Posts
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, October 31, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality
Response to re-interpretation of Scriptures on homosexuality
[Introductory note by blog editor Philip Rosenthal: The following article is a response to an article 'Perspectives on homosexuality' by Graeme Codrington published in Issue 3, 2008 of Baptists Today. Codrington's article concludes "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..." Codrington is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church in South Africa www.futurechurch.co.za and it is understood that his views are influenced by a postmodern/emergent interpretation of scripture.]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------
Following article by Rev Mark Christopher, Living Hope Bible Church, Wynberg
It is often true that the debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality and the church has produced more heat than light. Certainly as custodians of God’s word, the church has a tremendous responsibility to address current issues, like homosexuality, in a biblically responsible way. We constantly need to remind ourselves that we must hold truth in one hand while clutching compassion in the other hand. The danger here is imbalance in either direction.
The popular maxim “What would Jesus do?” certainly applies to the issue of homosexuality. The problem today is that there are contrasting views and dissonant voices regarding just exactly what Jesus would do in response to homosexuals.
So why is there now confusion on an issue that has been fairly cut-and-dried for over 2000 years? What has changed? The answer is fairly simple and can be found in the advent of a new method of interpretation. Over the last 40 years there has been a subtle paradigm shift in the way some professing evangelicals interpret the Bible. As western society has become more postmodern, segments of the church, like the emerging church, have followed suite. In the process a New Hermeneutic has emerged to replace the literal and plain sense approach to God’s word.
One of the predominate characteristics of this new approach is that it does not simply refine the traditional method, but it completely revises it by starting with the interpreter’s context instead of the original author’s. This produces a high degree of subjectivity and suspicion, which is then injected into the text as the interpreter seeks a revised understanding of what has been plainly understood for centuries.
The postmodern interpretation gave rise to the pro-gay interpretation (PGI)
of the Bible. The PGI is heavily reliant on current culture and various philosophical streams of existential thought. This leads to the exchange of word meanings while critical aspects of a verses’ context are ignored. Sodom in Genesis 19:5 illustrates this well : PGI advocates erroneously claim the phrase “that we might know them” (yada) refers to hospitality. Yet, 19:8 uses yada in an obvious context of sexuality. The PGI conveniently avoid 19:8.
As it relates to homosexuality, the PGI begins with two cardinal presuppositions which clouds their interpretation and application of related verses : The first assumption PGI practitioners begin with is that homosexuality is a result of genetic orientation. This has never been satisfactorily proven. The science used to promote this idea is dubious at best. While it might be that some are inclined toward homosexuality that is not the same as saying one is consigned to that lifestyle. If one is only inclined, then change is possible for a new creature in Christ! Science, whether good or bad, should never serve as the launching pad for our interpretation.
The second assumption of the PGI approach supposes since homosexuality is a result of orientation, then surely there must be some allowance in scripture for those of same-sex persuasion to be true to themselves. The caveat here specifies a “loving and monogamous relationship”. Never mind that the term monogamous refers to marriage (gamos) not a stable live-in situation.
This whole idea runs directly counter to the many studies done regarding “monogamous” homosexual relationships. In the study The Male Couple 156 male couples were studied and only 7 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. Interestingly, all 7 couples had been together less than 5 years. The research suggests that monogamy is quite rare in homosexual couples and is the exception rather than the rule. It is therefore unrealistic to entertain the notion of relational fidelity among same-sex couples in the church.
Rather than relying on the two fallow assumptions above, we want to take our queue from one bedrock passage, Genesis 1-3. For in Genesis God established His unchanging boundaries for human sexuality within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This, combined with an understanding of the role of the Old Testament (OT) law in the New Testament (NT), should form the basis for rightly evaluating pro-gay arguments in the rest of scripture.
Genesis 1-3 is often overlooked by PGI advocates. Yet, we ignore this essential passage and its foundational forming truths to our own detriment. Though these three chapters do not speak directly of homosexuality, the foundation for understanding God’s parameters for human sexuality and gender distinction are well established here. Let us consider six contextual observations from creation that directly impact the rest of scripture. These should serve to frame the homosexual debate:
· Creation order : The first two chapters of Genesis quickly establish a pattern of creation order (1:1-2:24). The ancient Hebrew acquired his view of order based on the creative and sustaining power of Yahweh. The “goodness” in creation lies in its ordered state. An example of this principle is found in the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18: 1-30, which were given to restore and preserve God’s “good” order. Leviticus 18 details how social order in Israel was only “good” when the social network of familial relationships is properly ordered. Therefore, incest violates the order of kinship (18:6-18); homosexuality violates the order of gender distinction (18:22); and bestiality violates the order of species (18:23). These sexual boundaries were established at creation. Any violation here introduces chaos and confusion into human relationships, as our own age amply testifies.
· Gender distinction : Genesis 1:26-28 uses specific terminology to establish the distinction between the sexes—male (ish) and female (issha). The general term used for “man” in the OT is adam (1:26), which speaks of humankind as a species. Genesis 1:27 uniquely differentiates adam into specific genders of male and female. Both unique biology and chromosomal distinction bear witness to this. This vital distinction is maintained throughout the whole of scripture.
· God’s image : As a subsequent corollary, Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man is distinct from the rest of creation because humanity is created in the image of God. Both genders reflect that image in very different, yet, complementary ways. A man and a woman together in a marital relationship mirror the image of God in ways the rest of creation can not. Any attempt to change this image through the androgynizing effects (merging of the sexes) of homosexuality, transexuality, or transvestism results in marring God’s image.
· Procreation : In Genesis 1:28 the man and the woman are blessed with the task of being the progenitors of the human race. In this, procreation is portrayed in a positive and normative light. This heterosexual union is the standard relationship for achieving this according to Genesis 2:24. Though procreation is not the only reason for sexuality, it is a very good reason which is often neglected and scoffed at in our pansexual age.
· Marriage : The first marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:18-25. The only aspect of God’s pre-fall creation that was “not good” was Adam being alone. So God blessed Adam with a complement (help meet) who made up that which was lacking in Adam! Though Eve was very different from Adam, she was still much like him. She was the perfect corresponding opposite for Adam. It is this relationship that ultimately serves to mirror and illustrate the relationship that Christ has with His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). To reinforce his argument, Paul reaffirms the creation ideal as he makes this comparison (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7ff)! Clearly, same-sex relationships can never adequately reflect the relationship Christ has with His Bride.
John Piper summarizes the original purpose for marriage well, “Eve was like Adam yet very unlike him … this provides a unique opportunity for profound unity, and intimacy to exist. In this we see that God created heterosexuality not homosexuality. God’s first institution was marriage not fraternity.”
· Reaffirmed : One might rightly ask if the creation account is maintained throughout scripture? Did God ever amend His plan? Significantly, when Christ was being grilled by the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, how did He respond? In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus reasserted the creation mandate from Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:24! Even in light of the fall, God’s original blueprint remains unaltered. The fall and the resulting curse just make it more difficult to maintain. This highlights the need for redemption.
Those who maintain that Jesus never condemned homosexuality rely on unconvincing arguments from silence. Christ never condemned other forms of sexual deviancy either--like bestiality, peadophilia, incest, necrophilia, or fornication. But when He underscored the Genesis account for marriage He said all that ever needed to be said on the issue. By reaffirming the creation ideal of heterosexual monogamy, Jesus covered all the potential bases in one succinct and definitive statement!
Another biblical context that is often summarily dismissed in the PGI scheme is the place of OT law in the NT. PGI logic assumes that passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are just as irrelevant as dietary laws and the mixing of fabrics. Yet, Romans 10:4 declares that “Christ is the end of the law.” This means Christ was the crescendo of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In view of His finished work on the cross, Christ is now superimposed over the Mosaic law and has transformed it into the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
So the law remains an authoritative part of scripture. But now law must be read through the lens of the cross. For example, we do not need animal sacrifice to stand in the presence of God, but we do need sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise, the husband who loves his wife, as Christ does the Church, will duly consider his menstruating wife’s (Leviticus 20:18) needs and condition above and beyond his own.
The law of Christ insures moral unity exists between the OT and NT. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with an animal, to commit adultery, and to commit homosexual acts. God’s standard of righteousness has never been altered, but these righteous demands were met by Christ.
In light of His affirmation of the creation account, plus His perspective on the law, how would Christ respond to homosexuality today (WWJD)? The literal method of interpretation can confidently assert that Jesus would unashamedly preach the gospel, as He did to the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Upon repentance, He would utter these glorious words of liberty, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”! How can His church do any less?
(Note: Due the space limitations it was not possible to deal with many arguments often marshaled by the pro-gay advocates. Those wanting a summary paper answering many of arguments can download this summary at www.lhbc.co.za . Just follow the link Papers and Booklets.)
[Introductory note by blog editor Philip Rosenthal: The following article is a response to an article 'Perspectives on homosexuality' by Graeme Codrington published in Issue 3, 2008 of Baptists Today. Codrington's article concludes "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..." Codrington is a leading proponent of the Emerging Church in South Africa www.futurechurch.co.za and it is understood that his views are influenced by a postmodern/emergent interpretation of scripture.]
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality
--------------------------------------------------
Following article by Rev Mark Christopher, Living Hope Bible Church, Wynberg
It is often true that the debate surrounding the issue of homosexuality and the church has produced more heat than light. Certainly as custodians of God’s word, the church has a tremendous responsibility to address current issues, like homosexuality, in a biblically responsible way. We constantly need to remind ourselves that we must hold truth in one hand while clutching compassion in the other hand. The danger here is imbalance in either direction.
The popular maxim “What would Jesus do?” certainly applies to the issue of homosexuality. The problem today is that there are contrasting views and dissonant voices regarding just exactly what Jesus would do in response to homosexuals.
So why is there now confusion on an issue that has been fairly cut-and-dried for over 2000 years? What has changed? The answer is fairly simple and can be found in the advent of a new method of interpretation. Over the last 40 years there has been a subtle paradigm shift in the way some professing evangelicals interpret the Bible. As western society has become more postmodern, segments of the church, like the emerging church, have followed suite. In the process a New Hermeneutic has emerged to replace the literal and plain sense approach to God’s word.
