SHOULD WE EVER JUDGE OR CONDEMN?

SHOULD WE EVER JUDGE OR CONDEMN?

Have you heard a someone quote “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) or “If any one of you is without sin, let him throw the first stone.” (John 8:7) to argue that we should not speak up against evils like abortion, pornography or homosexuality? Quoted out of context, these are the two favourite verses of those trying to change Christianity to fit in with Post-modernist culture. If you haven’t heard these quoted to advance Postmodernist ‘tolerance’ of evil, you will soon, and Biblical Christian leaders need to equip their followers to counter Post-modern interpretation of these verses.

WHAT DOES “DO NOT JUDGE, OR YOU TOO WILL BE JUDGED” MEAN?

Did Jesus mean these words as an absolute? Did he mean we should never ever judge or condemn anything or speak up against the sins of our society? How about reading a bit further in the same passage. Lets start with the Sermon on the Mount. In the same paragraph as the first quote we find another saying of Jesus: Mt 7:6 “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs.” Okay so now Jesus is calling some people ‘pigs’ and ‘dogs’ and he is calling other things ‘pearls’. So now how are we supposed to tell what are the pearls and who are the pigs? We are supposed to use our judgment. In other words, use our minds educated by the scriptures to judge. So now Jesus cannot be asking us never to judge, because otherwise Jesus would be contradicting himself. Both of these statements by Jesus are proverbs. Proverbs are pity sayings containing a lot of wisdom. They are not on their own and outside of the context of the rest of scripture meant to be absolute laws for all time and every situation. Apparently contradictory proverbs like these two are often put together to help people avoid interpreting the other wrongly. Together they complement each other in wisdom to help us avoid extremes. The Bible is full of instructions for us to judge one thing or another such as: the case of in Church discipline (1 Corinthians 6:1-5). Jesus commends the Ephesian church for discerning false apostles (Revelation 2:2); Peter challenges the Pharisees to ‘judge for yourself’ (Acts 4:19). Looking at Matthew 7:1 in context around it and with other similar verses in scripture (e.g. Romans 2:1) Jesus is attacking the attitude of moral superiority, hypocrisy and pettiness by some religious people based on judging those they consider religiously worse than them – and their failure to repent of their own sins by focusing on the sins of others. But we cannot use this verse outside the context of the rest of scripture to silence protests against evil as the Postmodernists would like us to.

DOES THE STORY OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY MEAN WE CAN’T CONDEMN SIN?

What about the quote “If any one of you is without sin, let him throw the first stone” (John 8:7)? If Matthew 7:1 is the favourite saying of the Postmoderns, probably John 8 is the favourite story of the Postmoderns. How do we respond? Firstly one should not derive absolutes out of stories. You find absolutes first in other places in the Bible and the stories should illustrate these. Secondly, we can’t extend ‘stoning’ as a metaphor meaning ‘speaking’ against evil. Thirdly, what is the context? The Jewish religious leaders catch a woman in adultery and take her to Jesus asking him if she should be stoned? Now like the time they asked him about whether he should pay taxes (Matthew 22:17), the Pharisees they are trying to trap Jesus into getting into trouble either with the religious Jews or the Roman authorities.
The point is that they are under Roman law, for which there is no capital offence for adultery and Jesus has no status as a civil magistrate. This is an illegal kangaroo court with no civil authority, into which certain Jewish fanatics are trying to involve Jesus. Only the Roman government had the right to execute a person (John 18:31). Jesus skilfully dodges their manipulative trap and teaches them a moral lesson at the same time. His response is similar when someone tries to get him to arbitrate an inheritance dispute (Luke 12:13). One could go into much more detail on the true meaning of this story, but the point here is that the Postmodernists completely misuse these scriptures to try to silence speaking up against evil.

SHOULD WE EVER CONDEMN?

On the same theme Postmoderns say that we should ‘not condemn’ to argue that we shouldn’t speak up against culturally accepted sins like fornication, pornography and homosexuality and abortion. Sounds a bit Biblical, but where exactly is that in the Bible? We could quote Romans 8:1 “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus…”. In context that means that God does not condemn us when we are ‘in Christ’, namely we have been united with Christ in his death and resurrection as explained in Romans 6. But earlier in Romans, the aPostle Paul has just condemned a long list of sinful behaviours (Romans 1:18-32). And his condemnation of this list of sins (and a following list of religious sins in Romans 2) is the first thing he explains when he introduces the gospel in Romans 1:17, before he explains salvation from God’s wrath (Romans 3:23). So essentially, condemning sin and the consequent wrath of God is essential to bringing people to true salvation.

Most Postmoderns hardly have an idea what sin is, let alone the fact that God is angry with sin and will punish people forever in hell unless they repent. It is not loving to leave out this essential truth of the gospel. So reaching Postmoderns with the true gospel includes teaching them the essential concept of sin and God’s condemnation of it. Postmodern Christians argue we should leave out this nasty stuff and just concentrate on building relationships. There is a place for relationships in evangelism, but if the truth about sin and God’s wrath against it is never explained then it is not true evangelism. Most so-called Postmodern outreach is nothing but relationship building and trying to market a good image of Christianity. It might build some relationships and do some good public relations, but doesn’t save people from God’s wrath and eternity in hell.

What is the favourite verse of Evangelical Christians? Probably John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” But what does the next verse say? John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” Okay so maybe are the Postmodernists right? Does this confirm we shouldn’t condemn? Lets read one more verse? John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. “ Ouch! Painful, politically incorrect stuff! How come John 3:18 isn’t quoted to non-Christians as much as John 3:16? Do we lack the guts to say it? Might it result in some anger and lead to some persecution? And maybe some more salvations too?

WHAT DID GREAT LEADERS OF THE PAST PREACH?

The great revival leaders of history, such as Charles Finney, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards regularly preached the Law and Wrath of God before they preached the Grace and Mercy of God – exactly as the apostle Paul does in the book of Romans. In fact, taking the Bible as a whole, God revealed the Law of Moses before he revealed grace in Christ. In Bible times and today, the righteous standards of God and his wrath against sin point to the redemption in Christ, which we cannot earn by our own efforts Gal 3:24 “So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith”. But simply because we cannot achieve salvation or righteousness through law does not mean we dispense with law and God’s wrath against sin altogether. Explaining the anger of God against sin is the context in which we explain the grace of God which saves us from this. Now today, many postmodern Christians make jokes about Jonathan Edward’s famous sermon ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’ http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/sinners.htm
and style him as some sort of fanatic. But the point is that Jonathan Edwards was a leader of the Great Awakening. Postmodern Christians have never had any revival or awakening anywhere in the world and never will because God doesn’t bless a false truncated distorted Postmodern gospel. The Postmodern gospel doesn’t condemn sin and so doesn’t convict of sin and doesn’t lead men to repentance.

WHAT DID THE APOSTLES PREACH IN ACTS?

What was the example of the apostles? Implicit in their arguing that Jesus was the Messiah was the allegation that the Jewish leaders had committed murder in executing Jesus and innocent man. That was why they were persecuted! Not just because they were some new Jewish sect. Peter repeatedly accuses those who killed Jesus: Acts 2:36 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”; “Acts 3:15 You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. “This was not lost on the authorities Acts 5:28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the apostles did not preach a nice politically correct gospel and neither should we.

Condemning sin in society is also one of the ways we awake the social conscience to stop the murdering of unborn babies and the tearing apart of families as a result of sexual immorality. To fail to do so is not being ‘loving’ or ‘showing grace’. It is to abandon these victims to the forces of evil. Yes the apostles teaching was full of grace, but it was grace in the context of condemning sin. The two are not mutually exclusive. Grace without explaining God’s anger against sin is meaningless. The Cross of Christ perfectly unites the two concepts, in displaying both how much God hates sin what he suffered in our place and how much God loves sinners in being willing to give his son in our place. Preaching the cross includes condemning sin.

WHY MUST WE WARN PEOPLE AGAINST SIN?

Ezekiel 3:18 says “When I say to a wicked man, ‘You will surely die,’ and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood.” God isn’t neutral in the matter. It is not optional for us to speak up against serious social evil. We must not be discouraged by the Postmodern political correctors who seek to silence the Christian voice against evil in society. We must continue to speak up for truth and righteousness and correct those Postmoderns who are trying to change the gospel and remove the bits that offend our culture.

If you are a pastor or home group leader, why not consider teaching on these often quoted scriptures, but this time tackle the challenge of postmodernism head-on and equip your people to stand for the truth. If you aren’t why not forward this email to your pastor or home group leader and encourage him to do so.

CELEBRATING AND DEFENDING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE TODAY

CELEBRATING AND DEFENDING THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE TODAY

Conservative evangelicals are often accused of being reactionary. i.e. always being ‘anti-‘ something. What are we for? What do we celebrate in the midst of our battles? One thing we can celebrate and thank God for is the authority of scripture above all man-made philosophies. But defending the authority scripture today is not the same as it was centuries ago or even in our parents generation. Most of the creeds and confessions Christian organisations profess are out of date – not because they are wrong, but because they don’t answer the challenging questions being posed by our culture. Many Christians have adopted the worldview of our culture and then try to use it to interpret scripture. The result is confusion in ethics and belief. On most issues scripture contradicts our popular worldly culture – and on many issues a church culture which has tried to accommodate that worldly culture. The consequence is that the authority is subordinated to the culture rather than used as the ‘Sword of the spirit’ to destroy worldly ideas and transform that culture. The first question Satan asked mankind was ‘Did God really say’? If he can sow confusion on that issue, then he can lead us into sin on a lot of other issues.

