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

25 February 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HISTORY?

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

Yours sincerely,

Philip Rosenthal

MORE INFORMATION

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

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

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

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

A NOTE ON MY PREVIOUS ARTICLE ON LAUSANNE III

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

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

LAUSANNE CONGRESS 'CAPE TOWN CALL TO ACTION' AGAINST POSTMODERNISM

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

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

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

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

WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT CAN I DO?

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Philip Rosenthal

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

29 November 2010

NEW BOOK: DIE TROJAANSE PERD IN DIE NG KERK

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

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

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

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

Philip Rosenthal

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

Die aanslag op die Woord vanuit postmodernistiese denkwyses

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

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

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

Die Ontluikende Kerk (Emerging Church)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reaksies van die Evangeliese Inisiatief

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

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

Samevatting

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

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

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

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

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

WHY DEFEND THE FLOCK AGAINST LIES ABOUT GOD?

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

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

THE TOLERANT ATTITUDE OF OUR CULTURE INFLUENCES THE CHURCH

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

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

DOES THIS REALLY MATTER?

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

WHAT IS WORTH FIGHTING ABOUT: CATEGORIES OF TRUTH

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

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

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

FOCUSING THE BATTLE

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

JESUS TEST OF A TRUE SHEPHERD

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

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

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

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

ISN’T IT UNLOVING TO FIGHT HERESY?

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

WHAT ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

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

THE BATTLE FOR TRUTH IN CHURCH HISTORY

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

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

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

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

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

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

FROM HISTORY TO TODAY

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

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

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

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

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

Postmodernists posing as Evangelical Christians have tried to open a debate on whether a Christian can be a homosexual. Some postmodernists advocate that a Christian can practice homosexuality. Some postmodernists such as Brian McLaren argue the church should, at least for the present, be silent on the issue. Other postmodernists don't believe a Christian can practice homosexuality, but argue that those who believe a Christian can practice homosexuality should be allowed to teach this. In other words, postmodernists in the church would like to shift the issue from the status of a 'serious heresy' to to be fought and silenced to a 'disputable issue', where we should be tolerant of others opinions in church. How tolerant should we be of such teaching? Dr Kevin Roy, pastor of Muldersdrift Union Church and former Principal of the Cape Town Baptist Seminary helps answer the question in the following article:

Philip Rosenthal

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

What things are disputable, and what must we fight for?

By Dr Kevin Roy (First published in Baptists Today, Issue 4 2008)

The apostle Paul was a very liberal man in the area of legitimate differences between Christians. Whether to eat meat or not, whether one day is more holy than others, or not, his counsel was not to judge one another on such ‘disputable matters’, but rather respect one another. His own policy was to be a Jew to the Jews, a Greek to the Greeks, indeed, all things to all men, in order to win as many as possible. And he bent over backwards in order to promote peace and unity in the church, allowing a generous difference of opinion on secondary issues between believers. And we can follow his example in many areas today. Most of us have definite views about baptism, church government, the rapture, the millennium, election, predestination, tongues, prophecy – and that’s a short list – but we would not assign to hell those who differ from us. At least, I hope not. We recognize that many eminent servants of Christ who have been greatly blessed by God have differed on all these issues.

But Paul was fiercely inflexible when it came to the purity of the gospel and matters that affect our salvation. These are life and death issues, and must be fought for strenuously. To those who were seducing the Galatians from the gospel of grace and drawing them back into works religion he pronounced, “Let him be accursed.” And to emphasize his seriousness, he repeated, “If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” Knowing that without genuine repentance there can be no salvation; Paul took an equally strict and inflexible view of moral issues. “No immoral, impure or greedy person – such a man is an idolater – has any inheritance in the kingdom of God. Let no-one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes upon those who are disobedient.” To the Corinthians Paul spelled out explicitly those breaches of the moral law that would exclude a person from the kingdom of God: sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, and swindling. Concerning these things there could be no toleration or debate. Those things that lead a person to eternal destruction are literally life and death issues. We must fight for people’s salvation and guard them against being deceived by plausible perversions of the truth.