One of the predominate characteristics of this new approach is that it does not simply refine the traditional method, but it completely revises it by starting with the interpreter’s context instead of the original author’s. This produces a high degree of subjectivity and suspicion, which is then injected into the text as the interpreter seeks a revised understanding of what has been plainly understood for centuries.
The postmodern interpretation gave rise to the pro-gay interpretation (PGI)
of the Bible. The PGI is heavily reliant on current culture and various philosophical streams of existential thought. This leads to the exchange of word meanings while critical aspects of a verses’ context are ignored. Sodom in Genesis 19:5 illustrates this well : PGI advocates erroneously claim the phrase “that we might know them” (yada) refers to hospitality. Yet, 19:8 uses yada in an obvious context of sexuality. The PGI conveniently avoid 19:8.
As it relates to homosexuality, the PGI begins with two cardinal presuppositions which clouds their interpretation and application of related verses : The first assumption PGI practitioners begin with is that homosexuality is a result of genetic orientation. This has never been satisfactorily proven. The science used to promote this idea is dubious at best. While it might be that some are inclined toward homosexuality that is not the same as saying one is consigned to that lifestyle. If one is only inclined, then change is possible for a new creature in Christ! Science, whether good or bad, should never serve as the launching pad for our interpretation.
The second assumption of the PGI approach supposes since homosexuality is a result of orientation, then surely there must be some allowance in scripture for those of same-sex persuasion to be true to themselves. The caveat here specifies a “loving and monogamous relationship”. Never mind that the term monogamous refers to marriage (gamos) not a stable live-in situation.
This whole idea runs directly counter to the many studies done regarding “monogamous” homosexual relationships. In the study The Male Couple 156 male couples were studied and only 7 couples had a totally exclusive sexual relationship. Interestingly, all 7 couples had been together less than 5 years. The research suggests that monogamy is quite rare in homosexual couples and is the exception rather than the rule. It is therefore unrealistic to entertain the notion of relational fidelity among same-sex couples in the church.
Rather than relying on the two fallow assumptions above, we want to take our queue from one bedrock passage, Genesis 1-3. For in Genesis God established His unchanging boundaries for human sexuality within the context of a heterosexual marriage. This, combined with an understanding of the role of the Old Testament (OT) law in the New Testament (NT), should form the basis for rightly evaluating pro-gay arguments in the rest of scripture.
Genesis 1-3 is often overlooked by PGI advocates. Yet, we ignore this essential passage and its foundational forming truths to our own detriment. Though these three chapters do not speak directly of homosexuality, the foundation for understanding God’s parameters for human sexuality and gender distinction are well established here. Let us consider six contextual observations from creation that directly impact the rest of scripture. These should serve to frame the homosexual debate:
· Creation order : The first two chapters of Genesis quickly establish a pattern of creation order (1:1-2:24). The ancient Hebrew acquired his view of order based on the creative and sustaining power of Yahweh. The “goodness” in creation lies in its ordered state. An example of this principle is found in the sexual prohibitions of Leviticus 18: 1-30, which were given to restore and preserve God’s “good” order. Leviticus 18 details how social order in Israel was only “good” when the social network of familial relationships is properly ordered. Therefore, incest violates the order of kinship (18:6-18); homosexuality violates the order of gender distinction (18:22); and bestiality violates the order of species (18:23). These sexual boundaries were established at creation. Any violation here introduces chaos and confusion into human relationships, as our own age amply testifies.
· Gender distinction : Genesis 1:26-28 uses specific terminology to establish the distinction between the sexes—male (ish) and female (issha). The general term used for “man” in the OT is adam (1:26), which speaks of humankind as a species. Genesis 1:27 uniquely differentiates adam into specific genders of male and female. Both unique biology and chromosomal distinction bear witness to this. This vital distinction is maintained throughout the whole of scripture.
· God’s image : As a subsequent corollary, Genesis 1:26-28 declares that man is distinct from the rest of creation because humanity is created in the image of God. Both genders reflect that image in very different, yet, complementary ways. A man and a woman together in a marital relationship mirror the image of God in ways the rest of creation can not. Any attempt to change this image through the androgynizing effects (merging of the sexes) of homosexuality, transexuality, or transvestism results in marring God’s image.
· Procreation : In Genesis 1:28 the man and the woman are blessed with the task of being the progenitors of the human race. In this, procreation is portrayed in a positive and normative light. This heterosexual union is the standard relationship for achieving this according to Genesis 2:24. Though procreation is not the only reason for sexuality, it is a very good reason which is often neglected and scoffed at in our pansexual age.
· Marriage : The first marriage is recorded in Genesis 2:18-25. The only aspect of God’s pre-fall creation that was “not good” was Adam being alone. So God blessed Adam with a complement (help meet) who made up that which was lacking in Adam! Though Eve was very different from Adam, she was still much like him. She was the perfect corresponding opposite for Adam. It is this relationship that ultimately serves to mirror and illustrate the relationship that Christ has with His bride, the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33). To reinforce his argument, Paul reaffirms the creation ideal as he makes this comparison (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7ff)! Clearly, same-sex relationships can never adequately reflect the relationship Christ has with His Bride.
John Piper summarizes the original purpose for marriage well, “Eve was like Adam yet very unlike him … this provides a unique opportunity for profound unity, and intimacy to exist. In this we see that God created heterosexuality not homosexuality. God’s first institution was marriage not fraternity.”
· Reaffirmed : One might rightly ask if the creation account is maintained throughout scripture? Did God ever amend His plan? Significantly, when Christ was being grilled by the Pharisees on the issue of divorce, how did He respond? In Matthew 19:4-6 and Mark 10:5-9, Jesus reasserted the creation mandate from Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:24! Even in light of the fall, God’s original blueprint remains unaltered. The fall and the resulting curse just make it more difficult to maintain. This highlights the need for redemption.
Those who maintain that Jesus never condemned homosexuality rely on unconvincing arguments from silence. Christ never condemned other forms of sexual deviancy either--like bestiality, peadophilia, incest, necrophilia, or fornication. But when He underscored the Genesis account for marriage He said all that ever needed to be said on the issue. By reaffirming the creation ideal of heterosexual monogamy, Jesus covered all the potential bases in one succinct and definitive statement!
Another biblical context that is often summarily dismissed in the PGI scheme is the place of OT law in the NT. PGI logic assumes that passages like Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are just as irrelevant as dietary laws and the mixing of fabrics. Yet, Romans 10:4 declares that “Christ is the end of the law.” This means Christ was the crescendo of the law. He did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. In view of His finished work on the cross, Christ is now superimposed over the Mosaic law and has transformed it into the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2).
So the law remains an authoritative part of scripture. But now law must be read through the lens of the cross. For example, we do not need animal sacrifice to stand in the presence of God, but we do need sacrifice—the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise, the husband who loves his wife, as Christ does the Church, will duly consider his menstruating wife’s (Leviticus 20:18) needs and condition above and beyond his own.
The law of Christ insures moral unity exists between the OT and NT. It has always been wrong to murder, rape, steal, to have sexual relations with an animal, to commit adultery, and to commit homosexual acts. God’s standard of righteousness has never been altered, but these righteous demands were met by Christ.
In light of His affirmation of the creation account, plus His perspective on the law, how would Christ respond to homosexuality today (WWJD)? The literal method of interpretation can confidently assert that Jesus would unashamedly preach the gospel, as He did to the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8:1-11. Upon repentance, He would utter these glorious words of liberty, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more.”! How can His church do any less?
(Note: Due the space limitations it was not possible to deal with many arguments often marshaled by the pro-gay advocates. Those wanting a summary paper answering many of arguments can download this summary at www.lhbc.co.za . Just follow the link Papers and Booklets.)
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why so much interest in Emerging Church in South Africa?
Please click the link below to see some really interesting data on Google searches on the term 'emerging church'. South Africa ranks second after the United States, which is amazing considering our small population with broadband access. I was told by a Scottish minister that the Emerging church is not making much of an impact in the United Kingdom compared with America. Also interesting the number of Emerging Church leaders who have recently been in South Africa or are currently here: Brian McLaren, Scott McKnight, Shane Claireborne. I can't say what the reason is, but wonder if factors could include a post-apartheid and post-marxism ideological vacuum, which it is trying to fill. Also note the publicity it has had in the past 12 months with articles in Today Magazine, Joy Magazine and Baptists Today. So not all these searches are people necessarily in favour of it, but maybe just curious as to what it is about.
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=emerging%20church&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=&q=emerging%20church&geo=&date=&clp=&cmpt=q
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Emergents respond to Joy magazine article on Emerging Church
Certain Emerging Church supporters have responded to the July 2008 article on the Emerging Church.
http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/08/06/joy-magazine-ec
http://www.futurechurch.co.za/item/lies-about-truth
I also posted some dialogue responding on the first blog.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement
Useful Web links on the Emerging Church Movement
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
100 words to explain the Emerging Church
100 words to explain the Emerging Church (by Philip Rosenthal)
Previously published in Joy Magazine 2008
The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth.
Previously published in Joy Magazine 2008
The 'Emerging Church' is an attempt to respond to the philosophy of Postmodernism by accommodating it in the church to varying degrees, both in doctrine and in practice. Postmodernism values experiences, stories, relationships and feelings, but devalues absolute truth and questions our ability to know it certainly. It also encourages mixing of different ideas and methods without trying to logically fit them together. Aspects, of the Emerging Church, such as experimenting with new service formats, are not always harmful. But when these assumptions are used to interpret Biblical doctrine or ethics, it can result in serious error, doubt, weakness, confusion and moral relativism. We must defend the gospel against this undermining of our confidence in truth.
WHAT IS POSTMODERNISM?
WHAT IS POSTMODERNISM?
By: Philip Rosenthal
Many people have asked me to explain in simple language what is ‘post-modernism’? Most academic articles on the subject will leave people more confused than when they started reading. The simplest way of understanding it is by first explaining post-modern architecture and then drawing a comparison with philosophy and theology. In the past, every building had a uniform theme. It was either Classical or Gothic or Victorian or Edwardian or Modern or Japanese or Indian or whatever – but only one theme from one time period or geographical area. Post-modern architecture doesn’t have a consistent theme. It is a mix of themes from many time periods. So, for example, the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront and Canal Walk Shopping complexes in Cape Town, both use post-modern architecture. They borrow ideas from many different time periods and themes and mix them all together. They don’t need or want a unifying theme. What is wrong with this? Nothing. It is just a preference – you either like it or you don’t like it.