WHAT ARE SOME WORLDLY IDEAS UNDERMING SCRIPTURES AUTHORITY?

Have you heard anyone promoting these ideas? Have you or your organisation been affected by them.

MODERNIST LIBERALISM: Disbelieving the TRUTH of scripture. This ideology which began in the 1850s in Germany assumes that scripture must be subordinate to the findings of modern academic thinking. Thus, for example, Biblical miracles are disbelieved. Modernism gutted most of the mainline Protestant denominations in the 1920s and 30s, but is losing popularity.

NEO-ORTHODOXY: Believing the Bible is SPIRITUALLY TRUE but not necessarily true in other respects. Popularised by the theologian Karl Barth. When asked whether he believed that God created the world, he replied ‘This world does not matter’. When asked whether a newspaper reporter would have had anything to photograph had he witnessed the resurrection, he dodged the question. Adopted to varying degrees by many evangelical groups, many of which had rejected modernism.

POSTMODERNIST LIBERALISM: The belief that the Bible has personal authority for me, but not absolute authority over those who don’t believe it or interpret it differently. A belief that the meaning of scripture is NOT CLEAR and thus no one can impose their views on anyone else. This uncertainty on the meaning of scripture turns the clear teaching of scripture on issues like homosexuality into just someone’s opinion. Also a belief that feelings and relationships are important, while truth and right behaviour are not. Closely linked to this is the view of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, where one should avoid mentioning anything in the Bible that might offend someone of another cultural belief. Also closely linked to this is the FEELINGS FOCUS, a belief that we should avoid telling anyone anything in the Bible that might offend their feelings. Needless to say, the authority of scripture is drastically undermined by gagging of expressing scriptural truth. Such a belief results in a weak view of scripture which has no authority in society.

PIETISM: A belief that scripture has authority in my personal devotional and church life, but has nothing to say about how we should govern society for example in terms of politics, commerce or interpret the study of history. The result is the authority of scripture is limited to the individual and the church, but one cannot for example tell the government not to legalise abortion.

POPULAR PSYCHOLOGY: A belief in the ‘non-directional counselling’ approach where everyone must decide in ethics what to do for themselves. Thus one must never tell anyone what the scripture says they should do in their situation or that in terms of the scripture they have done anything wrong. Scripture is then just ‘good advice’ but never binding or prescriptive. The concepts of ‘guilt’ and ‘sin’ are taboo and should never be mentioned lest people are offended. Closely linked to this is the view that we should NEVER JUDGE someone’s actions. While the scripture does teach caution in judging, it does not prohibit saying that something is wrong or sinful.

THE EVANGELICAL MEGASHIFT: A belief that we should only talk about those doctrines in scripture which don’t offend our culture, but still profess to believe in them. So for example, such Christians would avoid mentioning hell, judgement, the wrath of God, sin, the fear of God and rather talk only about relationships, feelings, God’s love and mercy. The result of this firstly that scripture loses its binding authority as God is portrayed as someone who will not do anyone any harm if they disobey it. Secondly, doctrines that are underemphasised in the next generation end up being denied. That was the pattern with early C20 modernist liberalism, and is already starting to happen in C21 evangelicalism.

NEW AGE/ANIMIST: ‘New Age Christians’ put the Bible on a similar level of authority to other religions and human philosophies. Thus the Bible can’t be used to judge the truth claims of other religions. Rather they mix in whatever bits they like e.g. Belief in astral bodies. Western Christians who do this are called New Age, while black Africans tend to mix in their ancestral beliefs.

PRAGMATISM/UTILITARIANISM: A belief that we should do what works best for the ‘greater good’, rather than to follow the detailed instructions of scripture. Scripture was written in a different context, but not really practical to follow in our culture today. For example, such people may argue promoting condoms rather than abstinence will help stop HIV-AIDS. Such people won’t speak up against sin if they don’t think people will listen to them. Contrary to this is the example of the Bible prophets who spoke truth even though most did not listen. Closely linked to this is IDEALISM, the idea that scripture is just an ideal we should try to live up to and not really practical to follow for example on standards for sexual holiness.

EMOTIONALISM: Such people may say ‘Follow your heart and not your head’. There is a bit of truth in that because the heart has an important role in the Christian life, but it cannot be used as an authority above scripture. This is sometimes applied as HEDONISM: A view that God wants us to be happy, even if this means disobeying the scripture. Thus for example, someone questions the scriptural prohibition on homosexuality because a homosexual couple he knows are so happy together. On the other hand, divorce is condoned when it is believed an unhappily married couple would be happier apart.

With the INSPIRATIONAL/HOROSCOPE method of Bible interpretation, people open the Bible randomly or where they know the nice bits are and look for scriptures that will give them encouragement while ignoring the rest. There is then no compulsion to try to understand or obey the bits we don’t like. We can just skim over them and move on. Thus the Bible’s authority is subordinated to our preferences.

ANTINOMIANISM (or ANTI-LAW): A view that because we are under grace that we are no longer bound to follow the moral instructions of scripture, so long as we do things out of a motivation of love. This idea has been around since New Testament times and alongside passages such as Colossians 3 attack it.

DIRECT REVELATION ABOVE SCRIPTURE: A belief that what one feels God has spoken into our own heart is above what he has written in his word. Examples of this error include a pastor saying that God had told him to divorce his wife and marry another woman. On another occasion, an unmarried couple knelt down to pray together about whether or not God wanted them to sleep together and concluded after prayer that he did. Another lady believed after prayer that God wanted her to have an abortion. Any ‘direct revelation’ which contradicts scripture is from the devil and not from God.

EXPERIENCE ABOVE SCRIPTURE: A belief that if our experience does not match a scripture we know, then we can disbelieve that scripture. For example, such a person may say ‘I know the Bible says God heals, but I don’t believe that because I know a good Christian who was sick and she died’. In such situations, we should not question scripture, but rather whether we have understood its meaning correctly – and study it further to understand it better.

HYPER-AUTHORITARIANISM: A belief in some churches that only senior church authorities can accurately interpret the Bible and that no one has a right to challenge them on the basis of scripture. Thus if anyone in an organisation is unsure of the ethics of a matter, they consult the senior authority. If they condone it – then it is okay. Such hyper-authoritarian authorities will often not want to be accountable to the historic accepted interpretations of scripture agreed with the wider body of Christ, but wish to make their own interpretations on an ad-hoc basis. The result is that the senior authorities often make exceptions and decide to ‘show grace’, bending the rules of scripture for themselves and their friends – leading to multiple scandals in the church.

MAN FEARING: Man fearing can take many forms. It includes for example, DEMOCRACY – often the reluctance of a spiritual shepherd to enforce the teaching of scripture for example in a church discipline case, where this might be unpopular with the sheep. In countries where there is overt state persecution, believers brave the threat of arrest to speak the Word of God, but in our culture we have the much milder persecution of simple unpopularity and social disapproval when we do so – even sometimes from other believers. We must recognise this for what it is PERSECUTION, count the cost and risk the consequences.

DISMISSING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT: Because many parts of the Old Testament have been superseded or differently fulfilled in the New Testament, many find it easier to simply dismiss the whole of the Old Testament rather than learning to interpret it correctly through the lens of the New Testament. Thus one then cannot appeal to the authority of the Old Testament scriptures. Contrary to this approach, Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted heavily from the Old Testament.

CHALLENGES POSED BY THESE IDEAS

The above ideas challenge: The reliability of scripture, the right to speak scripture, the clarify of scripture, the practicality of scripture, the authority of scripture over human authorities and the question of who has the right to interpret scripture.

So we must demolish all of these cultural human ideologies with our glorious Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God and look for opportunities to speak it in defiance of our cultural norms and pressure. Unlike these human ideas, scripture is the WORD OF GOD. It is true and contains commands applicable to everyone for all time – Christian or not. It is the basis on which all will one day be judged and the authority on which we can challenge any other human authority.

Gently but firmly we must point out to people when they use these methods with authority above the word of God.

We trust that it is clear and practically applicable in our situation. Combating the worldly ideas of our culture is a big job. Fortunately we don’t need to do it alone. Word of God itself is what will defeat them. We must just keep speaking it, regardless of the consequences.

Shack Attack (by Jordan Pickering)

'Shack Attack' by Jordan Pickering

The Shack is part of a new postmodern Christianity, which is trying to shape our faith so that it fits more comfortably into postmodern society. In this project, it has jettisoned much of what is characteristic of Christianity, and reconstructed an image of God that has lost its Family resemblance.

The mistake that Christians will make about The Shack is to assume that because it is fiction, it is not theology. In our postmodern times, story is the favourite way of communicating. So we need to quickly wise up to the fact that Christian novels are works of theology. And they can either be teaching the true gospel or a false one.

The problem with fiction is that it is emotional rather than logical, and it’s message is woven into plot and dialogue and character development. This makes it very difficult to evaluate whether its message is good or bad. Stories don’t need to justify any of their points, or practice careful exegesis of key texts. If a story wants to make you believe something, it can create a loveable, trustworthy hero to advocate that point, and it can put the opposite view in the mouth of a revolting, unlovely scoundrel. The victory can be won, virtually subliminally, through emotion, not reason.