Paul was not alone, of course, in this matter. All the apostles said the same thing. “No murderer has eternal life in him,” warned the apostle John. “The cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practise magic arts, the idolaters and all liars – their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur,” he declared. Peter spoke of the destruction awaiting false prophets and false teachers who secretly introduce destructive heresies, and those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. The pattern in all the apostolic teaching is the same. Those teachings that lead a person away from the gospel of truth and into moral transgressions that bring destruction and condemnation must be resisted with all our might. People’s lives and eternal destiny depend on it.

It is clear from the above that all moral transgression is serious. But there is one sin that is warned against with almost monotonous regularity – sexual immorality. Perhaps because this is an area of special weakness for so many of us, and one in which we can be so easily deceived. Sexual sins condemned by God are clearly identified: fornication (sex outside the marriage bond), adultery (sex across the marriage line), homosexual acts (same gender sex), incest (sex with a close relation) and bestiality (sex with animals). In short, sex is the precious and sacred gift of God to be enjoyed within the marriage bond of a man and a woman. So sacred is this gift that the same word (know) is used for sex and the believer’s relationship with God.

For more than 3000 years there has been consensus in the above understanding of what constitutes sexual immorality. Today, that consensus is under serious attack, especially in the area of homosexual relations. It is argued that Scripture does not condemn homosexual relations if they are loving, monogamous (?) and lifelong. Only abusive homosexual relations, such as rape, pederasty and prostitution are condemned. Considerable ingenuity is used to reinterpret key biblical texts. Lev 18:22, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable,” is discounted on the grounds there are other OT texts forbidding clothes made of different materials, certain foods, planting different crops in one field and so on. This ignores the most basic rule of Bible interpretation, namely, that Christian believers under the New Covenant distinguish between moral laws, which are eternal and reaffirmed in the NT, and ceremonial and civil laws which apply only to the Old Covenant. Furthermore, Lev 18 does not only forbid same sex relations. It also condemns incest, adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality and concludes with the words, “do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.” Those who claim that Lev 18:22 is no more applicable today must logically argue the same for the rest of that chapter. (Please read Lev 18 for yourself.)

I mentioned that the moral law is expressly reaffirmed in the NT. This is certainly the case with the prohibition of same sex relations. In his opening chapter to the Romans Paul shows the universal sinfulness of human beings. Though they know God through creation, they turn aside to idolatry and folly. In judgement, God gives them over to shameful lusts. “Even their women exchanged the natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men.” It is claimed that ‘loving homosexual relations’ are not in view here, but what Paul had in mind was pederasty (sex with young boys). But Paul does not mention boys. He writes of men committing indecent acts with men. Similar ingenuity is used to claim that 1 Cor 6:9 does not have ‘loving, committed’ same sex relations in mind. But the word arsenokoitai comes from two words, arsen (male) and koite (lie) meaning ‘one who lies with a male.’ The allusion to Lev 18:22 is unavoidable. It is same sex relations that are here condemned, without any exceptions.

There can be no doubt that when the NT writers referred to sexual immorality they had a number of practices in mind, including same sex relationships. There is not even a hint, anywhere in the Bible, of a certain kind of homosexual relationship acceptable to God. Generations of Christian scholars and leaders would have been astonished at the very idea – the early church fathers, the Reformers of the 16th century, the 18th century Evangelical leaders. In fact, there is something rather arrogant in the idea that the whole church has got this one completely wrong for 2000 years. Only now, thanks to certain modern liberal scholars, do we know the truth.

Does this mean we must be nasty and hateful to homosexual offenders? On the contrary, we must love them sincerely and passionately. We must love them enough to warn them in the spirit of Ezek 33 “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. So you will hear a message from my mouth and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and you do not warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man will die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. But if you, on your part, warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.” The apostle Paul could say, “I am free from the blood of all men,” because he had declared to them the whole counsel of God. Let us love our homosexual neighbours in the most sincere way possible and warn them not to be deceived into the way of death, but to turn into the way of life by genuine repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

IS THE BIBLE ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION’?

26 March 2010

IS THE BIBLE ‘LOST IN TRANSLATION’?