But when you apply that attitude to philosophy or theology, the result is confusion and relativism and eventually a breakdown of absolute morals and belief. Roman Catholics and Protestants and Muslims disagree on certain issues – but they at least agree that truth is absolute and unified. Post-modernists don’t. To post-modernists, truth is just a subjective cultural or personal belief. To them, you can happily take ideas from different places and mix them together in any way you like without the need for any kind of logical continuity. Most of them don’t even want to argue about what is true, because they see truth itself as just a human opinion. In fact, they view anyone who is firm about truth and morals as arrogant and judgemental. Since truth is subjective, what is important is people’s feelings and relationships. Those who stand for truth at the expense of feelings and relationships are thus the problem.
While Modernism tended to reject historic Christian theology, Post-modernism borrows from it regularly. Their teachers will happily combine recitation ancient creeds with aspects of Catholicism and Reformed theology. This appears to give them some historic authenticity. But the problem is that they way they do it is void of any logic or coherence. It is just a case of picking various different ice cream flavours and putting them together into one cone.
Another difference between Modernism and Postmodernism is that while Modernism emphasised individual rights and opinions, Post-Modernism emphasises cultural group thinking. Thus Christian truth and morality is relegated to a cultural group belief rather than a moral absolute applicable to everyone. The chief virtue is thus tolerance of other cultural groups. Also called ‘Political Correctness’. The chief vice is intolerance. Post-modernism accommodates Christianity quite happily provided that you respect the right of other groups to do whatever they like – including for example practicing homosexuality or committing abortion. So long as you don’t impose your views on anyone else, then you are accepted. Post-modernist Christians view Bible teaching not as absolutes which all must obey, but as the views of our particular cultural group, which we should not impose on others lest we offend them. Sound familiar? Do you see things this way? Maybe you have already been partially seduced by Post-Modernism.
Another difference is that while Modernism attacked the truth of scripture, Post-modernism attacks not the truth of scripture, but our ability to understand it. For them, scripture is mysterious and we can never be certain exactly what it means. Post-modernist teachers try to cast doubt on what it means and see such doubt as a sophisticated virtue. Thus for them, we can never be quite sure what the Bible says about for example homosexuality and abortion – so being unsure, we should not impose our personal belief on anyone else.
The Emerging Church can be described also as the third generation of theological liberalism. The first generation was Modernism – the elevation of human reason above scripture. This was advocated first by German theologians in the 1850s and spread from there through the rest of the world – destroying most of mainline Protestantism. They viewed their new beliefs outdated historic Christianity in a similar way that modern technology outdates old technology. The second generation was Neo-orthodoxy, invented by Karl Barth, which argued that the scripture was spiritually true but not necessarily true in other respects. What was important for the Neo-orthodox was your ‘spiritual experience’ of the Bible. They tried to marry existential philosophy with Christianity. The third generation of liberalism is now the ‘Emerging church’, which is trying to marry postmodernism with Christianity. Essentially, this whole stream of liberalism is following the secular culture. In response to Modernism, Orthodox Christians re-grouped to form what they called ‘Evangelicalism’ which rejected Modernism. Problem is though that liberalism, like a computer virus is changing its form all the time. Most evangelicals don’t understand that that the Emerging Church is just a new form of liberalism and so their defences are down. It is being taught at Evangelical Bible Seminaries and heretical books are published by what we thought were Evangelical publishing houses – especially Zondervan. The Emerging Church is not a new brand of Evangelicalism – it is a new brand of liberalism. It needs to be fought with the same strength as we fought the old liberalism (Modernism).
Many Christians have accepted post-modernism without realising it – and have already been applying these false assumptions for a decade or so. What is new is that a group of people calling themselves the ‘Emerging Church’ are now consciously promoting this false assumption. Most of the followers of this group still seem on most points orthodox Christians. But the problem is that as soon as one accepts the false assumptions of post-modernism, and apply this to theology, you go down a slippery slope that leads eventually to being allowed to believe whatever you like – and a lot of people end up in heretical belief and those who apply it practically, immorality in behaviour.
This month, one of South Africa’s chief proponents of Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement published an article in ‘Baptists Today’ arguing that the Bible does not prohibit monogamous homosexuality. He takes each of the scriptures dealing with homosexuality and tries to cast doubt on the meaning. Space does not permit here a response to his heretical arguments – but the point is that these wrong assumptions lead to seriously wrong conclusions in reading the Bible. If you read the writings of various other leaders who have strayed into the Emerging Church – many come from Orthodox Christian backgrounds, but after they have been there a while, many of them stray into serious and heretical doctrinal error. Some people are going to listen to what I have written above and say – that sounds very academic – why does it matter? Well, it matters because if you have a wrong understanding of the meaning of truth, then you will get to seriously wrong conclusions on doctrine and morality. Thus, one cannot just treat this as an academic theological debate. It is something which if tolerated is going to lead people into serious sin and for some eternal damnation. Therefore, these false teachers must be stopped.
Now not everyone who goes by the name 'Emerging Church' is necessarily a theological liberal or applying post-modernist thought to theology. Many, like those who like post-modern architecture are just applying it to things like church service format. And I don't label such people heretics. There is nothing evil about this. But those who do apply it to theology are starting down a slippery slope that will lead them into doubt, confusion, possibly heresy, likely tolerance of evil and possibly immoral behaviour. We have to stop this.
Will you stand up and speak out against these wolves in sheeps clothing that are preying on Christ's church?
[Certain Emerging Church leaders have registered protest at my reference above to 'wolves in sheeps clothing', so I clarify that, while I disagree with all of them in their response to post-modernism, I don't apply the term 'wolves' to all of them, but to those who stray into heresy or sow doubt or undermine the importance of core Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement (Christ dying in our place), the sanctity of life of the unborn, the requirement to keep sex within man-woman marriage only.]
By: Philip Rosenthal
Many people have asked me to explain in simple language what is ‘post-modernism’? Most academic articles on the subject will leave people more confused than when they started reading. The simplest way of understanding it is by first explaining post-modern architecture and then drawing a comparison with philosophy and theology. In the past, every building had a uniform theme. It was either Classical or Gothic or Victorian or Edwardian or Modern or Japanese or Indian or whatever – but only one theme from one time period or geographical area. Post-modern architecture doesn’t have a consistent theme. It is a mix of themes from many time periods. So, for example, the Victoria and Alfred Waterfront and Canal Walk Shopping complexes in Cape Town, both use post-modern architecture. They borrow ideas from many different time periods and themes and mix them all together. They don’t need or want a unifying theme. What is wrong with this? Nothing. It is just a preference – you either like it or you don’t like it.
But when you apply that attitude to philosophy or theology, the result is confusion and relativism and eventually a breakdown of absolute morals and belief. Roman Catholics and Protestants and Muslims disagree on certain issues – but they at least agree that truth is absolute and unified. Post-modernists don’t. To post-modernists, truth is just a subjective cultural or personal belief. To them, you can happily take ideas from different places and mix them together in any way you like without the need for any kind of logical continuity. Most of them don’t even want to argue about what is true, because they see truth itself as just a human opinion. In fact, they view anyone who is firm about truth and morals as arrogant and judgemental. Since truth is subjective, what is important is people’s feelings and relationships. Those who stand for truth at the expense of feelings and relationships are thus the problem.
While Modernism tended to reject historic Christian theology, Post-modernism borrows from it regularly. Their teachers will happily combine recitation ancient creeds with aspects of Catholicism and Reformed theology. This appears to give them some historic authenticity. But the problem is that they way they do it is void of any logic or coherence. It is just a case of picking various different ice cream flavours and putting them together into one cone.
Another difference between Modernism and Postmodernism is that while Modernism emphasised individual rights and opinions, Post-Modernism emphasises cultural group thinking. Thus Christian truth and morality is relegated to a cultural group belief rather than a moral absolute applicable to everyone. The chief virtue is thus tolerance of other cultural groups. Also called ‘Political Correctness’. The chief vice is intolerance. Post-modernism accommodates Christianity quite happily provided that you respect the right of other groups to do whatever they like – including for example practicing homosexuality or committing abortion. So long as you don’t impose your views on anyone else, then you are accepted. Post-modernist Christians view Bible teaching not as absolutes which all must obey, but as the views of our particular cultural group, which we should not impose on others lest we offend them. Sound familiar? Do you see things this way? Maybe you have already been partially seduced by Post-Modernism.
Another difference is that while Modernism attacked the truth of scripture, Post-modernism attacks not the truth of scripture, but our ability to understand it. For them, scripture is mysterious and we can never be certain exactly what it means. Post-modernist teachers try to cast doubt on what it means and see such doubt as a sophisticated virtue. Thus for them, we can never be quite sure what the Bible says about for example homosexuality and abortion – so being unsure, we should not impose our personal belief on anyone else.
The Emerging Church can be described also as the third generation of theological liberalism. The first generation was Modernism – the elevation of human reason above scripture. This was advocated first by German theologians in the 1850s and spread from there through the rest of the world – destroying most of mainline Protestantism. They viewed their new beliefs outdated historic Christianity in a similar way that modern technology outdates old technology. The second generation was Neo-orthodoxy, invented by Karl Barth, which argued that the scripture was spiritually true but not necessarily true in other respects. What was important for the Neo-orthodox was your ‘spiritual experience’ of the Bible. They tried to marry existential philosophy with Christianity. The third generation of liberalism is now the ‘Emerging church’, which is trying to marry postmodernism with Christianity. Essentially, this whole stream of liberalism is following the secular culture. In response to Modernism, Orthodox Christians re-grouped to form what they called ‘Evangelicalism’ which rejected Modernism. Problem is though that liberalism, like a computer virus is changing its form all the time. Most evangelicals don’t understand that that the Emerging Church is just a new form of liberalism and so their defences are down. It is being taught at Evangelical Bible Seminaries and heretical books are published by what we thought were Evangelical publishing houses – especially Zondervan. The Emerging Church is not a new brand of Evangelicalism – it is a new brand of liberalism. It needs to be fought with the same strength as we fought the old liberalism (Modernism).