Stories are also difficult to assess because they tend to be ambiguous. The author is not bound to explain everything his characters say, and even if a character says something outrageous, we can’t know whether the author agrees with what his character has said. These problems are certainly true of The Shack.

So, fiction is a problematic medium for theology, and it will require careful thought and keen awareness from us as readers.

Positive things in the book

The Shack addresses two great problems in the Christian life: the problem of pain and grief, and the problem of empty religion.

In terms of his take on pain, the author does a lot of good work in affirming God’s goodness and God’s love in spite of our circumstances. So that’s reassuring. Unfortunately, he also goes too far. His God is not a judge and he’s never angry, and pain in the world is seemingly not God’s doing. It seems as though the author can only explain evil as being out of God’s control. So while there is much good on the subject of pain, it is hard to separate it out from a very faulty doctrine of God. I’d far rather that readers struggle their way through CS Lewis’ The Problem of Pain, than to read something easy and poisonous like The Shack.

Secondly, the author takes aim at the problem of empty religion. He asks a lot of the right questions about this subject, and he points out that relationship with God is at the heart of our faith, not structures and performance and rule keeping. Unfortunately, he once again goes too far. Instead of restoring our worship and church order and lifestyle to a context of relationship with God, he throws out church order and scripture and rule keeping altogether.

So, once again, the good that he does is undone by an overbalance. There are hundreds of books that might inspire readers to genuine relationship with God while opposing Pharisaism (as The Shack tries to do), without discarding the Evangelical faith (as The Shack does), so rather read those.

Concerns with the book

There are many concerns that ought to be addressed, especially problems with the doctrine of the Trinity and with attacks on church order. But let’s focus on two of the more serious issues.

SCRIPTURE

The Shack is a postmodern book, and so the author doesn’t like the idea of truth and authority. That means that scripture cannot be God’s True Word and our final authority. In fact, he speaks of scripture as a book in which we’ve trapped God so that we can control him, and he’s even cynical towards the idea of there being a correct way of interpreting the Bible, because then the teachers can control it.

The Shack holds up direct, face-to-face communication with God as the Christian ideal. The trouble is, far from setting us free, this idea means that Christians will be listening to whatever wind blows through their minds, imagining that this or that thought is actually God’s voice, and then once you’ve got a good one, without scripture, by what standard will you test the spirits to see if they are from God, as John says?

Or, if there is no such thing as correct interpretation of scripture, the alternative is chaos, not freedom. One is able to invent any number of creative interpretations if one bends one’s mind to it. That’s where cults and false teaching come from, and every kind of spiritual captivity. But if we believe that there is in principle a correct interpretation, then it means that we believe in a standard of Truth, and even our leaders are subject to it. If we treat scripture properly, then we hear God speak, and He leads us by His Word. It is this that prevents us from being taken captive. We are not at the mercy of the creativity of our teachers. [The author might protest that, in his scheme, there is no need for teachers at all. I would have to ask in response what he thinks he is then, if not a teacher? People inevitably gravitate around leaders. True Scripture ensures that we and our leaders alike are governed by God, and not deception].

SIN AND SALVATION

The biggest problem with the book is its doctrine of sin and salvation. It is extremely vague and ambiguous at every step here, and so it’s difficult to say precisely what the book is teaching. However it leans very strongly towards the belief that God does not judge or punish sin:

Papa: “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” (Pgs 118-120)

In discussion about hell, The Shack forces us to imagine sending one of our own children to hell forever. The lead character finds it impossible to imagine sending someone he loves to hell, and so the implication is that God, who loves infinitely more than we do, would not do so either. This relies on the assumption that God's attitude to sin is the same as ours. It's not. Even the supposed dichotomy between God’s love and God’s judgment is a false one, but, on that basis, The Shack seems to rule out the existence of hell and judgment.

The Shack also teaches that, regardless of whether or not we believe in Him, God has reconciled Himself fully to the world. It never says that the world is thus reconciled to God, but you can’t actually claim to be reconciled to someone if they still hate you. Reconciliation is all or nothing. So if you take the book seriously, it’s saying that everyone will be saved regardless of faith.

And finally, when it speaks about what God requires of us, the book’s answer is ‘nothing at all’. We have no law, no responsibility, and God expects nothing of us. The God character says at one point, “because I have no expectations, you never disappoint me” (pg 206).

So in summary, The Shack is a very dangerous book, because it is sweet and warm and easy to read, but it’s actually selling a religion that has no rule of faith, no community in which you need to serve, and no order or authority. It sells a God who isn’t offended by sin, who makes no demands, has no expectations and is never disappointed in anybody, and who will not judge or condemn. You’ll read the book and wish that you had these characters as your father and mother and best friend, but the portrait of God that the author has drawn is an idol of his own carving. This god might be as warm and loveable as Oprah, but it’s not the Christian God any longer.

For a longer review of 'The Shack' by the same author, Jordan Pickering go to:

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/shack-attack-1-cautionary-tales/


http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/01/shack-attack-2-gods-person/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/shack-attack-3-gods-truth/


http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/shack-attack-4-hierarchy-organised-religion/

http://longwind.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/shack-attack-5-sin-and-salvation/

Change to Blog Title 'Emerging' to 'Postmodernism'

To try to clear up misunderstandings shown in numerous comments received, I have changed the title of this blog from 'The Emerging Threat of the Emerging Church in South Africa' to

'The Emerging Threat of Postmodernism in the Church in South Africa'. There are three reasons for the change:

* Firstly, there are some people who label themselves 'emerging church' or 'emergent' who are orthodox evangelicals trying to find ways reach culturally people with the gospel, without compromising the gospel. There are some who also use the word 'emerging' and 'emergent' in a flippant way like 'cool' to mean anything that is up to date and in tune with the culture. There are others who have just jumped onto the bandwagon of the movement as they do with many other passing fads, but have not necessarily absorbed the theology. While I believe these people make a mistake to share this label with unorthodox people, I do not wish to alienate them as my brothers in Christ.

* Secondly, some people interpret the 'emerging church' movement as being a legitimate part of the church (the body of Christ). Thus they see attacking the movement as attacking the church or at least a denomination of the church. Really, the movement is not a church or denomination, but a movement spreading false and destructive teaching within the church. Postmodernism within the church is like disease within the body. A doctor fights the disease - not the patient. The term 'emerging church' is problematic because it lends credibilty to the group as part of the 'church'. The new title referring to 'postmodernism in the church' defines the disease more clearly as different from the patient.

* Thirdly, there are probably hundreds of thousands of South African Christians (maybe even a majority amongst under 35 year old urban English home language Christians), who do not call themselves 'emergent' or 'emerging', but who have without realising it, have incorporated false beliefs borrowed from Postmodernism into their Christianity. Many such people will have never even heard the term 'emerging church' and thus may think this blog is not relevant to them.

Many good pastors have churches full of young people who have been deceived by postmodernism - while the good pastor is blissfully unaware that they interpret everything he says through this new lens. The pastor may get frustrated when they don't understand, much less apply what he teaches, but he doesn't know why. Such a pastor might think this blog is not relevant to his church. One denominational leader said that the Emerging Church is a 'non-event'. In saying so, he demonstrates he is tragically out of touch with the youth of his own denomination, which is one of the most seriously infected with postmodern thinking. Reality is that just about every urban English speaking church in South Africa has been infiltrated to some extent by postmodern culture - and probably the more young and educated the members - the more they have been influenced.

How can a pastor or deacon know if the youth of his church have been influenced by postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement?

There are several tests: Firstly, discuss topical issues and listen to their opinions (this is easiest by reading online discussion forums). If you see expression of postmodern viewpoints (e.g. we should tolerate every kind of behaviour including e.g. homosexality and abortion; truth is personal and not absolute; we can never be absolutely sure exactly what the Bible means; Christians have no right to tell non-Christians what to do on ethical issues), then those are clues. Secondly, if your members like books, DVDs and blogs by postmodern/emergent authors (e.g. Brian McLaren; Rob Bell; Doug Paggit, Leonard Sweet, Dan Kimball, Tony Jones, Andrew Jones, Steve Chalke) that is another clue. Most young educated people are now on www.Facebook.com . This can help you get to know your church members. Here many list their favourite authors and books on their personal profile page - many also list interest groups they are part of, many of which relate to emergent church themes. Thirdly, read their personal blogs and see what opinions they write and who they link to (e.g. other Emerging Church blogs). If they write articles, see who they reference. Nevertheless one or two clues doesn't prove they have fully bought into the Emerging Church agenda, but it does show they are being influenced by it. If members of your church who were previously clear on core Christian doctrinal and ethical teaching, start to doubt and become fuzzy - it is probably worth investigating to check for 'emerging church' influence. If you want to check whether a leader or an author is part of the 'emerging church' movement, then just do a Google web search with the [author's name] and the words 'emerging emergent'. Then just click on a few links to check the context and you should get an idea. Then also do a web search for the author's name or the title of a book and the word 'heresy'. Unfortunately, many orthodox teachers are falsely accused of heresy on the internet, so you have to read the links to check what they are teaching, but it should save you the time of having to read all their works yourself.