We recently celebrated the victory of the pro-moral lobby in stopping the proposed DSTV porn channel. Indeed we should praise God for this. But there is a much bigger threat to sexual morality in South Africa which is behind our backs – the loss of faith in the Word of God on morality (especially sexuality). And that attack is coming from professing Christian leaders.

In our grandparents and parent’s generation, the question was whether the Bible is true. In our generation, the big debate is whether its meaning is clear. Two groups seemed to have sadly allied themselves in this attack on the clarity of scripture: Elitists and Postmodernists. Many evangelicals have incorporated Statements of Faith on the Truth of Scripture, but these defences are like the Maginot line, the line of earthen forts France constructed after the First World War to defend against another attack. They were broken in a day by panzer tanks. Most evangelical organisations stand defenceless against this new attack. And even Statements of Faith will not be enough alone because, these two groups will then question their clarity of meaning.

ELITISTS argue that ordinary people cannot be sure what the Bible means when they read it, so they need senior church authorities to interpret its meaning for them. And because ordinary people cannot interpret it for themselves, then they cannot hold church authorities accountable because those authorities decide what is right and wrong. Thus the senior authorities can never be wrong unless they admit being so themselves.

POSTMODERNISTS argue that since our culture is so different to the culture when the Bible was written and all words have embedded cultural meaning, then we cannot be sure that the meaning we give to the words are the same as the meaning the writer gave to the words. It is ‘lost in translation’. At best we are guessing. And if we are not sure what the Bible means, then we have no right to enforce our guesses on everyone else.

So these two groups look very different, but are natural allies - and they are not limited to any particular denomination. Included in the ‘ELITISTS’, are many of the most senior and visible public figures in Christianity in South Africa – including many who speak up publicly for morality. They would be unlikely to express their elitist and authoritarian views in public, but if anyone tries to challenge double standards in their ministries, that how they respond. And so for example, if one pushes them to expose and publicly rebuke a church sex sandal on the basis of 1 Timothy 5:20 (“Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.”), then such Elitists will ask who decides what this scripture means. To everyone else the meaning is obvious. Rebuke means Rebuke. Public means public. But to these Elitists, they are the only ones who can decide what it means. On this basis they can then avoid answering what it means and thus avoid obeying it. And they will then rather deal with the scandal quietly behind closed doors instead. Does this matter? Yes it does, and it matters even more than Porn on Television, because when sin is protected among senior leadership, their ungodly behaviour is contagious and spreads through the church. People copy what they do more than what they say. And the Holy Spirit, offended by such compromise, withdraws as he did in the days of Eli (1 Samuel 3). As another example, ELITISTS may give a public appearance of loyalty to scripture, but behind the scenes try to protect false teaching. And if any ordinary church member tries to challenge them, they get the same answer: None of your business – its confidential. Theological debates are for senior leaders only. Shut up and go away.

Most POSTMODERNISTS are younger and without senior positions in any organisational structure. Although few know it, their beliefs derive much from the linguistic philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. For example, when asked on their views on homosexuality, many will look at the obvious prohibitions (e.g. Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27), then they will try and argue that there were cultural issues involved that are no longer relevant. For example, they will argue the real sin problem at Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, but lack of hospitality. Or they will argue that the Bible is not condemning all homosexuality but only homosexual abuse of minors. Now any ordinary Christian can just open their Bible, read the text and understand plainly what it means, but Postmodernists use intellectual cultural and linguistic gymnastics to try to distort this plain meaning. Others, less radical will still hold a view against homosexuality, but they anchor their belief in our modern Christian culture rather than the scripture. So then if the majority of Christian culture was to follow the radical postmodernists, these people would then follow behind them. They cannot defend truth from the Bible, because their minds are in a confused postmodern fog. Other more moderate postmodernists, will say that they believe the Bible says it is wrong but for the sake of ‘tolerance’ (a principal postmodern virtue), we should allow these people to preach and publish their false teaching alongside truth in Church and Christian publications. Thus they deny the duty Christ gives to good spiritual shepherds to protect the flock from wolves who lead people astray (John 10; Titus 1:9). Postmodernists will also tell us Christians cannot tell non-Christians to repent of their sexual sin, because that would be imposing our culture on them (contrary to Ezekiel 3:18).