Many Christians have accepted post-modernism without realising it – and have already been applying these false assumptions for a decade or so. What is new is that a group of people calling themselves the ‘Emerging Church’ are now consciously promoting this false assumption. Most of the followers of this group still seem on most points orthodox Christians. But the problem is that as soon as one accepts the false assumptions of post-modernism, and apply this to theology, you go down a slippery slope that leads eventually to being allowed to believe whatever you like – and a lot of people end up in heretical belief and those who apply it practically, immorality in behaviour.
This month, one of South Africa’s chief proponents of Postmodernism and the Emerging Church movement published an article in ‘Baptists Today’ arguing that the Bible does not prohibit monogamous homosexuality. He takes each of the scriptures dealing with homosexuality and tries to cast doubt on the meaning. Space does not permit here a response to his heretical arguments – but the point is that these wrong assumptions lead to seriously wrong conclusions in reading the Bible. If you read the writings of various other leaders who have strayed into the Emerging Church – many come from Orthodox Christian backgrounds, but after they have been there a while, many of them stray into serious and heretical doctrinal error. Some people are going to listen to what I have written above and say – that sounds very academic – why does it matter? Well, it matters because if you have a wrong understanding of the meaning of truth, then you will get to seriously wrong conclusions on doctrine and morality. Thus, one cannot just treat this as an academic theological debate. It is something which if tolerated is going to lead people into serious sin and for some eternal damnation. Therefore, these false teachers must be stopped.
Now not everyone who goes by the name 'Emerging Church' is necessarily a theological liberal or applying post-modernist thought to theology. Many, like those who like post-modern architecture are just applying it to things like church service format. And I don't label such people heretics. There is nothing evil about this. But those who do apply it to theology are starting down a slippery slope that will lead them into doubt, confusion, possibly heresy, likely tolerance of evil and possibly immoral behaviour. We have to stop this.
Will you stand up and speak out against these wolves in sheeps clothing that are preying on Christ's church?
[Certain Emerging Church leaders have registered protest at my reference above to 'wolves in sheeps clothing', so I clarify that, while I disagree with all of them in their response to post-modernism, I don't apply the term 'wolves' to all of them, but to those who stray into heresy or sow doubt or undermine the importance of core Christian doctrines such as the virgin birth, the substitutionary atonement (Christ dying in our place), the sanctity of life of the unborn, the requirement to keep sex within man-woman marriage only.]
Emergent or Divergent? When Doubt Becomes a Virtue
Emergent or Divergent?
When Doubt Becomes a Virtue
By Tim Cantrell – August 2007, Sr. Pastor, Honeyridge Baptist Church, Johannesburg
With endorsements from: Rev. Leigh Robinson, Rosebank Union; Rev. Frank Retief, CESA; Rev. Colin Bishop; Rev. Rowland Myburg, BU President
(Article was previously published in Today Magazine and Baptists Today)
If you were about to undergo an operation and your doctor planned to use you as a guinea pig for new, emerging methods, should you know about it? If your bank was going to re-invest your money in high-risk ventures, should you know about it? Of course! Yet in churches today, leaders are jumping on the bandwagon of the latest theology, called the Emergent Church, while their people know little of the consequences at stake.
This is where a magazine like Baptist Today can serve a vital role in alerting ordinary church members to trends and equipping them to hold their leaders accountable. We too easily forget that it is the biblical responsibility of each member of the congregation to guard the purity of the church (Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 5:19; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 2-3).
I write this article to sound a warning out of love for Christ’s church and out of a desire to “guard the trust” of Scripture that is under attack (1 Tim. 6:20-21), so that we will stand firm in our faith and fulfil our mission to the ends of the earth.
What is the Emergent Church?
As defined in the March 2007 issue of Christian Living Today, “the emerging church is a conversational, grassroots movement to contextualise the gospel for the changing world of the 21st century”. These Christian leaders call themselves ‘emerging’ because they believe that as Western culture emerges out of modernity and into postmodernity there must be a new, ‘emerging’, more relevant way of doing church and reaching our world. (Note: The very nature of the movement defies definition; some treat ‘emergent’ and ‘emerging’ as synonymous, but for the sake of clarity and fairness I will focus only on the strand of this conversation that labels itself “Emergent Church,” hereafter, “EC” [Cf. “An Emerging Church Primer” at www.9marks.org ].)
The most prominent leader in this EC ‘conversation’ is Brian McLaren, a pastor and author that Time Magazine proclaimed as “one of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”. His influence is also growing in South Africa as he has just completed his third tour in three years. Another key leader related to the EC, who visited South Africa last year, is Rob Bell. His Nooma videos are especially popular. Likewise, Erwin McManus is an influential voice related to the EC and he too visited South Africa this year.
The EC is a reactionary movement that wins a hearing through insightful critiques of evangelicalism that resonate with many who are disenchanted by a weak and ineffective church. No one can deny that evangelicals have often failed in our passion for the lost, social concern, good works, deeds of love, abuse of power, abuse of Scripture, and lack of authenticity and humility. We have also been uncritical at times in conforming to modernity. But sadly, the EC appears no less naïve in their zeal to conform now to postmodernity. Some of their descriptions of the problem may be accurate, but the solutions they offer are more culture-driven than Scripture-driven.
What are they actually teaching?
Few people realise the doctrines that leaders of the EC are teaching. For example, they teach:
· That it should not shake our faith if we found out “that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry... and that the virgin birth was just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in...” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27).
· That we should shy away from describing the Bible in such terms as “the authority,” “infallible,” or “inerrant” (McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, p. 164).
· That it is fine for leaders of the EC movement to frankly have no idea what “most of the Bible means” (Rob & Kristen Bell, Christianity Today article, Nov. 2004).
· That the church should consider taking “a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements” against homosexuality (http://blog.christianitytoday.com).
· That we should not be so concerned with “being saved” or finding “right answers”, and that any Christian who sees a difference between us and the world is probably arrogant (Christian Living Today magazine, March 2007, p. 56).
· That the church should be inconclusive about the eternal destiny of non-Christians and should change its historic belief in hell (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 111-114; The Story We Find Ourselves In, pp. 167-68).
· That you believe in “a form of cosmic child abuse” if you say that Jesus died to pay the price demanded by His Father’s holy wrath (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan: 2003 [foreword by Brian McLaren], p. 182).
· One of the chief proponents of the Emerging Church in South Africa is saying that he must now “leave church” and “give up belief in God in order to find God” (www.futurechurch.co.za).
Not everyone identified with the EC teaches all these things. But these are views held by leading voices in the movement. And any Christian who knows His Bible should be alarmed when hearing of such aberrant views. Even some leaders from within the wider emerging church movement are sounding the alarm, such as Mark Driscoll who writes:
…the Emergent Church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity. (Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., p. 22)
…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…. (Driscoll, www.TheResurgence.com) (Cf. also Jason Carlson, “My Journey Into and Out of the Emergent Church,” http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com).
What is the greatest concern about the Emerging Church?
There is one doctrine that the EC attacks most, a doctrine upon which all Christian faith and teaching rests: the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. This has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the time of the Reformation – the settled confidence that, on the whole, the Bible is not obscure or ambiguous but that it is clear and understandable for the ordinary Christian. Saints have faced persecution and suffering with unshakable certainty because their faith was grounded in the clarity of God’s Word. Jesus frequently appealed to and assumed the clarity of Scripture when He rebuked the religious leaders: “Have you not read in the Scriptures? Do you not know?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:14; 21:42; 22:31, etc.)
But McLaren and the EC celebrate their ignorance of Scripture and their certainty that no one can be certain of what Scripture says. McLaren summed up his motto well when he wrote, “Certainty is overrated” (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/). But Luke’s whole aim for Christians was that they might “know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). And Scripture says, “faith is being…certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1).
EC leaders say it is more humble to embrace mystery than to seek certainty. But this is arrogance disguised as humility, claiming to be wiser than God regarding whether He spoke clearly or not. Here’s how God defines humility: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). God is not looking for those who only dialogue or converse about His Word, but for those who take it seriously enough to tremble and obey.
McLaren even wants to throw out certainty about the gospel, the very “evangel” that defines evangelicalism! He writes, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet…. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (Christianity Today, Nov. 2004). Because authorities have been certain about wrong things in the past (a flat earth, apartheid, etc.), McLaren jumps to the conclusion that we must beware of thinking we’re right. But the only way for a preacher to be unashamed and approved by God is to be sure that he has “rightly divided the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul was so sure of the rightness of the gospel that he told the Galatians anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
God’s Word treats certainty of spiritual truth as essential. To be saved is to “come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:4); it is to join those who “believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:3). It is not a complement to be described as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).
McLaren believes that we must accommodate other religions – that new converts to Christ would not necessarily have to leave Buddhism or Hinduism, and that we need more “gentle and respectful dialogue” with other religions in order to improve Christianity (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 255-60). But one searches in vain to find the OT prophets or NT apostles suggesting that conversion could come at such a small cost, or that the truth becomes richer by bartering with error.
Why certainty matters
While writing this article, I received a testimony from a young pastor whose wife was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. He writes:
I am more convinced than ever as I walk through this valley that God’s truth is all that can sustain us – Satan wants to rob God’s people of this confidence so that in their day of battle they will shrink back or grow weary and abandon well doing. [The EC] may be a new and avant-garde thing to discuss on the lecture circuit and in books – but in the valley of the shadow of death it falls pathetically short when measured against the blessing and comfort that comes from accurate, confident exposition of Scripture!
God pours His peace into the soul that is certain of His promises. Any movement that exalts doubt over certainty and that undermines the clarity of God’s Word is a movement that endangers the faith of God’s people. The EC is not evangelical at all if it throws out the clarity of the gospel. It should be classified as “divergent” rather than “emergent”.