Some Christians have misunderstood my articles on the Emergent Church as thinking that I am attacking a 'cult' or minority 'sect'. While many of the beliefs promoted in the Emergent Church are as unorthodox as those in 'cults' (e.g. acceptance of homosexuality; denial of hell; referring to God as feminine etc), the 'Emerging Church' movement is not sectarian as are most 'sects' or 'cults'. It is impacting the mainstream of the Evangelical Church - their books are published by evangelical publishers and on sale in almost all our best Christian bookshops. If the Emergent Church were simply forming a new denomination for their adherents, I would not waste my time attacking them. It is the success they are having in shifting the beliefs of believers of most denominations in the direction of Postmodernism, which is the reason why we must fight to defend the mainstream. If we do not, mainstream evangelicalism risks shifting to a liberal view of scripture, as did most of the Protestant denominations in the early Twentieth Century. If this scenario continues, it is we in orthodox evangelicalism, who believe the Bible is absolute truth and a binding authority that might be marginalised and considered by many to be a 'sect', as occured with many orthodox splinter denominations in the early Twentieth Century.

Neither is all of this shift due to the efforts of the 'Emergent Village' network. The culture of Europe, North America and most of the European language speaking world has in the last few decades shifted in the direction of Postmodernism. Many Christians, lacking adequate teaching on Biblical theology and Christian worldview, bring these false beliefs with them into the church without questioning them.

Thus the need to change the blog title to clarify the threat we are facing.

Answering Emergent response to Joy Magazine article on Postmodernism

Nic Paton of Emergent Africa responds to my article published in this month's edition of Joy Magazine entitled 'Is Postmodernism Uprooting the Church'

Read his response 'Joy Magazine consolidates anti-emergent stance' at: www.emergentafrica.com post dated 6 Jan 09

* Paton starts by citing various core values of Joy Magazine which he feels were not followed in their failure to give him permission to reprint their article published in the August issue of Joy Magazine http://emergingthreat.blogspot.com/2008/08/emergents-respond-to-joy-magazine.html. I cannot speak for Joy Magazine, but I would argue their response is fairly normal for a magazine to reserve copyright to protect their sales at least until that edition is out of circulation.

* Paton makes a good and fair summary of my article.

* Paton argues a distinction between the ideology of postmodernism and the 'phase of history' of 'post-modernity'. I dispute this distinction, as an attempt to clothe an ideology as a time frame. Since it is impossible to fight a time frame, without being backward, thus then according to such theory, postmodernity/postmodernism is invincible. So many other ideologies themselves in something else e.g. Marxism as 'Scientific socialism' as if you can't fight science. But where is Marxism now? So the 'New Age' movement implies a time based period etc. No, I don't accept the distinction.

* Paton argues that Postmoderns do draw from the past rather than simply creating new ideas. Yes this is agreed. Nevertheless, the way it uses the past is not the way the people of the past used those ideas within the framework of a system, but rather postmodernism tends to borrow bits and pieces from various different systems and ideologies without attempting to coherently fit them together. This is seen most clearly in Postmodern art and architecture (e.g. the V&A Waterfront and Century City Shopping Centres in Cape Town). This may be enjoyable as art, but it is dangerous for theology.

* Paton argues that the tenor of my Jan 09 Joy article is confrontatory and suggests that this is an influence of Augustine rather than Modernism or Protestantism. In response, I argue yes it is not a Modernist response. But no I would argue Reformation Protestantism was like Augustine highly polemical - but I would go back further to say that most of the Bible is highly polemical - if you take the polemical content out of the New Testament, you would would probably have to delete two thirds of it.

* Paton defends Postmodern influence against the allegation of a reluctance to present the gospel by arguing courage in theology and church practice. Yes I recognise Emergents have showed a lot of courage in such areas (although I think most of it is misguided and unhelpful), yes it may include a form of courage in breaking with traditional practices and teachings. But the allegation in my article is that postmodernism undermines courage in confronting sinners with the core message of the gospel: sin, hell, repentance etc. Paton has not yet answered this.

* Paton writes "If preaching of a gospel is motivated not wholly by the Love of God, but by any threat such as that of hell, or endless retributive separation from the Creator, the authenticity of that gospel must be questioned." Well yes, exactly that is further evidence for what I am saying, Postmodernism/Emergent church is changing the core of the gospel - we disagree on this. If the gospel is just motivated by the love of God, then it is an 'alternative lifestlye' for us to choose. Exactly what I have been saying. This is where Postmodernism is misleading people and distorting the gospel. The gospel is not Postmodern. Hell is a very un-Postmodern concept. It is fundamentally intolerant of alternative viewpoints. Either the gospel must change postmodernism or postmodernism must change the gospel. Hopefully the love of God will draw us to repentance, but the threat of hell is very very real and a very good reason to convert.

* In the side bar of the same Emerging Africa blog (accessed 6 Jan 09), is a poll of their readers showing approximately one third agnostic and one third universalist and another third divided over the question of whether a few or many will be saved. Again confirmation that Postmodernism is bluring the issues. The Bible says only a few will be saved (Luke 13:23-25 & other scriptures).

* In response to my argument that 'Postmodernism affects attitudes to the persecuted', Paton argues that the Emergents have stories of comfort to the suffering. There is no disagreement here. Emergents may offer comfort to those who may suffer in one way or another - but will they fight for them? Will they suffer by standing with them?

To quote the World Evangelical Alliance, Religious Liberty Commission, 15 February 2008, Trends and Analysis for 2007-8, by Elizabeth Kendall "...the West, including the church is submitting to the spirit of the age: postmodernism, which specifically targets truth. As the world opens up to truth, the postmodern church abandons it, or at least abandons its claim to it. Not only does postmodernism cripple evangelism, but because postmodern Christians believe truth is relative, they have a really hard time supporting or even caring about Christians who are prepared to suffer and die for it..."

In terms of the question of my own personal standing against persecution, my work has been mostly in defending Christians who are persecuted in South Africa for their uncompromising stand for truth e.g. Healthworkers on abortion, and free speech against homosexuality. Again I am not sure if postmoderns would see much merit in suffering for this cause and may at times favour the persecutors. But in terms of other countries, The World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission are the ones who are doing a major work.

* Paton responds to my argument that postmodernism is changing the way the uncoverted interpret the gospel. He argues "“the unconverted” are not interpreting the gospel, they are simply living in culture without the complications of a commitment to the gospel. It appears the problem only comes with “conversion”". Sorry, I think Paton misses my argument here. The uncoverted have to understand at least the basics of the gospel correctly in order to convert, and if because postmodernism clouds their understanding they fail to understand, then they cannot convert. Thus in our generation, evangelism must increasingly include explaining some basic assumptions that didn't need to be explained before - like the existence of absolute truth. A new and different problem arises when such people do convert, which is that having accepted the core of the gospel (needed to convert), they then need to either reform their whole worldview away from postmodernism (which I advocate) or alternatively re-interpret Christianity through a postmodern lens (which the Emergent Church advocates).

Thanks Nic Paton for your comments. Maybe you would like to respond further to my responses. While we differ on many issues, I think we are more clearly defining those issues through the debate and most of what you say in your article I believe confirms rather than undermines my arguments. i.e. We increasingly agree on the differences between our worldviews, but the reader must now choose which worldview ('conservative evangelical' or 'emergent/postmodern', which they wish to use themselves to interpret the world and the Bible.

The rules of the Emerging Church debate

Certain emergents have suggested certain rules for debate/conversation.

For example: According to Roger Saner in a comment on a previous post: Tony Jones, the co-ordinator of Emergent Village in the US, has said that he won't respond to any of his critics unless they've read, "How (not) to speak of God."

http://themillers.wordpress.com/2008/09/19/how-not-to-speak-of-god-by-peter-rollins/

It is rather a bit like McLaren who said:
Brian McLaren's view on how we can “solve” the homosexuality issue within Christianity: No one is allowed to talk about it unless they have enough points:

"10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who’s been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who’s been through an ex-gay ministry that didn’t work
50 for every friend who’s gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who’s gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you’ve listened to whose child is gay
When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue."
--Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy Conference: The Gay Forum, 2005
http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html

There is another errant preacher out there (on the issue of 'The New Perspective on Paul') who tries to silence his opponents by saying that unless they have read all the Targum's on in the original Aramaic then they don't understand the subject and can't argue with him.

One of them came to me saying that I should not criticise his previously expressed viewpoint online without first following Matthew 18 procedure.

He also argued we should engage in 'conversation' rather than 'debate'.

WHAT DO WE SAY TO ALL OF THIS?

My answer to all of the above is that it is an attempt to set unreasonable conditions which then allow errant teachers to spread their error, without opposition - by making it hard and difficult to follow all their conditions for engaging in debate. Basically it is a circular argument: You need to buy into a certain amount of postmodernism in order to be allowed to debate with postmoderns. No you don't.

No, one does not need to read a complete chosen book on postmodernism to be able to express disagreement with its ideas. That should be fairly simple to anyone with a basic knowledge of scripture.

McLaren's idea of counting 'experience points' before expressing views against homosexuality is ridiculous. It is plain in scripture and authority comes from scripture not your own experience. Postmodernism promotes the idea of personal experience rather than objective truth as an authority.