Why are these two groups natural allies? Because if one takes the Post-modern assumption that the meaning of scripture is unclear on matters necessary for salvation and the Christian life, then how does one impose order in the Church? Will one not end up with chaos? Won’t it be like allowing people to choose whether to drive on the left hand side of the road or the right? Won’t we get lots of crashes and conflict? The only alternative is that order is imposed arbitrarily from an elite. And there is a church Elite which likes to do that job.

Further if we have an Elite which likes power and doesn’t want to be accountable to anyone below them, then how do they escape accountability to scripture quoted by ordinary members? Answer: By denying the obvious meaning of scripture. And how do they justify that? By borrowing the convenient postmodern argument that scripture is unclear.

Okay, so how do Orthodox Bible believing Christians defend our position on the Clarity of Scripture? Are there not many things that Bible believing theologians don’t agree on. Yes. That is true. The Bible doesn’t make all truths equally clear. Many truths in the Bible are for example veiled behind metaphors (Deuteronomy 29:29; Romans 11:33) and there are minor differences in meaning in individual texts between different Bible translations.

1. The things that are critically important to our moral life and salvation God has stated plainly and repeatedly in many different places in scripture. Furthermore, all of scripture fits together into an interlocking logical whole. Thus even if some translator was to misunderstand the meaning of the original language or culture in one verse, for the issues which are critically important, there are many other verses which will tell us the same thing.

2. Jesus has given the Holy Spirit to help ordinary believers who read the Bible with the intent to obey it, the supernatural help to understand it. He has not offered that to intellectuals who enjoy theological debates, but don’t want to obey it (Matthew 11:25; John 16:13).

3. The Law of Moses, the book of Deuteronomy follows the format of an ancient constitution imposed by a conquering King on a vassal king. In the ancient world, such treaties were always translated and the conquering King expected the vassal people to obey it even though they were reading a translation in a different language. Likewise, God knew the Bible would be translated into many languages and across many cultures. This is why for example the poetry of the Psalms sounds beautiful in every language. Postmodernists should not be allowed to hide behind the ‘lost in translation’ argument.

The Reformers put the Clarity of Scripture in this way in the Westminster Confession of Faith “VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

I argue that the attack on the clear meaning of scripture by ELITISTS and POSTMODERNISTS in the church is a bigger threat to sexual morality than is the spread of pornography on the internet and television. Against these evils, we have the powerful Word of God to fight back, but if we the church accept the devil’s lie that the meaning of scripture is unclear on basic issues of the Christian life, like sexual behaviour, then the devil has disarmed us. He has taken away our sword. We have no weapon to fight back. He will tempt us to try fight with some other worldly weapon like trying to make the Christian faith popular and acceptable. But these worldly weapons are useless toys in spiritual warfare. This was the mistake made by liberal and moderate moralists in the 1920s and 30s. They went on various crusades to clean up society by organising church unity pronouncements on various issues – for example supporting the prohibition on alcohol. They may have done a bit of good, but they lost the battle on scripture – and once this battle was lost, the church itself became corrupt, backslid with the culture and ceased to be salt and light in society. But the Bible is not ‘Lost in translation’ across different cultures and languages.

The Word of God is true and it’s meaning on issues of salvation and morality is clear across cultures and languages. And it is on the basis of this true and clear Word of God that we must spiritually protect ourselves and fearlessly call all men to repentance from sin and holiness of life.

ARE YOU DOING YOUR PART IN THE CULTURE WAR?

ARE YOU DOING YOUR PART IN THE CULTURE WAR?

Most Christians think of our responsibility primarily as our personal relationship with God, our close relatives and our involvement in the local church. While these things are important, we have to consider our responsibility to the rest of society. Why? Firstly because, God is sovereign over all of life including the arts, media, government, education, business and healthcare. Secondly, because our lives, families and church can’t be isolated from these – either we influence them with Biblical virtues and truth or they influence us with worldly values and false beliefs.