When Doubt Becomes a Virtue
By Tim Cantrell – August 2007, Sr. Pastor, Honeyridge Baptist Church, Johannesburg
With endorsements from: Rev. Leigh Robinson, Rosebank Union; Rev. Frank Retief, CESA; Rev. Colin Bishop; Rev. Rowland Myburg, BU President
(Article was previously published in Today Magazine and Baptists Today)
If you were about to undergo an operation and your doctor planned to use you as a guinea pig for new, emerging methods, should you know about it? If your bank was going to re-invest your money in high-risk ventures, should you know about it? Of course! Yet in churches today, leaders are jumping on the bandwagon of the latest theology, called the Emergent Church, while their people know little of the consequences at stake.
This is where a magazine like Baptist Today can serve a vital role in alerting ordinary church members to trends and equipping them to hold their leaders accountable. We too easily forget that it is the biblical responsibility of each member of the congregation to guard the purity of the church (Acts 17:11; 1 Cor. 5; 1 Tim. 5:19; Gal. 1:6-9; Rev. 2-3).
I write this article to sound a warning out of love for Christ’s church and out of a desire to “guard the trust” of Scripture that is under attack (1 Tim. 6:20-21), so that we will stand firm in our faith and fulfil our mission to the ends of the earth.
What is the Emergent Church?
As defined in the March 2007 issue of Christian Living Today, “the emerging church is a conversational, grassroots movement to contextualise the gospel for the changing world of the 21st century”. These Christian leaders call themselves ‘emerging’ because they believe that as Western culture emerges out of modernity and into postmodernity there must be a new, ‘emerging’, more relevant way of doing church and reaching our world. (Note: The very nature of the movement defies definition; some treat ‘emergent’ and ‘emerging’ as synonymous, but for the sake of clarity and fairness I will focus only on the strand of this conversation that labels itself “Emergent Church,” hereafter, “EC” [Cf. “An Emerging Church Primer” at www.9marks.org ].)
The most prominent leader in this EC ‘conversation’ is Brian McLaren, a pastor and author that Time Magazine proclaimed as “one of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America”. His influence is also growing in South Africa as he has just completed his third tour in three years. Another key leader related to the EC, who visited South Africa last year, is Rob Bell. His Nooma videos are especially popular. Likewise, Erwin McManus is an influential voice related to the EC and he too visited South Africa this year.
The EC is a reactionary movement that wins a hearing through insightful critiques of evangelicalism that resonate with many who are disenchanted by a weak and ineffective church. No one can deny that evangelicals have often failed in our passion for the lost, social concern, good works, deeds of love, abuse of power, abuse of Scripture, and lack of authenticity and humility. We have also been uncritical at times in conforming to modernity. But sadly, the EC appears no less naïve in their zeal to conform now to postmodernity. Some of their descriptions of the problem may be accurate, but the solutions they offer are more culture-driven than Scripture-driven.
What are they actually teaching?
Few people realise the doctrines that leaders of the EC are teaching. For example, they teach:
· That it should not shake our faith if we found out “that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry... and that the virgin birth was just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in...” (Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis, pp. 26-27).
· That we should shy away from describing the Bible in such terms as “the authority,” “infallible,” or “inerrant” (McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, p. 164).
· That it is fine for leaders of the EC movement to frankly have no idea what “most of the Bible means” (Rob & Kristen Bell, Christianity Today article, Nov. 2004).
· That the church should consider taking “a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements” against homosexuality (http://blog.christianitytoday.com).
· That we should not be so concerned with “being saved” or finding “right answers”, and that any Christian who sees a difference between us and the world is probably arrogant (Christian Living Today magazine, March 2007, p. 56).
· That the church should be inconclusive about the eternal destiny of non-Christians and should change its historic belief in hell (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 111-114; The Story We Find Ourselves In, pp. 167-68).
· That you believe in “a form of cosmic child abuse” if you say that Jesus died to pay the price demanded by His Father’s holy wrath (Steve Chalke, The Lost Message of Jesus, Zondervan: 2003 [foreword by Brian McLaren], p. 182).
· One of the chief proponents of the Emerging Church in South Africa is saying that he must now “leave church” and “give up belief in God in order to find God” (www.futurechurch.co.za).
Not everyone identified with the EC teaches all these things. But these are views held by leading voices in the movement. And any Christian who knows His Bible should be alarmed when hearing of such aberrant views. Even some leaders from within the wider emerging church movement are sounding the alarm, such as Mark Driscoll who writes:
…the Emergent Church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity. (Driscoll, Confessions of a Reformission Rev., p. 22)
…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…. (Driscoll, www.TheResurgence.com) (Cf. also Jason Carlson, “My Journey Into and Out of the Emergent Church,” http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com).
What is the greatest concern about the Emerging Church?
There is one doctrine that the EC attacks most, a doctrine upon which all Christian faith and teaching rests: the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture. This has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the time of the Reformation – the settled confidence that, on the whole, the Bible is not obscure or ambiguous but that it is clear and understandable for the ordinary Christian. Saints have faced persecution and suffering with unshakable certainty because their faith was grounded in the clarity of God’s Word. Jesus frequently appealed to and assumed the clarity of Scripture when He rebuked the religious leaders: “Have you not read in the Scriptures? Do you not know?” (Matt. 12:3,5; 19:14; 21:42; 22:31, etc.)
But McLaren and the EC celebrate their ignorance of Scripture and their certainty that no one can be certain of what Scripture says. McLaren summed up his motto well when he wrote, “Certainty is overrated” (http://blog.christianitytoday.com/). But Luke’s whole aim for Christians was that they might “know the certainty of the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). And Scripture says, “faith is being…certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1).
EC leaders say it is more humble to embrace mystery than to seek certainty. But this is arrogance disguised as humility, claiming to be wiser than God regarding whether He spoke clearly or not. Here’s how God defines humility: “This is the one I esteem: he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2). God is not looking for those who only dialogue or converse about His Word, but for those who take it seriously enough to tremble and obey.
McLaren even wants to throw out certainty about the gospel, the very “evangel” that defines evangelicalism! He writes, “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet…. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy” (Christianity Today, Nov. 2004). Because authorities have been certain about wrong things in the past (a flat earth, apartheid, etc.), McLaren jumps to the conclusion that we must beware of thinking we’re right. But the only way for a preacher to be unashamed and approved by God is to be sure that he has “rightly divided the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). Paul was so sure of the rightness of the gospel that he told the Galatians anyone preaching another gospel should be accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
God’s Word treats certainty of spiritual truth as essential. To be saved is to “come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 2:4); it is to join those who “believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:3). It is not a complement to be described as those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Tim. 3:7).
McLaren believes that we must accommodate other religions – that new converts to Christ would not necessarily have to leave Buddhism or Hinduism, and that we need more “gentle and respectful dialogue” with other religions in order to improve Christianity (A Generous Orthodoxy, pp. 255-60). But one searches in vain to find the OT prophets or NT apostles suggesting that conversion could come at such a small cost, or that the truth becomes richer by bartering with error.
Why certainty matters
While writing this article, I received a testimony from a young pastor whose wife was diagnosed with an aggressive cancer. He writes:
I am more convinced than ever as I walk through this valley that God’s truth is all that can sustain us – Satan wants to rob God’s people of this confidence so that in their day of battle they will shrink back or grow weary and abandon well doing. [The EC] may be a new and avant-garde thing to discuss on the lecture circuit and in books – but in the valley of the shadow of death it falls pathetically short when measured against the blessing and comfort that comes from accurate, confident exposition of Scripture!
God pours His peace into the soul that is certain of His promises. Any movement that exalts doubt over certainty and that undermines the clarity of God’s Word is a movement that endangers the faith of God’s people. The EC is not evangelical at all if it throws out the clarity of the gospel. It should be classified as “divergent” rather than “emergent”.
The Emerging Threat of the Emerging Church Movement
THE EMERGING THREAT OF THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT'
By: Philip Rosenthal Philip@rosenthal.net ; www.christianview.org
Last updated: 8 April ‘08
INTRODUCTION 1
BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE? 2
BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING? 2
WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 3
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX? 4
Types of emerging church leaders and participants 4
Answering the evangelistic argument 5
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH? 6
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT? 7
MORE INFORMATION 8
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Christian bookshops have started to stock books published by leaders of the 'emerging church movement'. Speakers use new words like 'missional'. Christian blogs discuss the issue. Pastors are told that they need to adapt their message to reach a new 'post-modern generation'. Some of the statements of these leaders can seem worrying, but their attacks on the established church resonate with many who are fed up with hypocrisy, authoritarianism and institutionalism. Nobody wants to be seen as 'out of date', so they hesitate before challenging this movement. What is this all about? Is it just a new fad? Is it a new movement in evangelicalism?
I argue this is something much more dangerous and serious, and about which every Biblical Christian needs to be warned. The 'emerging church movement' is an attempt to merge Biblical Christian faith with the religious worldview of Postmodernism. It includes a range of responses. At the one end of the spectrum are those who are just trying to adapt our methods to appeal to Postmodern youth without compromising the gospel. The other end of the spectrum to which the most popularly read leaders belong, however, are essentially preaching a new way of interpreting scripture and a different gospel. This is I believe the most serious threat to Biblical Christian faith to 'emerge' in the last hundred years. I predict it will be the primary ideological battle in the church of at least the first half of the 21st century.
This attempt by another religion to infiltrate Christianity is similar in many ways to the attempts of Gnostic mystics to infiltrate the early church in the first few centuries. It is similar to the attempt to infiltrate Christianity with Modernism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; or with Liberal Christianity. Marxism tried to infiltrate Christianity with Liberation Theology in the late 20th century. Animists have attempted to merge with Christianity in certain African Independent churches. The Interfaith movement has attempted to merge Christianity with the New Age movement.
It is essential to understand that this is not a new stream of Christianity. It is an attempt to merge Christianity with another totally different religion. It is an attack on the core of the gospel. Orthodox Protestants have more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than they have with the 'Emergent Church' At least these major streams agree on the basic concept of absolute truth. The 'emergent church' does not.
In the past five years, a number of popular evangelical Christian writers, particularly those on the fringes, have abandoned orthodox Christianity in favour of the emerging church movement. You may find an author you like now promoting this heresy, without telling you he has changed his views. Evangelicalism is bleeding to the Emerging Church/Postmodernism now in the same way Protestantism was bleeding to Modernism in the late 19th century.