No you don't need to follow Matthew 18 procedure before arguing online. Once a person has gone public with their views, you can argue back publicly. Online unless in a closed forum, is public. Paul did this against Peter as an example. GAL 2:14 "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

As for the non-emergent guy who wants us to read all the Targums in the original Aramaic before arguing with him, well, great strategy to silence everyone else, but our authority should be the Bible and not the Targums, which are a very loose but sometimes helpful Aramaic paraphrase.

Now as to the idea of engaging in conversation rather than debate. Sorry, but this presupposes a postmodern paradigm, which I do not share. That paradigm evades propositional statements and Yes/No, right/wrong choices. Yes, I will converse in many circumstances to better understand people, but in other instances I debate and here I debate.

I have also met this type of argument in other contexts. For example, some feminists say you can't argue on the abortion issue unless you are a woman - otherwise that proves you must be a male chauvanist.

Yes I do try listen to the other side but I believe the above rules are unreasonable.

AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?

AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?

Some 'emerging church' followers reading this blog are probably going to protest at some point and say 'you are misrepresenting me' and 'I don't believe that'. Or 'my pastor is a good Bible believing Christian and he is involved in this' - are you saying he is a heretic?

Types of emerging church leaders and participants

No. Firstly, there are many different streams in the emerging/ emergent church/ 'missional' movement. Secondly, the post-modern belief system itself encourages diversity of belief. Thirdly, different people joining the movement have mixed it in different proportions with Biblical Christianity. Some are mostly Biblical and a little post-modern. Others are mostly post-modern and a little biblical. Some fall within the boundaries of Orthodox Christianity, some do not. Fourthly, post-modern beliefs have logical implications, which will lead progressively to a straying away from belief in the Bible. New 'emerging church' followers have not realised where their new 'uncertain' Biblical interpretation method will lead them. For now most of them remain mostly biblical, but in a decade or two they will have strayed further. Future generations of 'emerging church' followers will probably slide all the way to apostasy and rejection of Christian ethics, as many modernists have done.

One must draw a very big distinction between Christians who are trying to reach ‘post-modern’ youth by adopting cultural elements of post-modernism in their style of preaching and service format on the one hand and Christians who are re-interpreting the Bible through a post-modern lens. Some of the former category, call themselves ‘emerging church’, while others do not. My big problem is with the latter category – and I would prefer if the former category disassociated with the latter type and called themselves something different.

There are some areas where Christianity does not clash with post-modernism and on these areas we can adapt without compromising on essentials to try to win over youth influenced by post-modernism. For example, post-modernists tend to prefer stories illustrating a point to abstract theory. Jesus also taught that way in his parables. The Bible is full of stories and so is your personal testimony. Secondly, one can cater for their desire for meaningful relationships. Thirdly, we can also affirm the unity of true orthodox Christians across sectarian boundaries. Fourthly, the emerging church often encourages experimenting with changing the format of the worship service, often re-including elements practised centuries ago or borrowing ideas from contemporary youth culture. While this should be done with caution, truth is sacred, but service format is not.

The issue is very similar to evangelising any culture. For example, there is good and bad in traditional African culture. For example the emphasis on the extended family is more biblical than Western culture. Nevertheless, as Christians, we can’t compromise with ancestor worship. Missionaries to post-moderns need to filter the good from the bad.
Answering the evangelistic argument

Now some orthodox, Bible believing Christians have aligned themselves with the ‘emerging movement’. For example Mark Driscoll writes “In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake.” http://www.theresurgence.com/welcome

Such people often see the ‘Emerging Church’ movement as a means to reach a generation of culturally post-modern youth. A question must be asked as to why they choose to align themselves in the same group and under the same name, with a movement whose principal leaders are not doctrinally orthodox Bible believers? By doing so, do they not risk lending credibility and leading others astray to follow the heretical leaders who share the same banner? Why do they not call themselves by another name and clearly disassociate themselves from the heretical leaders and beliefs? For example, they could use the name ‘Mission to Post-moderns’. By failing to demarcate a clear boundary between evangelical Christianity and the Post-modern adaptation of the gospel, they leave the door open for false teachers who use the same label and banner. The question is which direction is the influence mostly going? Are these Christians mostly influencing Post-moderns to become Orthodox Christians or are they leaving the door open for Orthodox Christians to be seduced into Postmodernism?

To respond to the evangelism argument, I would give two responses. Firstly, the main reason why Post-moderns fail to convert is not because the gospel is not formatted in a trendy culturally appealing ‘Post-modern way’. Actually, Post-moderns are generally more open to listen to the gospel than their Modernist predecessors, but they tend to just filter the gospel through their Post-modern lens, which treats it as just another opinion – and thus evade the challenge to repent of sin. They don’t see themselves as sinners because they don’t understand the concept of sin and thus don’t see any need to repent. Thus to really reach Post-moderns with the gospel, one needs to spend double the effort emphasising the differences with Biblical Christianity – the basic themes of absolute truth, God’s absolute moral standards, sin and repentance. Similarly a new generation of weak post-modern Christians has grown up who see their feelings as more important than their holiness and right belief. To really help such Christians, one needs to bring them back to orthodox Christian basics. I argue we need a more challenging gospel presentation emphasising the differences rather than the similarities with postmodernism.

Secondly, the emergent church tends to blur the focus in evangelism from calling the ‘lost to repentance’ to ‘dialogue’ with other religions. While this may result in less people being offended by Christianity, I believe it will likely lead to a diversion of effort from evangelism to ‘dialogue’, false conversions of those who have not really repented of their sins and ultimately less people being converted to the true faith.

Is there a difference? Emerging vs Emergent

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? EMERGING VS EMERGENT

Some have argued that I am being unfair in criticising the 'Emerging Church'. They draw a distinction, saying that the 'Emergent' church is different from the 'Emerging' church - with the 'Emergent' church being the more radical liberal wing of the movement and the 'Emerging' church being more mainstream.

Now to respond to this question firstly, I understand that there are different types of people within the movement, whatever you want to call it. Some are orthodox Christians and some are outright heretics, with a continuum of everything in between. One could compare it with the movement of socialism: There is a major difference between the socialism of the British labour party and that of the old Communist Soviet Union, but both use the same name 'socialist'.

The most substantial radical distinction between those in the movement is the difference between those who are 'Missionaries of historic orthodox trying to reach postmodern society' and those who are 'Missionaries of postmodernism to the church, trying to integrate it with Christianity'. Confusingly, both types of people sometimes call themselves 'Emerging'. Now I myself am also trying to reach postmodern society with the gospel and try to be culturally sensitive where this is possible without compromising, but do not wish to associate myself with the movement - but others do. And that creates confusion.

Some claim that 'Emerging' means the 'orthodox' wing and 'Emergent' means the unorthodox liberal wing of the movement. For example, read:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/1645/Jason_Carlson

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/september/38.59.html

Now the question is whether there is any widely accepted consensus on the difference of meaning of the terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent'? A brief internet search comes with the answer: 'No". Many leaders such as Don Carson (anti-) and Brian McLaren (pro-) use the two terms interchangably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Tony Jones (pro-) argues no distinction and opposes all 'line drawing'.
http://tonyj.net/2008/04/15/emerging-vs-emergent/

Doug Paggit defines 'Emergence' as what is happening in society; 'Emerging' as what is happening in the church as a result of the social changes; and 'Emergent Village' as the core network of leaders within the movement.
http://centraloregonemerge.com/2008/09/25/doug-pagitt-emergent-vs-emergin/
Those leaders associated with 'Emergent Village' have tended to 'emerge' with the most eccentric, liberal and extreme theological errors, which is probably why many have extended the use of the term 'Emergent' to mean the 'liberal' wing of the movement. But I would argue that these leaders are just those radicals who are most enthusiastic in reinterpreting Christianity through a post-modern lens - and their much larger constituency of orthodox evangelical followers are the laggards slowly following in the wrong direction behind them. The longer these people immerse themselves in postmodern thinking, the further they tend to stray down the road of error. In other words it is often a distinction between the 'wolves in sheeps clothing' and the 'sheep' following the wrong way with them.

Some have claimed all successfully trying to reach postmoderns e.g. Tim Keller, a conservative evangelical, as part of the 'Emerging Church',
http://www.theologyprof.com/mcknight-on-emergent-in-ct/
but Keller himself rejects the label.
http://gospelcenteredmusings.com/2007/06/20/tim-keller-on-if-his-redeemer-church-is-emergent/

Mark Driscoll is exceptional in that as part of the movement, he has distanced himself from some other emerging church leaders "In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Driscoll
I think such distancing from theological liberals is commendable and I would encourage others who identify themselves with the Emerging Church movement to do the same. Driscoll sees four categories of 'Emerging Church' of which he strongly rejects the liberal category.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080227/mars-hill-pastor-ditches-emerging-label-for-jesus.htm
Others have labelled him as 'a theological misfit and no longer emergent'
http://adrianwarnock.com/2006/03/mark-driscoll-theological-misfit-and.htm

I personally use the two terms 'Emerging' and 'Emergent' interchangably because that is what I see most others doing, but understand that others use them to mean different things. I personally wish that they did mean different things, because it would help me to draw a distinction between the orthodox evangelicals and the extremist unorthodox liberals. But reality is that there is no consensus on a distinction between these terms.