Whether your children and grandchildren will grow up Christian depends not just on what you say, but also on what they hear at school and what they see on television. Whether we like it or not, we are in the middle of an ideological culture war in every institution in our society. If we ignore the war, we will just be blown around by the winds of popular culture – and might end up even helping the enemy without realising it.

The dominant ideology in the Western world right now is ‘Postmodernism’ – a belief that there is no absolute truth, therefore feelings and relationships are important, while truth and righteousness is not. In black Africa, animism is a powerful influence. In North Africa and the Middle East, Islam is dominant – and while seeks to spread south into Africa and North into Europe. The news media tends to only cover conflict where there is open bloodshed, but the major war is happening in peoples minds and what become socially acceptable in our culture. Wherever we lose the war, those cultural norms become enshrined in civil law and Christians will either have to compromise or suffer persecution. Evangelism will be curtailed, the Bible will be marginalised out of schools and replaced with ‘sex sin education’, we won’t be able to go anywhere without seeing public pornography on billboards or magazine covers. Certain professions, such as nursing will become impossible for Christians to practice, because of the requirement to assist with abortions. Some may say this sounds alarmist, but it is already the case in some Postmodern countries and the pressure of such persecution and anti-Christian influence has already advanced a long way in South Africa. To resist persecution, we therefore have no choice but to fight to defend our freedoms and for godly Christian influence. This influence is not however just a benefit to us Christians, but to the whole of society.

The culture war would be simple, if it was just the church versus the world, but it is much more complex. On the positive side, opinion polls in South Africa show the vast majority of all citizens supporting Christian rather than postmodern values. (See for example: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC_Review_Article-83.phtml ). On the negative side, many more educated South African Christians have been tragically influenced by postmodernism and while they may have personal faith in Christ, their thinking and actions actually help the wrong side. They have been deceived and their minds taken captive by unbiblical ideas.

In every generation, there is pressure for the believing community to accommodate worldly culture. In Old Testament times, the pressure was to accommodate idolatry and child sacrifice. In the ancient world and renaissance, the pressure was to accommodate the ideas of popular Greek philosophers. In African culture, it is to accommodate ancestor worship and superstitions. In Europe, Liberal Modernism, the idea of making Christianity more ‘scientific’ and denying the miraculous began in Germany in the 1850s. In two generations, it gutted and emptied the churches in that country and left a vacuum that allowed the rise of Nazi ideology in its place. The Western allies, who were mostly of Christian worldview at the time, won the military battle, but they lost the theological and ideological battle. Liberal Modernism spread from Germany first across the rest of Europe, then to England and then to America. Wherever liberalism went, churches thought they were advancing because they got the approval of popular culture, but in the next generation the churches emptied. Most of the old Protestant denominations went liberal and Biblical Christians were forced to form new denominations. But as the culture kept changing, liberalism like a computer virus had to keep changing to keep up with the times. As belief in ‘science’ as a solution to all the worlds problems waned, popular culture went on to new ideas like ‘political correctness’ and postmodernism. So the liberal theologians kept changing their message to keep up with the culture. The latest version, accommodating postmodernism calls itself ‘the emerging church’. The result of it, will however be the same as the old liberalism: compromised, but popular Christianity, which ceases to be salt and light in the world or convert unbelievers to Christ.

Cultural and ideological movements tend to follow a geographic pattern of spreading from Europe, to Britain, to America and then to South Africa and then north up Africa. They also tend to follow an academic pathway within the English speaking world of starting with top intellectuals at places like Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, Princeton and then spreading from there to the top universities in other countries (e.g. Cape Town and Witwatersrand in South Africa) and then to the rest of the universities. They then spread from top academic works to more popular books, then on to film and finally to television. It also sadly tends to flow from these pagan universities into Christian theological faculties at the same universities, from where it flows to lesser universities theology departments, then to other Bible Colleges and from there if we don’t stop it to the pulpit of your local church.

Is this just an academic bloodless war? No. The loss of Biblical Christian influence, resulting in a loss of value for human life in Europe, led to its most bloody century in history with the First and Second world wars plus the carnage of Communism. Almost a million innocent babies murdered already in South Africa as a result of postmodern ideology in our government and hospitals. We have successfully fought off attempts to move to legalise euthanasia of the sick – but if we don’t fight hard – for how long. The war for the mind comes first – then if we lose real bloodshed follows.

