates) and ‘shepherds’ (biblical conservatives).

Many such people are thankfully only temporarily led astray into siding with the wrong camp. Once challenged, they realise they need to side with truth. In the early church circumcision controversy, Peter and Barnabas caved in to pressure from the circumcision lobby and withdrew associating with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-13), but when Paul challenged them, they sided properly with the gospel. They may have still believed the truth, but like so many compromising ‘moderates’, they failed to take a stand for truth when under pressure. Doctrinally they took the right side, but politically in their associations they took the wrong side. This shows that any of us can fall into this trap if we are not careful – and we may need others to point this out to us.

ISN’T IT UNLOVING TO FIGHT HERESY?

What of the argument that it is unloving to fight heresy? If we truly love someone, will we not fight to defend their reputation and stop someone else telling lies about them? So when someone teaches falsely about God – such as trying redefine the nature of God - then if we truly love God will we not fight for the truth about him. People who use this argument show they love men more than God. But do they even love men with the right type of love? When we allow false teachers to tell people the wrong way to get to heaven, is not the result people going to hell? Is that loving to the deceived people? If we really love homosexuals, will we stand by idly while false teachers tell them they can continue to sin and go to heaven? Many Post-modern heretical teaches portray a God so different from that of the Bible (for example that in the popular novel ‘The Shack’, that one has to ask whether they worship the same God or an idol of their own carving?

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

As for the free speech argument, this is not an absolute. Speech is not totally free anywhere or society would degenerate into chaos. Those who publish lies about other people get sued for defamation. Those who advertise falsely get taken to the Advertising Standards Authority. In the case of God, liars have some freedom in civil society because the state is not competent to judge what is true about God. But a biblical church is competent to judge truth about God and must do so. Those who teach heresy need to be thrown out of the church or marginalised into false churches, but don’t go to jail.

THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH IN CHURCH HISTORY

In the fourth century AD, there was a debate on the issue of whether Jesus was in fact God. False teachers called Arians argued he was not God (similar to today’s Jehovah’s Witnesses). The Council of Nicaea declared that Jesus was God, drew up a nice statement of faith http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm and all thought the battle was over. But it wasn’t. The battle raged on for another hundred years led by a man named Athanasius of Alexandria. He wasn’t satisfied just to win on paper. He wanted the Arians pushed out of the church. Most Christian leaders saw him as a troublemaker. So did the Roman emperors, who saw him as someone causing division and disturbing the peace. His opponents brought numerous slanderous allegations against Athanasius. Many attempts were made to arrest and kill him, he was brought trial on various occasions and he was forced into banishment or hiding five times for a total of seventeen years. The Roman emperors decreed that all Christian bishops must excommunicate Athanasius or face banishment themselves. Tragically almost all did so. Even the bishop of Rome, Liberius was banished for two years and then caved in to pressure to disassociate with Athanasius. So, excommunicated by almost every Christian leader in the known world, alone and in hiding, being hunted by the imperial army – moving from cave to cave in the Egyptian desert – with his friends and supporters being tortured to try to get them reveal his location - Athanasius wrote a book ‘On the incarnation’, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation.html . It won the debate and Arians were pushed out of the church. It is a classic and still regarded by many as the best book ever written on the subject.

In the Nineteenth, century when theological liberalism first made its appearance in Britain, its most outspoken opponent was Charles Spurgeon – pastor, evangelist, the founder of the first mega-church and an ongoing favourite source of quotations for sermons. But most who quote him, don’t know Spurgeon’s passion to defend the gospel against liberalism – how he sacrificed his friends, his popularity and his membership of the Baptist Union in Britain to fight it. Faced with the problem of liberalism, the Baptist Union drew up a new Statement of faith to affirm its evangelical commitment. Although he agreed with the statement, he realised that it left too much ‘wriggle room’ for liberals to interpret it in such a way that they could also sign it – and wanted a statement that would exclude the liberals. Most didn’t see or understand his objections and he was defeated in a vote of 2000 to 7 at the Baptist Union General Assembly. Moderate Baptists said he had just become a grumpy old man and his actions were a result of his illness of gout. But Spurgeon was right, and the liberal wolves stayed in the Baptist Union and continued to spread their false teaching – sending it into spiritual decline. (The best book on this is ‘Forgotten Spurgeon by Iain H Murray).