But if you happen to be one of those people who self-identifies with the Emerging Church, and is trying to reach postmoderns with historic orthodox Christianity without using postmodernism as a lens to re-interpret the Bible - then please understand that I am not attacking you. I personally believe it is unhelpful to share the same label as those who are spreading theological error in the church, but if you are not spreading error then I don't reject you as a Christian brother simply because of the label. But if you do wish to use this label, I would urge you to publicly distance yourself from the errant teachings being promoted by others who use the 'emerging' or 'emergent' label.

I would argue that those conservative evangelicals who want to reach postmoderns in a culturally relevant way, rather than trying to split hairs over the distinction between 'emerging' and 'emergent' should invent a completely new an different label for themselves to distance themselves from the emerging 'wolves in sheeps clothing' who are trying to reinterpret Christianity through the lens of postmodernism.

But my really big issue is actually not with those who self-identify as 'emerging' or 'emergent' - these are mostly just just the vanguard of the confusion. My issue is a concern about the millions of young Christians who without consciously realising it, have adopted the worldview of postmodernism and placed Christianity as just a minor sub-set or 'religious department' of this worldview - rather than seeing Jesus as Lord of all of life and the Bible, the word of God as authoratative for all of life. This is the 'Lost generation' of Christians who need to be brought back to authentic biblical Christianity and to use this real Christianity, relevant to all of life to reach and convert the unsaved from postmodernism to Christ.

Is the Bible out of date because it condones slavery?

One of the Emergents in a comment on a previous post wrote: "This leads into hermeneutics: would it have been possible for the authors of the Bible to refer to G-d in *any other way* other than male? I don't think this possibility entered their consciousness, just like the abolition of slavery was not something which entered their minds."

Now the use of the slavery issue is a common reason used by both modernist and post-modernist liberals to advance the 'progressivist' idea that Christianity is changing and moving forward in its belief rather than being a fixed for all time set of beliefs. Others have used the argument to justify a change in doctrine on homosexuality. The real issue is not our view of slavery, but our method of interpreting scripture and the unchanging binding authority which conservative envangelicals (but not modernists or postmodernists) believe it holds.

The argument is that we believe slavery is wrong, but don't derive this view from the Bible so we more 'modern' or 'postmodern' people can derive our ethics from places other than the Bible also.

I respond to this argument as follows:

The Biblical position on slavery is more complex than on most other issues. It is important to address, because some argue that because firstly, the Old Testament law allows slavery, and we do not. Secondly, the New Testament says slaves should submit to their masters, while we don't have it in our society. Therefore, they argue that ethics are progressing from Biblical times. This argument is then used to undermine the authority of the Bible for today, because it is seen as being culturally determined - a culture which is now outdated by our 'modern' or 'postmodern' culture. Therefore, new ethical and doctrinal ideas not in the Bible can be entertained and old ethical and doctrinal ideas that are in the Bible, but which don't suit our modern context can be dismissed.

We must look at it in the context that it was practiced as a form of labour management in various forms by almost all societies throughout the world until very recently. It is still practiced in some Islamic countries such as Sudan and Mauritania. The impetus to outlaw slavery was largely driven by Christians such as William Wilberforce, who were motivated by the scriptures. It is completely illegitimate therefore, for those who do not respect the scriptures to claim his historic reason to discount the authority of scripture. Rather, they need to study more carefully what the scripture says on the subject. The scriptural response to the issue is not as simple and absolute as on some other issues such as abortion, homosexuality and adultery.
Old covenant teaching on slavery

The Old Testament law allowed the slavery of Gentiles and 'indentured service' to a maximum of six years for Jews. In the seventh year, the slaves were to be released with substantial gifts to from their master to help them start a new life (Deuteronomy 15:12; Exodus 21:2). One of the reasons for God's judgement on Israel was their failure to observe this law of 7th year release. Now, while this 6-year indentured service is referred to in the Bible as "slavery", it is not the same thing as for example slavery as practiced in the American south prior to the Civil War. It is rather more similar to the few years of indentured service that the ancestors of most Indian South Africans had to give in exchange for payment of the cost of their voyage from India to South Africa. Many poor Europeans also immigrated to America after signing an 'indentured service contract' with the ship captain, who then sold the contract on their arrival in America to farmers who were looking for a few years of labour. Many university students sign contracts to work a certain number of years for a company after graduation in exchange for that company paying their university fees. If they break contract to work for another firm, then they must 'buy their freedom' and pay back their full study loan with interest - just as Hebrew slaves had to under Old Testament law. 'Indentured service' is not called slavery in our society and we should be careful against reading the Bible this way.

Firstly, the slave trade against which Wilberforce fought would not have been tolerated under Old Testament law, because kidnapping was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 24:7). "DT 24:7 If a man is caught kidnapping one of his brother Israelites and treats him as a slave or sells him, the kidnapper must die. You must purge the evil from among you." Applying this law to the 'Trans-Atlantic slave trade' of the 19th century, most of those involved would have to have been executed as kidnappers.

Secondly, the Israelite law did not respect the slave-owner rights of neighbouring peoples, thus providing the opportunity for slaves of other countries to run away to Israel. DT 23:15-16 "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him." This would substantially undermine legalized slavery in the region.

Thirdly, with regard to 'indentured-service' because of debt. This could be effected when a man was sold to pay debts as a result of business errors or it could be a result of an inability to pay a fine or make the law requiring multiple restitution for theft (Exodus 22:2). We must remember that under this system the man's time of servitude was limited to six years. It helped to ensure that victims of crime were properly compensated. It also meant that in the instance of bankruptcy, the creditors would at least get something back. Also, if the 'indentured-servant' was a hard worker and could earn some extra money on the side, he may be able to redeem himself from his master earlier than this 6-year period. Furthermore, the system benefited the 'indentured servant' because unlike our modern system of sending people to prison, the servant could still keep his family with him. Thus the family was not split up by the fathers' crime. This problem in our modern society has led to a terrible cycle of crime, poverty and family break-up amongst certain communities - where children grow up fatherless. The master would in this instance help teach good work skills and good work habits to the servant, thus making him more employable afterwards. By contrast, under our modern prisons system, thieves simply mix with more hardened criminals and come out of prison knowing more about crime and having even worse work habits. In addition, the taxpayer did not have the wasted expense of having to pay to keep a thief in prison. This form of 'indentured-servitude' was thus much better for the criminal, the victim and the taxpayer than the modern criminal justice system. The main difficulty in applying it today is our economic labour surplus. Criminals would effectively be advantaged in getting 'indentured-employment' over the other unemployed poor - potentially taking jobs away from them.

When the Israelites rebelled against Gods law, they failed to release their Hebrew slaves in the 7th year, which was one of the many sins against which the prophet Jeremiah spoke against and for which God later punished the Jews (Jeremiah 34:8-20).

Fourthly, the Old Testament law provided various protections of the rights of slaves not customary in the surrounding peoples. For example, they had to be allowed to rest on the Sabbath (Deuteronomy 5:14). There was a penalty for sexually taking advantage of a slave girl (Leviticus 19:20). The 'indentured-servant' retained the right of redemption anytime after he was sold based on the number of years left to the Sabbath year. He could redeem himself by extra work or one of his relatives could do so (Leviticus 25:47-52). If the servant was injured by his master, he had to be set free (Exodus 21:26-27). Likewise, if a man married a slave-girl, she had to be set free (Exodus 21:9). The law did not allow 'indentured-servants' to be abused and expected them to be treated similarly to other employees LEV 25:53 "He is to be treated as a man hired from year to year; you must see to it that his owner does not rule over him ruthlessly."

Apart from the 7-year limit, many of the practices of 19th century slavery such as 'slave-breeding' and the use of slaves as prostitutes would have been illegal under Old Testament law.

Thus when the Old Testament speaks of slavery of Jews, it is talking about 'indentured service', not permanent slavery.
The New Testament context

Now when we look at the issue in the New Testament context, there is a significant change. The brotherhood of Christians included both Jew and Gentile (Romans 10:12; Colossians 3:11), while the Old Testament law assumed a brotherhood only between Jews. Thus, if one applies an Old Testament law to Gentile Christians, one has to give them similar privileges to those previously reserved only for Jews. Thus the prohibition on keeping Hebrew slaves for more than seven years would now also apply to Gentiles also.

The Old Testament teaching helping slaves was repeated:

• While the New Testament does not forbid Christians to own slaves, it does instruct masters to treat them well (Colossians 4:1) and to treat Christian slaves as brothers (Philemon 1:16).
• Christian slaves were encouraged to try to earn their freedom (1 Corinthians 7:21).
• As in the Old Testament, slave trading (kidnapping) was forbidden (1 Timothy 1:10).

Then there is the question of how a Christian master would apply Jesus command 'love your neighbour' and 'do to others as you would have them do to you' to his slaves. Logically, in most cases, he would free them. This was in fact what happened in many instances. Usually not immediately, but gradually slaves were freed voluntarily by Christian masters in many slave-owning societies.

New Testament teaching carefully balances teaching on respect for all forms of human authority including slave masters (1 Peter 2:18) with responsibility of authorities including masters (Colossians 4:1) to act in accordance with Christian principles. It would not have helped slaves to gain their freedom had Paul encouraged them to rebel against their masters. It would just have resulted in a lot of conflict and in the event of a slave revolt - a bloodbath.