How is the South African church doing in this culture war? Sadly not well. Most of the older denominations ministering to the middle class population have already been over-run by postmodern liberalism. They are in death phase. Many even tolerate homosexuals in the pulpit. People stay because of family loyalty but they win few new converts because few ministers still preach the true Gospel of Christ – and so they are likely to continue to shrink to insignificance. Some publicly supported legal abortion. The South African Council of Churches, acting without a mandate, supported the legalisation of Same-Sex Marriage, but few protested against this. Another kind of cultural liberalism is undermining the newer Charismatic churches – not one of liberal theology, but of tolerating ungodly behaviour in leadership, which is not disciplined and then gets copied in the pews. Sadly, the vast majority of Christians and local churches operate as if there was no culture war underway – they simply don’t fight – and that is why we are losing.

Many Christians say that they won’t do evil themselves, but neither will they speak up against the evil in the society around them. This strategy is a losing one. We are social beings. We don’t live in isolation. We are influenced and we influence. In the Old Testament the Israelites were commanded to drive out the pagan Canaanites (Joshua 23:12-13). When they failed to do so, they were corrupted by them and fell into idolatry. In the New Covenant, we don’t fight people, but we do fight ideas (2 Corinthians 10:3-5). The same will be true of us if we make peace with the pagan culture around us - we either fight it or are corrupted by it. We are in a war whether we like it or not and we must fight or lose the war.

Another question is whether we can actually win? Or are we just doomed to fail and accept defeat? We can draw hope from history, where many times Christians have repented of their backsliding and moved onto the offensive of social reform, such as the Evangelical Awakening in Britain led by men like John Wesley and William Wilberforce outlawed slavery. We can see how tiny Christian minorities with faith in God, like the new born Salvation Army led the fight to outlaw prostitution in Britain in the 1890s and then spread their campaign to win even as an even tinier minority in Japan! We can be encouraged by the victory of conservative evangelicals against liberals in the Southern Baptist Convention in American. Yes we can win!

A common question is why do we keep worrying about homosexuals, when they are such a minority? Surely there are more common and equally evil sins to worry about? The answer is because in the culture war, our most militant and well organised opponents of Christian virtues are the homosexual activist lobby. Such people are a tiny minority and even among homosexuals, the activists are an even tinier minority, but these people make up for their lack of numbers through good organisation, leadership and networking with other non-homosexuals and virulent hostility in the culture war against Christian values, for example in HIV-AIDS education, the law courts, political parties and attempts to infiltrate the church. Adulterers by comparison do not organise themselves and actively attack Christianity and family values or initiate lawsuits against Christians in this way. Homosexual lobby groups actions tend to influence the rest of heterosexual society, for example in the promotion of condoms rather than purity as a solution to HIV AIDS and in countries where marriage has been redefined to include same-sex marriage, heterosexual marriage has dropped as well. It is the area where there is the greatest cultural pressure to accept sin.

What can you do to help win this culture war? Firstly, think about how to protect yourself and your family and your church from evil in the surrounding culture. Think about how the worldly ideologies on television or at school may be influencing you and your family. Secondly, learn about the ideologies which are competing so that you can give a good defence. Thirdly, think about how your actions at work, church or in everyday interaction with people impact on the rest of society. Fourthly, pray for God to show you opportunities where you can make a difference.

DOES POSTMODERNISM DELIVER BETTER RELATIONSHIPS?

DOES POSTMODERNISM DELIVER BETTER RELATIONSHIPS?