In the 1920’s and 30’s when liberalism reached America, the man who stood most strongly against it was Gresham Machen, a professor of theology at Princeton Seminary. At the time, Bible believers in the Presbyterian church were in the majority against the liberals, but sadly most of them were ‘moderates’ who sided politically with the liberals. Together, moderates and liberals signed the Auburn Affirmation promoting tolerance of liberal views. Upset by Machen’s divisive preaching against liberalism, when they heard Machen was to be promoted, the denominational authorities stepped to take over Princeton Seminary. In response, Machen founded Westminster Seminary, which continues the godly orthodox Biblical tradition that Princeton previously had. Machen, upset that church mission funds were being used to spread liberalism instead of the gospel, founded an Independent mission board to fund only true gospel based missions. At this, Machen and his supporters were brought to trial and expelled from the mainline Presbyterian Church in the USA. Many of those who expelled them were moderate Bible believers who simply thought that liberals should be tolerated as equals. Machen then founded the breakaway Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (The best book on Gresham Machen and his battle with liberalism is by Ned Stonehouse). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen

Mainline Presbyterianism continued to backslide into greater and greater error, while Westminster Seminary continued to produce a good crop of orthodox and influential Christian leaders. Just about every influential Christian leader promoting a Christian worldview in America is either a product of that seminary or has been influenced greatly by someone who is a graduate of that seminary. Students include Francis Schaeffer (worldviews), Gary North (economics), Wayne Mack (counselling). Lecturers include Cornelius van Til and Tim Keller. Those influenced by Schaeffer include Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Chuck Colson, Randall Terry, C. Everett Koop, Cal Thomas, and Tim and Beverly LaHaye; and scholars Os Guinness, Thomas Morris, Clark Pinnock, and Ronald Wells. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/march3/7t322a.html

Both Spurgeon and Machen died in their 50s mostly attributed to the extreme stress of the battles they fought against liberalism. Most couldn’t see the point of their fight, but their influence is lasting.

By the time liberalism had reached the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970s, it had morphed into a different form called Neo-Orthodoxy. But again the same categories arose. ‘Liberals’ questioned the truth of scripture; ‘Moderates’ thought scripture was true, but we should allow people to teach otherwise and ‘Conservatives’ who thought the truth of scripture was worth fighting for. Two conservative leaders, Paige Patterson, a small Bible College professor and Paul Pressler, a lawyer fought first to appoint a conservative leader of the Southern Baptist Convention and then to appoint biblical conservatives to lead the seminaries that trained the ministers. While they faced much opposition and abuse from liberals and moderates who tried to stop them, the result was, with the Lord’s help, a return of the denomination to a belief in the reliability of the Bible. Unlike the most of the American mainline denominations which continued to decline, the Southern Baptist Convention has continued to grow and send missionaries around the world. (The best book on this battle is ‘A hill to die on’ by Paul Pressler.
A summary can be downloaded at: http://www.paigepatterson.info/documents/anatomy_of_a_reformation.pdf

FROM HISTORY TO TODAY

In all these four major controversies of church history, the main battle was not between ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ but between ‘moderates’ and ‘conservatives’. It was between Bible believers who wished to tolerate wolves and those who did not. Such conflict between true believers is much more painful than conflict between those who are Bible believers and those who are false. But unfortunately, when those who truly believe the Bible decide to defend wolves and attack true shepherds who fight wolves, then they cause such division. The division can’t be blamed on the conservatives who fight to defend the truth of the gospel.

The apostle John says “2JN 1:10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. 2JN 1:11 Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work”. Thus according to the Bible, helping ungodly teachers is sharing in their work, which is wicked. That includes allowing them pulpit time or magazine space or broadcast air time.

Jesus rebuked the church at Thyatira for allowing the false teacher Jezebel REV 2:20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols.

Today, in the Western world, our main problem is false Postmodern teachers who promote acceptance of homosexuality and other sexual compromises, who question truths such as eternal punishment, the fact that Jesus died in our place, and the virgin birth of Christ. We cannot give them space. If we truly love God, we must speak up against lies about God and protect the flock from wolves. We must silence those who teach falsely on matters that put peoples eternal salvation at risk, even if as with Athanasius of Alexandria (4th Century), Charles Spurgeon (19th Century), Gresham Machen (early 20th Century Presbyterian battle), Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler (late 20th century Baptist battle) before us, we are slandered, threatened and suffer for our stand.