Looking at the issue in broader context, about a third of the population of the Roman Empire were slaves. If the early Christians had started at the outset to campaign for the abolition of slavery, it would have resulted in massive social upheaval that would not have been successful. The empire was under constant threat of slave-revolts that usually resulted in massive loss of life for slaves and other citizens. It is one thing to condemn slavery, but completely another to organise a peaceful transition from a slave-owning society to a free society. There are questions to look at like: Who will find employment from unemployed freed-slaves? Who will care for aged slaves who are no longer economically productive? There are issues here beyond the scope of this article.

The historical effect of Christian teaching

The Biblical teaching of respect for authority, whilst also reforming those authorities thus allowed Christianity to operate peacefully in a society where slavery was legal, without producing social chaos, while planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of slavery as an institution. That destruction came first through voluntary freeing of slaves; secondly through the end of enslavement/kidnapping/slave trading; thirdly through improving the rights and treatment of slaves and fourthly through making slavery itself illegal by extension of the Old Testament law against permanent slavery from Jews also to Gentiles.

Historically, the campaign against slavery by William Wilberforce in the British Empire was fuelled by the revival under John Wesley and the campaign against slavery in America by Abraham Lincoln was fuelled by the revival under Charles Finney. Both evangelists spoke out strongly against the practice and encouraged their politically minded followers to fight for abolition. It is questionable whether the political motivation for abolition would have existed without these revivals. Other Christians such as David Livingstone helped expose the evils of the trade - all of them staunch and unquestioning Bible believers - with strong respect and understanding of the scriptures.

The Christian teaching on slavery has been attacked by Islamists, Marxists and Liberals. Nevertheless, we must remember that it was Islamists who were responsible for devastating the African continent with slave raiding; laws only were passed against it a few decades ago in many modern Islamic countries and some still clandestinely practice it. Marxists and other socialists showed little or no interest in fighting for the rights of black Africans until they wanted their political support in the late 20th century. Furthermore, Marxists practiced a form of state slavery in their forced labour camps. Secular liberals, while condemning slavery today didn't do much against it when slavery was socially acceptable. It was evangelical Bible-believing Christians mainly who fought to destroy the institution.

With the rise of Christianity bringing these reforms, slavery faded away first from Europe, then the British Empire; then America and the rest of the world. Therefore, it is completely consistent for the Christian to support the apostle Paul in his context in encouraging slaves to submit to their masters and to support William Wilberforce in his context of the fight to outlaw slavery. Both of these positions can be supported by scripture and it is not necessary to diminish respect for the authority of scripture by supporting both. Therefore, those who try to use the shift in policy on the issue of slavery as justification to dismiss Biblical teaching on other issues are ill informed.

Can God be referred to in the feminine?

Can God be referred to in the feminine?

The post-modern/emergent method of interpreting scripture makes a number of incorrect postmodern assumptions and therefore leads people astray into all kinds of error. The latest example of this I found in the 'South African Emerging Church conversation' is referring to God in the feminine. Not that all emergents do this, but it is another example of how the movement leads people into error and tolerance of it.

Postmodernism and the Emerging Church assume amongst other things:
* The scripture is unclear on all sorts of issues where it is in fact clear. This leaves us free to doubt, question and speculate endlessly about even the fundamentals of theology.
* Belief is a personal and subjective opinion (rather certain truths being absolute) and we should respect eachothers opinions.
* We should refrain from saying that anyone else's opinion is wrong - meaning that errrant beliefs are not corrected.

http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/

Tim writes: "I've adopted "Godde" as it is comfortably spoken as "God" - fitting easier into language - and a suitable amalgamation of God and Goddess and being much less clumsy in writing than "God/Goddess" or "God/-ess". I retain "S/He" where it fits and also make use of both "He" and "She" in other places, according to context."

http://www.facebook.com/inbox/?ref=mb#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905

Now to respond briefly to the various arguments raised on the blog links above:

* God has revealed himself as Father (not mother) and Jesus revealed himself in human form as a man (not a woman).

* Yes, I accept the argument that the image of God is shown in both male and female as a unity (as in Genesis 1-2) and not man alone. Nevertheless, I don't believe this permits us to refer to God equally as masculine and feminine. Had this been God's intention one would have found interchangable male and female references in the Bible (which one does not).

* Yes, I accept that prior to the incarnation of Christ taking on human form, God did not have a human physical body and in that sense cannot be male. Nevertheless, this is not an excuse to refer to him in the feminine. Rather the earthly concept of gender revealed in creation is a reflection of the mysterious relationship between men (human beings male and female) and God - in which God always takes the masculine (leadership role) and we take the following feminine role (or sometimes the childl following the father role). That is the pattern of the images of God and Israel and the images of the Church (Ephesians 5).

* The feminists would probably protest that assumption of human gender roles, but that is probably why they attack the gender references to God. Nevertheless, I understand the above quoted writer says he does not base his argument on feminism.

* To respond to the argument that gender ceases in heaven because there is no marriage in heaven: Yes, true, there is no marriage between people in heaven, but there is the macro scale marriage between the people of God (the bride of Christ - female) and Christ (male). Earthly marriages are just a shadow of this great mysterious cosmic marriage. So from this perspective, the gender references to God and Christ continue to be relevant.

* To respond to the argument that Christ ceases to be male, but becomes somehow both genders after his resurrection. I don't know where you get this idea from the Bible? Jesus physical body was the same physical body he had before his resurrection. It could still eat food, talk and be touched. There was no physical body left behind in the grave. It was the same body, but now glorified. Jesus in Revelation is referred to as a king - not a queen. This idea should be dismissed.

* To respond to the argument about references to feminine characterists of God in scripture. These are all in the poetic form of a simile i.e. 'God is like'. They do not say 'God is'. As a generalisation, women are better nurturers than men and tend to be more caring etc. Nevertheless, if a man happens to have such characteristics it does not then make him female.

* All God's names in the Bible are masculine.

Nevertheless, this is only one example of an errant Emerging Church belief. There are thousands of others. But if one starts with the wrong assumptions, then one will end up with a variety of wrong conclusions. Therefore I argue that postmodernism is dangerous when used as a lens to interpret scriptural doctrine and ethics.

Quotes from the 'Emerging Church Conversation' in South Africa

SOME QUOTES FROM THE 'EMERGING CHURCH CONVERSATION' IN SOUTH AFRICA

To give an idea of the ideas being entertained often by leaders in the so called 'Emerging Church conversation' in South Africa, read the following quotes and follow the links. Many older pastors simply don't know the unorthodox ideas and viewpoints being discussed within the South African 'Emerging Church' movement - and thus fail to take action to speak up against and correct false teachings being spread by the movement. Should you have any other unorthodox quotes you wish to contribute to this blog, please post them as a comment below, with internet links please to authenticate. The quotes below should help everyone to see the dangerous consequences of using the ideology of postmodernism to interpret scripture.

Now some may say that most of the quotes below are not clearly taking a position, but just discussing ideas. That is one of the problems with debating postmodernists - they tend to evade making propositional statements of belief - meaning that they are very slippery to try debate against. For them truth is seen as subjective and personal rather than absolute and objective. Doubt of truth is a virtue or sign of sophistication and 'tolerance' rather than a sin. Therefore they tend to put most of their effort into undermining/erroding others absolute concepts of truth rather than proposing or defending any clear set of believes of their own. For this reason, one cannot defeat'postmodernism' simply by arguing against their defined positions - because they have few if any to argue against. Neither can one defeat them by simply 'engaging in conversation' because then one simply becomes another subjective voice in a conversation which is promoting doubt of truth. One cannot defeat postmodernism by using logic, because they do not believe in a unitary system of logic. One can only argue logically with someone who values logic and believes in objective truth. What one has to do is to show those who have not gone too far down the road of postmodernism, where their presuppositions lead by exposing their spreading of doubt in the clarity of scripture.

I have put names of those who have taken a high profile and can be deemed public figures and just initials of those who have not, although with their permission I would be happy to add their names. If anyone is offended by me quoting them here, please delete your statement referenced elsewhere and I will delete it here.

UNIVERSALISM AND HELL

"I think that even if a Christian didn't believe in universalism, they should want to! In other words, they'd want everyone to know and love God, because that's best for, well, everyone.

Is universalism, in itself threatening? I don't think so. What it *does* threaten is hermeneutics, theology and eschatology. And it can't be divorced from those, so that any discussion of the one necessarily leads to, and is influenced by, the others. Some of these are sacred cows, some are good theology. This is why it's fascinating to think about it :)" [Roger Saner]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066

"I personally believe that one can only come to God through Christ though I also believe that devout Jews will also go to Heaven if they live good lives. I know that that's a little bit dodge but that's what my heart feels." [SVO]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

ON THE GENDER OF GOD

"The NT notion is one of a herald or envoy who announces the reign of God/-ess/Christ and brings it into effect." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3142

"That's a good summary of the various positions and they can all be argued. I would think that a loving God/-ess who does distinguish the "sheep from the goats" actually annihilates opposition rather than tortures them eternal." [T.V.]
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=3142&post=27425&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=3066

"As historical person Jesus was male, as risen LORD Jesus is transformed and remains embodied but just as S/He transcends the limitations of our bodies so too does S/He transcend the male gender S/He had prior to the resurrection. Jesus’ humanhood continues but Jesus’ manhood does not...