The main selling point of Postmodernism is the promise of better relationships through ‘tolerance’ and sensitivity to feelings together with the argument that worldviews based on absolute truth lead to conflict. Biblical Christianity is put in the same box as the Taliban. Postmodern or Emergent Christianity, which downplays doctrine and focuses on feelings and relationships is cool in this new culture. You are welcome to believe whatever you like so long as you don’t insist it is absolutely true and expect others to follow the same belief or practice. This new spirit of ‘tolerance’ it is hoped will stop religious wars internationally and conflict within the church. The promise appeals to a growing generation of broken, angry and hurting youth, whose parents no longer share the same house. Western individualism and mobility between cities and continents has created a crisis of loneliness. The pain enters our churches. While Christianity is maligned in the media for being ‘intolerant’, we can be accepted if we just adapt to the new culture and downplay those parts of the Bible which offend it. Is this the answer? To realise their dream, however, Postmodernists in and outside the church need to silence those nuisance Christians who think truth and righteousness also matter. “We will not tolerate intolerance” they say.

Firstly, is Postmodern teaching on relationships Biblical? Well open the Bible randomly on any page and you will likely find something on relationships. So this must be biblical then? But is what the Bible teaches about relationships the same as what Postmodernism is teaching about relationships? No. While the Bible does teach a lot on relationships, what it says has only a small area of overlap with Postmodernism – mostly the two ideologies contradict each other. The Bible does not hope to resolve relational problems by downplaying truth and righteousness, while emphasising relationship and feelings, but rather by keeping these two sides integrated and in balance.

Secondly, is it working practically? In the past two decades, Postmodernism has become the dominant ideology of the Western world. Are relationships getting better as a result? No. Statistics show increasing family breakdown. Are relationships getting better in those countries which were the first and most radical in adopting Postmodern ideology e.g. the Netherlands and Scandinavia? No. These cutting edge Postmodern countries show the number of people getting married dropping by about 2% per year. They are becoming nations of fragmented individuals in disposable relationships. Homosexuality is increasing. Children born out of wedlock are becoming the norm. Has Postmodern influence in the church helped heal relationships? Sadly, sociological statistical studies by the Barna group show divorce rates in the church higher than those in the world. The statistics are partly skewed because more Christians are getting married. This alone should warn us the ideology is not working. Did the older traditional Biblical Christianity held to for most of the last two thousand years have this problem of mass marriage failure inside the church? No. But Postmodernism’s lie of the promise of better relationships through ‘tolerance’ and blaming of Biblical Christianity as ‘harsh narrow minded insensitive intolerant bigotry’ repeated often enough - eventually gets believed.

THE BIBLICAL ALTERNATIVE

How then does Biblical teaching differ from Postmodernism and what is it’s alternative solution? The Bible has so much to say on relationship that one can only touch on a few key points of difference here. We all live in a matrix of multiple issues and multiple relationships – with conflicts between them and we have to make choices on what to do and say. Where there are conflicts for our loyalty and effort, how do we decide what issues and relationships to prioritise? How do we decide what to fight about and what to just tolerate?

Firstly, the Bible, unlike Postmodernism gives a hierarchy of importance for our loyalty and responsibility in relationships. First comes God, then other men (Matthew 22:37-40; Luke 14:24). Out of relationships with other men, first comes our spouse (with whom we are ‘one flesh’) (Ephesians 5:22-33), then our children, then our extended family (1 Timothy 5:4-8), then our church community (1 Timothy 5:16) and then the rest of the world. Postmodernism ignores this hierarchy. Mostly treats God as if he is there for our convenience and prioritises getting along smoothly with everyone rather than this hierarchy of important relationships. Thus if you try to persuade someone not to divorce, Postmodernists would see that as interference and harming relationship. A Postmodernist may rationalise that a married couple may be happier apart. Rather shut up and be tolerant they would say. Our first priority is our relationship with God, even if this might offend some other people. Thus Postmodernism really ends up in more fragmented families and a neglected relationship with God - its promise is false and does not deliver.

Secondly, in Biblical Christianity, unlike ‘Postmodern emergent Christianity’, our relationship with God is based on believing truth about God, rather than by inventing a mental image of God the way we would like him to be. God’s glory is revealed in the truth about him in the Bible. We worship him for his glorious attributes. The bestselling Postmodern book, ‘The Shack’ by William Young describes an imaginary encounter by the lead character with the three persons of the Trinity. Problem is that the God portrayed is not the God of scripture and many other misguided Christians seem to be claiming relationship with God, while their personal lives don’t match up to the holiness God requires (Hebrews 12:14) and their ideas about God don’t match scripture. If someone was to start telling lies about your wife or your best friend, would you not immediately want to correct them? How then can a person claim to love God, who will happily tolerate false teaching about God? Truth and love are not separable, but our love for God drives us to learn truth and to defend the truth about him. Postmodernist Christians however would argue that out of love for people, we should tolerate heresy. Speaking strongly against heresy is unloving they would say. But the Bible teaches we should prioritise love for God first. Thus this more relational Christianity tends to result in false relationship with God. It doesn’t deliver.