Tragically, many Christian leaders are not seeing the threat at present. Many good pastors who are friends of mine have already got involved in it. Thus 'emerging church' books are being published by reputable Christian publishers, sold in evangelical Christian bookshops and their speakers are allowed to speak at Christian conferences. It has already taken over many evangelical Bible seminaries overseas. This is sadly similar to the way Modernism infiltrated both Protestantism and Catholicism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If it is not fought with all the strength we have now, it will likely either take over or force schism in most of the currently evangelical denominations.
BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE?
Answer: Because it is an attempt to unite Christianity with Postmodernism, and Postmodernism is the dominant worldview of the educated elite of our society - particularly the younger generation (under 35 years old). Almost every university course, film house, newspaper and TV programme they are exposed to is promoting this ideology. And if they attend a Bible believing church or listen to Bible believing Christian radio, then the two
ideologies don't fit together. Real Christianity to many of them seems somehow intolerant and out of date. 'Emerging Church' Christianity does fit with the trendy youth culture. You can be 'cool' with your Post-modern peers and educators and yet still be ‘a Christian’.
But is this an authentic Biblical response to a culture gone astray? No! The correct Biblical response is to challenge the unbiblical culture with the truth of scripture, however unpopular that might make us. Jesus was despised and persecuted and so were his apostles (Hebrews 13:13). We must be ready to do the same. In the same way that the Judaisers of Galatians tried to adapt Christianity to avoid persecution (Galations 6:12), so the 'Emerging Church' tries to create a more tolerant, less certain, uncontroversial Christianity which does not offend the world.
Actually, many of our educated Christian youth are already Post-modern thinkers. They have already tried informally to merge Christianity and postmodernism in their own minds. It is just that now a group of Christian leaders is formalising this merger and articulating it as a movement and a theology.
BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING?
There are many problems with the teaching of the 'Emerging Church', but most serious is its attack on the importance of truth and the certainty of the meaning of scripture. In postmodernist/emergent belief, truth, doctrine and logic is not all that important. What is much more important is tolerance, relationships, stories and people's feelings. Truth is not considered absolute but rather subjective. Truth relates subjectively to the human who hears it rather than to the absolute reference point of God. Hitherto, Biblical Christians may often disagree with each other, but they argue in the hope of convincing each other because they believe something must be true and the opposite must be false. Postmodernists don't see the world this way. Instead of an absolute truth to search for, all there is are people's opinions, and we must all respect each other’s opinions.
While Modernists attacked the truth of the scriptures, Postmodernists do not attack the scripture itself, but rather our ability to understand it. They refuse any systematic attempt to try to understand and interpret the scriptures. They just let everyone pick and choose what they want to believe and what not believe, without attempting to fit these beliefs together logically. The result is that scripture interpretation becomes entirely subjective to each individual. You can believe whatever you 'feel' like believing, as long as you respect everyone else's right to do the same. In their view, for example, it is simply impossible to determine certainly whether or not the Bible condones abortion or homosexuality.
They theological view truth as something that is 'emerging', 'progressive' and moving forward, rather like technology. Each generation is more enlightened than the last. That leaves open the door for the next generation of Christians to believe something totally different to us.
See MORE INFORMATION on page 8, for web links to some unbiblical quotations from Emerging church leaders).
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
The Emerging Church/ Postmodern interpretation of the Bible matters because it's subjective interpretation of the Bible is unbiblical, false and wrong. But it has damaging practical consequences for numerous other issues.
Firstly, if the Bible's teaching on ethics is mysterious, then we can never understand it. So, what authority does it then have? Emerging church supporters may apply their interpretation of the Bible to themselves. They may accept that the authority of their church or denomination to determine policy for church discipline. But how can they challenge anyone else outside their group’s belief? How can they tell non-Christians not to abort a baby or the government to ban abortion or 'same-sex marriage'?
Answer: They don't. Emerging church leaders generally discourage this. For example, their principal false prophet, Brian McLaren has called for a 5-year moratorium on speaking against homosexuality.
( http://postbiblical.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1). The Emerging Church beliefs fit well with the pro-choice position on abortion. “I would not have an abortion myself, but I will not try to stop someone else from having one”. A post-modern church leader recently took the position ‘Our church denomination will not perform same-sex marriages, but we think the government should allow same sex-marriage for those willing to do them’.
So Emerging Church leaders undermine the whole basis for Christian activism against sin in society. They are not sure what is right and wrong themselves, and they are embarrassed by others who do. What were formally moral absolutes now become a 'grey area'. Just at the time when courage is needed to fight the evils such as abortion and homosexuality in society, the emergent church leaders discourage people from taking a stand.
Secondly, they attack core Biblical teachings as unimportant. While many Modernists will argue there was no virgin birth, some post-modernists will argue that they believe there was a virgin birth, but that if it were proved that there were no virgin birth, that would not affect their faith. What is the problem with this? Precisely because, if there was no virgin birth, then the scriptures are false, and if the scriptures are false then our faith in them is false.
Actually truth does matter. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul explains how our faith hangs on the doctrine of the resurrection. Many other teachings of scripture are similarly integrally linked to the core of our faith. By arguing that truth is not important, they pave the way for others to follow into complete unbelief and apostasy.
Thirdly, if truth is not absolute, why should we care about those who are persecuted for their faith? Generally postmodernist Christians don't care. If truth is not clear in scripture, then why suffer for truth? Why not just compromise or shut up on that aspect of the truth which is under attack and thus escape persecution. To the postmodernist mind, Christian's suffering unpopularity, jail, torture and death for their faith seems weird. This is why the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission has identified Postmodernism as a major threat to religious liberty (Newsletter 15 February 2008).
While this section highlights the problems of post-modernism in interpreting the biblical position on a handful of ethical and theological problems, it potentially affects all aspects of ethics and doctrine. The result is that people hold to a weak, subjective view of ethics and doctrine that is highly tolerant of alternative viewpoints and behaviours.
Three hundred years ago, Protestantism meant a specific set of beliefs. Modernism re-defined Protestantism by destroying its boundaries and re-defining its terminology. ‘Fundamentalism’ was an attempt to re-define these boundaries. Many believed the boundaries set by Fundamentalism were too narrow and so created the broader category of ‘Evangelicalism’. The Emerging Church is a movement without boundaries. While claiming to be a part of Evangelicalism, it is attempting to re-define ‘Evangelical’ in a manner that is so broad that it can accept all kinds of heresy and unbiblical behaviour. We must look not only at what it leaders do and believe but what they tolerate. Before removing the fences we must consider why they were put up there in the first place and what has happened historically to groups which remove the fences.
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?
Some 'emerging church' followers reading the above 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.
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH?
Firstly, emerging church leaders like to confuse Christians with difficult questions from scripture. Then instead of encouraging study to answer these questions, they try to lead them to the conclusion that scripture is unclear on ethics and so we should not impose our beliefs on anyone else. Doubt and tolerance become virtues, while faith and standing for truth become vices.
While it is true that there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, those things which are essential for righteous living and salvation are fairly clear and there is a consensus of interpretation among those who respect the authority of scripture.
Secondly, they try to argue that they are 'up to date' and that orthodox Christian belief is outdated. This is inherent in the terms 'post-modern', 'emergent' 'future church' - as if there was a forward march of history, which is unstoppable and we should not get left behind. Modernists, Progressives, New Agers also use this manipulative language to try to link their belief to a time period. Everyone in this time period now must believe what they do.
Thirdly, they try to label orthodox Bible believing Christians who believe in absolutes, reason from the scriptures and stand up for truth as judgemental, bigoted, intolerant Pharisees. In doing so, they distort the
Biblical meaning of judgmentalism and substitute a post-modern meaning to the term and evade the real reasons why Jesus fought with the Pharisees. Many Christians, afraid of such ugly labels, shrink from challenging emerging church leaders in debate.
Fourthly, they attack the problems plaguing the contemporary church such as authoritarianism and hypocrisy. While these problems are real, the answers offered by the 'emerging church', such as simply lowering the moral standards required for biblical church discipline and speaking out on moral issues in society on grounds of 'non-judgmentalism', are false.
Fifthly, many emerging church leaders do a lot of good works and fight for some good causes. For example, some run charities, which help the poor. How could people doing so much good be teaching error? Modernists also did a lot of good works and fought for good causes, often more so than orthodox, but pietistic, Christians.
Sixthly, 'emergent church' leaders try to pose as orthodox Bible believing Christians. They publish through respected Bible believing publishers like Zondervan and join evangelical associations and preach in evangelical churches. But this is “wolf in sheep’s clothing” teaching.
Seventh, against charges of heresy, they argue for 'tolerance' and act like wounded lambs. This was the same tactic used by them Modernists in the late 19th and early 20th century. The modernists, once they had seized control of Protestant institutions, then used their power to persecute, silence and throw out Bible believing leaders who opposed them. 'Tolerance' was just a tactic to gain an advantage. The same will probably happen if we don't act now.
Eighth, they promote the 'emerging church' and postmodernism as a platform for unity across denominational and sectarian boundaries. While we should promote unity amongst true Christians, the 'emerging church' is not the correct platform to do so.
Ninth, when an 'emerging church' leader is attacked on any specific point of heresy, then they tend to just disclaim that person as 'not one of them' or part of a different faction. Reality is that the movement is fragmented in belief and its ideology promotes that fragmentation. That is why it is hard to argue with because everyone believes something different.
Tenth, 'emerging church' leaders pose as 'youth experts', offering to help pastors and denominational leaders to relate to the youth. Since they assume the church going youth have already swallowed the lies of post-modernism, they expect their pastors to follow them into error in order to reach them. Actually, a shepherd is supposed to lead the sheep and rescue and defend them from wolves - not follow the sheep who are following wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. Pastors need to understand postmodernism like a doctor studies disease.
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT?
* We must fight the 'emergent church' heresy with all the strength we have. The sooner people are warned about this emerging threat, the more easily they can be saved from it. If we don't fight now, we will have to fight later and then it will be harder to win. This is a priority we cannot ignore. We must be prepared to sacrifice our popularity, our positions, our money, our time, our friendships, and our ministry relationships to fight this uncompromisingly.