It is inappropriate to continue using masculine references for Godde if by doing so we are relegating feminine references to an inferior or worse, e.g. ungodly, place. It is especially in light of this that we ought to take up the contribution from our culture, the contribution of gender-inclusive language, as a vehicle for communicating Godde clearer."

http://timvictor.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/de-gendering-god-en-gendering-godde/

I respond in more detail to some of Tim's arguments at
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=5905&post=27662&uid=2419328874#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=5905

HOMOSEXUALITY

"Every single text dealing with homosexual activity in the Bible also refers aggravating circumstances such as inhospitality, idolatory, shrine prostitution, adultery, promiscuity, lust, violence and rape. Not one of these verses has a monogamous relationship in mind. Not one! Condemning someone to eternal damnation on such tenuous evidence would therefore seem a very dangerous thing to do..." [Graeme Codrington]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality

"In my own discussion I put forward that if we represent a God who loves(agape) unconditionally...then shouldn't we be inclusive and affirming in our approach to homosexual relationships." [A.V.]

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891

"Therefore, I have to ask you again, to explain how homosexuality hurts people who are not homosexual. Because only by affirming that there are real victims can you rely on most of the arguments you've put forward here." [DB]
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/topic.php?uid=2419328874&topic=2891

Your comments on this blog

Please post your general comments on this blog here.

Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism

Why Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten Missions and World Evangelism

Many Christians view Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement as a somewhat intellectual issue or otherwise the domain of young high-tech bloggers and not really relevant to the issues facing the core objectives of the church. In this article I argue why acceptance of postmodernism in the church threatens to undermine the task of world evangelism in the areas of: the meaning of the gospel; our right to proclaim the gospel; our response to persecution for evangelism; postmodernists misunderstanding of the gospel; and our approach for presenting the gospel.

Postmodernism is not a faraway threat. It has already deeply infiltrated the Evangelical Church, influenced the way we do church especially amongst the youth and especially the American church – but since the American church is often a centre of influence for the rest of the world, through publishing and, high profile speakers – many in South Africa are following the trend. The ‘Emerging Church’ is the formal expression of these beliefs. But informally, millions of Christians who don’t identify themselves as ‘emerging church’ already believe the same things.

How is Postmodernism influencing missions and evangelism? Ask the average Christian to stop a stranger in the street and explain the gospel, and firstly he will probably struggle to present it clearly. Secondly, he will probably question whether he has a right to stop a stranger in the street to explain the gospel. Both of these responses are influenced by postmodernism.

Firstly, it has changed the way most Christian youth view the meaning and purpose of the gospel – our core message. The traditional biblical gospel is that we have all sinned against God and are thus under his wrath and so deserve to burn in hell for eternity. But the good news is that Jesus has died and suffered in our place and if we believe this, repent of our sins and confess him as Lord, then he will save us and give us eternal life. But now we have a variety of alternative gospels based on postmodernism. An example of a new gospel is this: We all have problems which upset us and make us unhappy. Christianity offers a better alternative lifestyle and to do so, we should believe in Jesus and follow his example. If we do we will have a much more successful, happy and fulfilling life. There are many other variations on this example postmodern gospel. Basically, the gospel becomes user-friendly and here to help us. What is missing? The cross, hell, sin, repentance, eternal life. Sin, if mentioned at all is seen in terms of the harm it does to us, rather than the offence against God. The differences between the traditional biblical gospel and the new postmodern gospels are massive. Needless to say, if Christians are missing out the ‘politically incorrect’ parts in their presentation of the gospel, they are not presenting the true gospel and this is unlikely to result in many true conversions.

Secondly, Postmodernism has shifted the approach to evangelism and missions. The traditional approach to evangelism, used to be a confrontation with absolute truth and a demand to repent of sin against God (see the example of Acts 2). Now before Postmodernism arrived, the seeker-sensitive church movement began looking for ways of attracting people to come to church without offending them. This is a legitimate approach to evangelism and has resulted in some salvations. Nevertheless, there are problems. Firstly, if this is used as the only approach to evangelism, then a lot of people who are not interested in church are never going to hear the gospel. Secondly, if the gospel message itself is softened to avoid offending non-Christians then the problems mentioned in the previous paragraph arise. But now Postmodernism and the Emerging Church have taken another step away from traditional evangelism. They advocate instead the ‘conversational’ approach of dialogue. In other words, just talk to people to try to find common points of agreement and try to both understand eachother and maybe some might convert – if they don’t then you will have maybe done some other good such as promoting world peace. Christianity is then presented as an alternative lifestyle of the individual rather than absolute truth. It becomes another ‘choice’. Thus the presentation of the gospel is progressively weakened by the approach used. Traditional Christianity presented the Jesus as ‘The Way’, ‘The Truth’, ‘The life’. Postmodernism presents Jesus as ‘A Way’, ‘A Truth, ‘A Life’. The difference is massive. No more demand for repentance from the sin of rebellion against God. Just a conversation about personal religious beliefs. This is happening on a global scale as Emergent church leaders seek dialogue with other religious leaders – and sometimes some of their seeker-sensitive friends have joined them. It also happens on the local scale where Christians just ‘converse’ about religion instead of trying to convert their unsaved neighbours. Now there is nothing wrong with conversation as a prelude to evangelism, but often ‘dialogue’ substitutes for genuine ‘evangelism’. A risk is that Christians can be giving missions money to charitable works and ‘missions’ led by postmodernists, who are not using the money to present the gospel at all, but simply to do good works and engage in fruitless ‘dialogue’.

Thirdly, Postmodernists don’t see an automatic right and duty to preach the gospel to all creation (Matthew 28). Rather, they believe one has to ‘earn’ the right to present the gospel to someone without offending them by first doing good works and building relationships to present a good image of Christianity and avoid offending them. Now there is nothing wrong with doing good works and building relationships to help win people, but if we have to first ‘earn’ our credibility in these ways, then will we ever have done enough to earn the right to speak? The result is that Christians are timid and afraid to present the gospel, because like trying to earn God’s approval, we are always insecure. No. We tell people the gospel for their good because the Lord commanded us to. He has given us authority to do so – we do not need to earn it or get anyone else’s permission to do so.

Fourthly, Postmodernism is affecting Christians attitudes towards other Christians being persecuted for preaching the gospel. Since they are themselves unwilling to suffer for their faith or even present the gospel to their close friends, they find it hard to understand why Christians in other countries are willing to endure jail and torture in Islamic and Communist countries for breaking the law to preach the gospel. Therefore they fail to lobby governments such as China, Iran and Saudi Arabia to stop such persecution. Persecuting government officials can happily visit and trade with free countries in the west without being confronted with their human rights abuse by Christians in the free countries. This new postmodern attitude to persecution means that the gospel can be restricted by ideologically opposed governments with impunity.

Fifthly, Postmodernism has changed the way that unconverted people interpret the gospel in Postmodern countries, such as North America, Europe and the educated class in South Africa. When Modernism was popular, people generally derided the gospel as ‘unscientific’ or ‘backward’ and did not want to hear it. Now with Postmodernism, they are quite happy to listen, but re-interpret the gospel through a postmodern lens. They view the presentation of the gospel as just an account of someone’s personal preference and experiences – not a challenge to repent of sin against a Holy God. Therefore we have to emphasise and repeat those aspects of the gospel which are politically incorrect until they hopefully get the idea that this is THE TRUTH, THE ONLY WAY no ‘a truth’, or ‘a way’. We have to emphasise that the gospel is absolute and the only truth. Sadly, I believe that much media presentation of the gospel is wrongly interpreted by the listeners and thus they miss it.

Modernism/Liberalism gutted the missions efforts of the mainline Protestant Churches in the 1920’s and 30’s. Postmodernism and the Emerging Church threaten to do the same to modern missions. Therefore as part of the task of world evangelism and missions, the ideology of postmodernism and the Emerging church must be fought and defeated at home.

Are aspects of the Emerging Church compatable with Christian faith?

I changed the heading of this post following some detailed and interesting comments below, to better describe the topic of the comments received. Please read comments below.

Baptist Union responds to Codrington's homosexual article

The Baptist Union of South Africa (BUSA) has recently responded to the publication of Graeme Codrington's article in their magazine by reaffirming their position against same-sex partnerships and saying that it was a serious error of judgment to publish a “perspective” that is neither evangelical nor representative of the Baptist Union.

Their statement passed by unanimous resolution with no abstentions at the recent 2008 General Assembly meeting stated:

SCRIPTURE AND “LOVING GAY PARTNERSHIPS

The BUSA reaffirms its conviction, based on the authority of Scripture, that God ordained marriage as a unique heterosexual union between a man and a woman. The Bible does not recognise the legitimacy of “same sex marriage”. On the contrary, the physical expression of same gender sexuality is condemned as sinful in both the Old and New Testaments.

We confess that the church has often failed to display the love of Christ in ministering to gay people. However, our conviction about homosexual practice isn’t motivated by a loveless legalism or homophobia but rather by our obedience to the clear teaching of Scripture. We believe that the re-interpretation of the Biblical texts, so as to allow for a “loving gay partnership”, is a distortion of what the Bible consistently teaches.