* We must fight not only intellectually, but also to ensure that only Bible believing (non-emergent) leaders are appointed to positions of authority in Christian institutions. That means for example, making it a criterion when
you call a new pastor to your church, or choose presenters for a Christian radio programme or who you support in choosing the next leader of a Christian organisation. Christian organisational leaders need to screen their new workers for 'emerging church'/post-modern beliefs.
* We need to be kind and gentle with pastors and leaders who have been recently influenced by the movement, while discussing and giving them resources to help explain its errors. Many have joined it because they are
disillusioned with contemporary Christianity and see it as a more hopeful alternative. It will be doubly painful to be disillusioned twice, first by contemporary Christianity and now by the 'emerging church' movement. We shouldn't add to the pain by being brutal with our words.
* We must encourage a return to the alternative historic Orthodox Biblical Christianity - a study of respected teachers, creeds, confessions statements of faith interpretation the Bible that have stood the test of time to serve
as a balance with new writers. While we must be open to the Holy Spirit shedding some new light on the Word of God, orthodox Biblical movements generally affirm and re-state old accepted truths more than they introduce new ones.
* We should warn Christian bookshops, magazines, churches, publishing houses and denominations and radio stations against 'emerging church' false teachers like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and ask them not to stock their books, publish their articles or give them a platform at conferences. 2 John v11 explains why assisting heretics is sharing in their work.
* We need to also go onto the offensive against the Postmodernist worldview of which the 'emerging church' is an accommodation, and promote instead the alternative of a Christian worldview. In other words, we must explain how true Christianity applies to all of life and how it differs from other ideologies in its answers to the questions of life.
* Most of the power in Christian institutions is currently in the hands of people who are over 45 years old. Most of these people do not understand the ideology of Post-modernism, which the youth are embracing. They may have biblical views. They may see a few problems, but they don't understand the seriousness of the threat. Most don't like conflict amongst Christians and want to be nice to everyone. They may view conflict as unnecessary trouble-making. We must educate them about the threat, otherwise, in twenty year’s time, most of the orthodox evangelical institutions will be taken over by postmodernists/ 'emerging church'. They must choose their successors from those who stay with Biblical Christianity and they must re-affirm Biblical Christianity to their followers particularly on points such as the clarity of scripture where it differs from post-modernism.
* We can cautiously consider legitimate ways of adapting cultural elements of our church and organisational methods to attract post-modern youth, while being careful not to compromise the gospel and Christian ethics.
* We must have hope and confidence that ultimately, the 'emerging church movement' and its mother, 'postmodernism', will eventually go out of fashion just like Modernism, Marxism, Fascism and their attempts to synchretise with Christianity. Already Postmodernism is losing support amongst the worlds top intellectuals and that means it is only a matter of time before it loses support in popular culture. That however, could take a few decades. Until then, we must fight to stop it corrupting Christianity and present a Biblical Christian alternative.
* Please print out this document and give it to your pastor or Christian organisational leader.
MORE INFORMATION
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://www.apologeticsindex.org/296-emerging-church-opponents
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
By: Philip Rosenthal Philip@rosenthal.net ; www.christianview.org
Last updated: 8 April ‘08
INTRODUCTION 1
BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE? 2
BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING? 2
WHY DOES THIS MATTER? 3
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX? 4
Types of emerging church leaders and participants 4
Answering the evangelistic argument 5
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH? 6
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT? 7
MORE INFORMATION 8
INTRODUCTION
Recently, Christian bookshops have started to stock books published by leaders of the 'emerging church movement'. Speakers use new words like 'missional'. Christian blogs discuss the issue. Pastors are told that they need to adapt their message to reach a new 'post-modern generation'. Some of the statements of these leaders can seem worrying, but their attacks on the established church resonate with many who are fed up with hypocrisy, authoritarianism and institutionalism. Nobody wants to be seen as 'out of date', so they hesitate before challenging this movement. What is this all about? Is it just a new fad? Is it a new movement in evangelicalism?
I argue this is something much more dangerous and serious, and about which every Biblical Christian needs to be warned. The 'emerging church movement' is an attempt to merge Biblical Christian faith with the religious worldview of Postmodernism. It includes a range of responses. At the one end of the spectrum are those who are just trying to adapt our methods to appeal to Postmodern youth without compromising the gospel. The other end of the spectrum to which the most popularly read leaders belong, however, are essentially preaching a new way of interpreting scripture and a different gospel. This is I believe the most serious threat to Biblical Christian faith to 'emerge' in the last hundred years. I predict it will be the primary ideological battle in the church of at least the first half of the 21st century.
This attempt by another religion to infiltrate Christianity is similar in many ways to the attempts of Gnostic mystics to infiltrate the early church in the first few centuries. It is similar to the attempt to infiltrate Christianity with Modernism in the 19th and early 20th centuries; or with Liberal Christianity. Marxism tried to infiltrate Christianity with Liberation Theology in the late 20th century. Animists have attempted to merge with Christianity in certain African Independent churches. The Interfaith movement has attempted to merge Christianity with the New Age movement.
It is essential to understand that this is not a new stream of Christianity. It is an attempt to merge Christianity with another totally different religion. It is an attack on the core of the gospel. Orthodox Protestants have more in common with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox than they have with the 'Emergent Church' At least these major streams agree on the basic concept of absolute truth. The 'emergent church' does not.
In the past five years, a number of popular evangelical Christian writers, particularly those on the fringes, have abandoned orthodox Christianity in favour of the emerging church movement. You may find an author you like now promoting this heresy, without telling you he has changed his views. Evangelicalism is bleeding to the Emerging Church/Postmodernism now in the same way Protestantism was bleeding to Modernism in the late 19th century.
Tragically, many Christian leaders are not seeing the threat at present. Many good pastors who are friends of mine have already got involved in it. Thus 'emerging church' books are being published by reputable Christian publishers, sold in evangelical Christian bookshops and their speakers are allowed to speak at Christian conferences. It has already taken over many evangelical Bible seminaries overseas. This is sadly similar to the way Modernism infiltrated both Protestantism and Catholicism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. If it is not fought with all the strength we have now, it will likely either take over or force schism in most of the currently evangelical denominations.
BUT WHY IS THE 'EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT' SO ATTRACTIVE?
Answer: Because it is an attempt to unite Christianity with Postmodernism, and Postmodernism is the dominant worldview of the educated elite of our society - particularly the younger generation (under 35 years old). Almost every university course, film house, newspaper and TV programme they are exposed to is promoting this ideology. And if they attend a Bible believing church or listen to Bible believing Christian radio, then the two
ideologies don't fit together. Real Christianity to many of them seems somehow intolerant and out of date. 'Emerging Church' Christianity does fit with the trendy youth culture. You can be 'cool' with your Post-modern peers and educators and yet still be ‘a Christian’.
But is this an authentic Biblical response to a culture gone astray? No! The correct Biblical response is to challenge the unbiblical culture with the truth of scripture, however unpopular that might make us. Jesus was despised and persecuted and so were his apostles (Hebrews 13:13). We must be ready to do the same. In the same way that the Judaisers of Galatians tried to adapt Christianity to avoid persecution (Galations 6:12), so the 'Emerging Church' tries to create a more tolerant, less certain, uncontroversial Christianity which does not offend the world.
Actually, many of our educated Christian youth are already Post-modern thinkers. They have already tried informally to merge Christianity and postmodernism in their own minds. It is just that now a group of Christian leaders is formalising this merger and articulating it as a movement and a theology.
BUT WHAT IT WRONG WITH ITS TEACHING?
There are many problems with the teaching of the 'Emerging Church', but most serious is its attack on the importance of truth and the certainty of the meaning of scripture. In postmodernist/emergent belief, truth, doctrine and logic is not all that important. What is much more important is tolerance, relationships, stories and people's feelings. Truth is not considered absolute but rather subjective. Truth relates subjectively to the human who hears it rather than to the absolute reference point of God. Hitherto, Biblical Christians may often disagree with each other, but they argue in the hope of convincing each other because they believe something must be true and the opposite must be false. Postmodernists don't see the world this way. Instead of an absolute truth to search for, all there is are people's opinions, and we must all respect each other’s opinions.
While Modernists attacked the truth of the scriptures, Postmodernists do not attack the scripture itself, but rather our ability to understand it. They refuse any systematic attempt to try to understand and interpret the scriptures. They just let everyone pick and choose what they want to believe and what not believe, without attempting to fit these beliefs together logically. The result is that scripture interpretation becomes entirely subjective to each individual. You can believe whatever you 'feel' like believing, as long as you respect everyone else's right to do the same. In their view, for example, it is simply impossible to determine certainly whether or not the Bible condones abortion or homosexuality.
They theological view truth as something that is 'emerging', 'progressive' and moving forward, rather like technology. Each generation is more enlightened than the last. That leaves open the door for the next generation of Christians to believe something totally different to us.
See MORE INFORMATION on page 8, for web links to some unbiblical quotations from Emerging church leaders).
WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
The Emerging Church/ Postmodern interpretation of the Bible matters because it's subjective interpretation of the Bible is unbiblical, false and wrong. But it has damaging practical consequences for numerous other issues.
Firstly, if the Bible's teaching on ethics is mysterious, then we can never understand it. So, what authority does it then have? Emerging church supporters may apply their interpretation of the Bible to themselves. They may accept that the authority of their church or denomination to determine policy for church discipline. But how can they challenge anyone else outside their group’s belief? How can they tell non-Christians not to abort a baby or the government to ban abortion or 'same-sex marriage'?
Answer: They don't. Emerging church leaders generally discourage this. For example, their principal false prophet, Brian McLaren has called for a 5-year moratorium on speaking against homosexuality.
( http://postbiblical.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=1). The Emerging Church beliefs fit well with the pro-choice position on abortion. “I would not have an abortion myself, but I will not try to stop someone else from having one”. A post-modern church leader recently took the position ‘Our church denomination will not perform same-sex marriages, but we think the government should allow same sex-marriage for those willing to do them’.
So Emerging Church leaders undermine the whole basis for Christian activism against sin in society. They are not sure what is right and wrong themselves, and they are embarrassed by others who do. What were formally moral absolutes now become a 'grey area'. Just at the time when courage is needed to fight the evils such as abortion and homosexuality in society, the emergent church leaders discourage people from taking a stand.
Secondly, they attack core Biblical teachings as unimportant. While many Modernists will argue there was no virgin birth, some post-modernists will argue that they believe there was a virgin birth, but that if it were proved that there were no virgin birth, that would not affect their faith. What is the problem with this? Precisely because, if there was no virgin birth, then the scriptures are false, and if the scriptures are false then our faith in them is false.
Actually truth does matter. In 1 Corinthians 15:14, Paul explains how our faith hangs on the doctrine of the resurrection. Many other teachings of scripture are similarly integrally linked to the core of our faith. By arguing that truth is not important, they pave the way for others to follow into complete unbelief and apostasy.
Thirdly, if truth is not absolute, why should we care about those who are persecuted for their faith? Generally postmodernist Christians don't care. If truth is not clear in scripture, then why suffer for truth? Why not just compromise or shut up on that aspect of the truth which is under attack and thus escape persecution. To the postmodernist mind, Christian's suffering unpopularity, jail, torture and death for their faith seems weird. This is why the World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission has identified Postmodernism as a major threat to religious liberty (Newsletter 15 February 2008).
While this section highlights the problems of post-modernism in interpreting the biblical position on a handful of ethical and theological problems, it potentially affects all aspects of ethics and doctrine. The result is that people hold to a weak, subjective view of ethics and doctrine that is highly tolerant of alternative viewpoints and behaviours.
Three hundred years ago, Protestantism meant a specific set of beliefs. Modernism re-defined Protestantism by destroying its boundaries and re-defining its terminology. ‘Fundamentalism’ was an attempt to re-define these boundaries. Many believed the boundaries set by Fundamentalism were too narrow and so created the broader category of ‘Evangelicalism’. The Emerging Church is a movement without boundaries. While claiming to be a part of Evangelicalism, it is attempting to re-define ‘Evangelical’ in a manner that is so broad that it can accept all kinds of heresy and unbiblical behaviour. We must look not only at what it leaders do and believe but what they tolerate. Before removing the fences we must consider why they were put up there in the first place and what has happened historically to groups which remove the fences.
AM I PUTTING ALL EMERGING CHURCH LEADERS IN THE SAME BOX?
Some 'emerging church' followers reading the above 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.
WHAT ARE THE TACTICS OF THE EMERGENT CHURCH?
Firstly, emerging church leaders like to confuse Christians with difficult questions from scripture. Then instead of encouraging study to answer these questions, they try to lead them to the conclusion that scripture is unclear on ethics and so we should not impose our beliefs on anyone else. Doubt and tolerance become virtues, while faith and standing for truth become vices.
While it is true that there are some things in scripture that are hard to understand, those things which are essential for righteous living and salvation are fairly clear and there is a consensus of interpretation among those who respect the authority of scripture.
Secondly, they try to argue that they are 'up to date' and that orthodox Christian belief is outdated. This is inherent in the terms 'post-modern', 'emergent' 'future church' - as if there was a forward march of history, which is unstoppable and we should not get left behind. Modernists, Progressives, New Agers also use this manipulative language to try to link their belief to a time period. Everyone in this time period now must believe what they do.
Thirdly, they try to label orthodox Bible believing Christians who believe in absolutes, reason from the scriptures and stand up for truth as judgemental, bigoted, intolerant Pharisees. In doing so, they distort the
Biblical meaning of judgmentalism and substitute a post-modern meaning to the term and evade the real reasons why Jesus fought with the Pharisees. Many Christians, afraid of such ugly labels, shrink from challenging emerging church leaders in debate.
Fourthly, they attack the problems plaguing the contemporary church such as authoritarianism and hypocrisy. While these problems are real, the answers offered by the 'emerging church', such as simply lowering the moral standards required for biblical church discipline and speaking out on moral issues in society on grounds of 'non-judgmentalism', are false.
Fifthly, many emerging church leaders do a lot of good works and fight for some good causes. For example, some run charities, which help the poor. How could people doing so much good be teaching error? Modernists also did a lot of good works and fought for good causes, often more so than orthodox, but pietistic, Christians.
Sixthly, 'emergent church' leaders try to pose as orthodox Bible believing Christians. They publish through respected Bible believing publishers like Zondervan and join evangelical associations and preach in evangelical churches. But this is “wolf in sheep’s clothing” teaching.
Seventh, against charges of heresy, they argue for 'tolerance' and act like wounded lambs. This was the same tactic used by them Modernists in the late 19th and early 20th century. The modernists, once they had seized control of Protestant institutions, then used their power to persecute, silence and throw out Bible believing leaders who opposed them. 'Tolerance' was just a tactic to gain an advantage. The same will probably happen if we don't act now.
Eighth, they promote the 'emerging church' and postmodernism as a platform for unity across denominational and sectarian boundaries. While we should promote unity amongst true Christians, the 'emerging church' is not the correct platform to do so.
Ninth, when an 'emerging church' leader is attacked on any specific point of heresy, then they tend to just disclaim that person as 'not one of them' or part of a different faction. Reality is that the movement is fragmented in belief and its ideology promotes that fragmentation. That is why it is hard to argue with because everyone believes something different.
Tenth, 'emerging church' leaders pose as 'youth experts', offering to help pastors and denominational leaders to relate to the youth. Since they assume the church going youth have already swallowed the lies of post-modernism, they expect their pastors to follow them into error in order to reach them. Actually, a shepherd is supposed to lead the sheep and rescue and defend them from wolves - not follow the sheep who are following wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing. Pastors need to understand postmodernism like a doctor studies disease.
HOW SHOULD WE RESPOND TO THE EMERGING CHURCH MOVEMENT?
* We must fight the 'emergent church' heresy with all the strength we have. The sooner people are warned about this emerging threat, the more easily they can be saved from it. If we don't fight now, we will have to fight later and then it will be harder to win. This is a priority we cannot ignore. We must be prepared to sacrifice our popularity, our positions, our money, our time, our friendships, and our ministry relationships to fight this uncompromisingly.
* We must fight not only intellectually, but also to ensure that only Bible believing (non-emergent) leaders are appointed to positions of authority in Christian institutions. That means for example, making it a criterion when
you call a new pastor to your church, or choose presenters for a Christian radio programme or who you support in choosing the next leader of a Christian organisation. Christian organisational leaders need to screen their new workers for 'emerging church'/post-modern beliefs.
* We need to be kind and gentle with pastors and leaders who have been recently influenced by the movement, while discussing and giving them resources to help explain its errors. Many have joined it because they are
disillusioned with contemporary Christianity and see it as a more hopeful alternative. It will be doubly painful to be disillusioned twice, first by contemporary Christianity and now by the 'emerging church' movement. We shouldn't add to the pain by being brutal with our words.
* We must encourage a return to the alternative historic Orthodox Biblical Christianity - a study of respected teachers, creeds, confessions statements of faith interpretation the Bible that have stood the test of time to serve
as a balance with new writers. While we must be open to the Holy Spirit shedding some new light on the Word of God, orthodox Biblical movements generally affirm and re-state old accepted truths more than they introduce new ones.
* We should warn Christian bookshops, magazines, churches, publishing houses and denominations and radio stations against 'emerging church' false teachers like Brian McLaren and Rob Bell and ask them not to stock their books, publish their articles or give them a platform at conferences. 2 John v11 explains why assisting heretics is sharing in their work.
* We need to also go onto the offensive against the Postmodernist worldview of which the 'emerging church' is an accommodation, and promote instead the alternative of a Christian worldview. In other words, we must explain how true Christianity applies to all of life and how it differs from other ideologies in its answers to the questions of life.
* Most of the power in Christian institutions is currently in the hands of people who are over 45 years old. Most of these people do not understand the ideology of Post-modernism, which the youth are embracing. They may have biblical views. They may see a few problems, but they don't understand the seriousness of the threat. Most don't like conflict amongst Christians and want to be nice to everyone. They may view conflict as unnecessary trouble-making. We must educate them about the threat, otherwise, in twenty year’s time, most of the orthodox evangelical institutions will be taken over by postmodernists/ 'emerging church'. They must choose their successors from those who stay with Biblical Christianity and they must re-affirm Biblical Christianity to their followers particularly on points such as the clarity of scripture where it differs from post-modernism.
* We can cautiously consider legitimate ways of adapting cultural elements of our church and organisational methods to attract post-modern youth, while being careful not to compromise the gospel and Christian ethics.
* We must have hope and confidence that ultimately, the 'emerging church movement' and its mother, 'postmodernism', will eventually go out of fashion just like Modernism, Marxism, Fascism and their attempts to synchretise with Christianity. Already Postmodernism is losing support amongst the worlds top intellectuals and that means it is only a matter of time before it loses support in popular culture. That however, could take a few decades. Until then, we must fight to stop it corrupting Christianity and present a Biblical Christian alternative.
* Please print out this document and give it to your pastor or Christian organisational leader.
MORE INFORMATION
* The main group promoting the emerging church in South Africa is http://www.futurechurch.co.za/
* Examples of unbiblical quotations from principal Emerging Church leaders:
- Brian McClaren http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2006/09/brian-mclarens-unorthodox-quotes_07.html
- Rob Bell http://thinkerup.blogspot.com/2007/03/rob-bells-unbiblical-views.html
http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/freswick_casey_feb06_v56_n02.htm
- Steve Chalke http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Message-Jesus-Steve-Chalke/dp/customer-reviews/0310248825
* A chart comparing post-modernism to other worldviews:
http://www.summit.org/resources/worldview_chart/#wv-chart-expl
* Overview of movement (mostly in favour but including some balancing criticism).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_Church
* A list of some key leaders opposing the emerging church movement http://www.apologeticsindex.org/296-emerging-church-opponents
* Helpful web sites against the Emerging Church are:
http://www.monergism.com/directory/link_category/Emerging-Church/
http://www.honeyridge.co.za/node/148
http://postbiblical.info/
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
http://www.9marks.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)