Thirdly, the Bible gives an absolute and clear standard of right and wrong by which we can judge truth. Thus when there are disagreements, and we both accept the authority of Bible we can try to study it together to try to settle our disagreements. The new Postmodern emergent Christianity argues that the meaning of the Bible is subjective and based on our personal biases and thus it is impossible to settle disputes this way. The result is that we must then just all live independently and ‘tolerate’ eachother (as Postmodernists prefer) or alternatively through organisational process. The problem however is that organisational processes are also impacted by Postmodernist belief. If truth doesn’t really matter, then why should any organisation follow their own constitution or Statement of Faith? And if everything is subjective, then how do we interpret the meaning of these? Every organisation has to have order or it falls apart. But what will that order be based on? Without an objective standard of right and wrong or of agreed procedure, the only way to impose order is through an elite. And that is what happens when the scripture and objective truth is sidelined. Nations and churches become governed by unaccountable elites. It is impossible in a conflict to keep good relations with everyone and so where there is no objective standard for truth and righteousness, elites will dominate and squash opposition. The Bible interpreted as clear and objective truth on the other hand give a basis on which any individual can argue, without leading to social chaos. National policy decisions are increasingly being made by unaccountable Postmodern judicial elites and less by democratic process. Likewise as ‘relational governance’ displaces objective standards in churches, elites take over regardless of the denomination. Such arbitrary elitist governance tends to benefit a few and hurt people. Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships doesn’t deliver.

God’s moral boundaries are given for our good (Deuteronomy 10:13) and respecting them results in better relationships. His laws are not just there to help us to score religious points – they make practical common sense. Jesus encourages us to set further personal boundaries against things that cause us to sin (Matthew 5:29). Nevertheless, Postmodernists would tend to treat such boundaries as unimportant, with resulting damage to relationships. For example, the young man who exposes himself to sexual images in movies will likely struggle more with temptation to go too far in his dating relationships with the opposite sex. Compromising, however will damage a good relationship and undermine his future marriage relationship.

Fourthly, based on this truth, Biblical Christianity sees some relationships such as sexual relationships outside married as just plain evil. But muddled Postmodern Christians may for example argue that a homosexual couple are just so happy together – so how can we say that it is wrong? Superficially, they may seem happy – but probably over they longer term the result will be pain. And even if they did happen to be more happy, for us the authority is the Bible and not just social peace and happiness.

Fifthly, the Bible gives categories of standards of righteousness, some of which are absolute for all people and all time (.e.g. You shall not murder’); others which have some value but are not absolute (.e.g. observing of special days (Romans 14)). It also, however allows for an intermediate standard where church authorities may agree to make certain temporary rules applicable to that time and situation. For example, in Acts 15:29 the church prohibited eating food sacrificed to idols, while 1 Corinthians 8:1-7, categorises it as a debatable issue. Absolute issues we fight about, (e.g. sexual purity; the sanctity of human life) while debatable issues we need to make decisions depending on the context. Postmodernism would argue nothing is completely absolute and put everything in the category of either individual choice or a group cultural norm. Thus they would frown on Christians trying to stop non-Christians aborting babies or close down escort agencies. Such action is ‘insensitive to their feelings and creates a bad image for Christianity’ they would say. This view may lead to smoother relations between the Christian community and the secular media and institutionalised evil, but it hurts the relationships of parents with the babies they kill and families torn apart by the infidelity of prostitution. Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships is a lie. It doesn’t deliver.

Sixthly, the Bible gives a description of due process to deal with and settle disputes for example in Matthew 18; Matthew 5 and 1 Timothy 5. Organisations also have their own procedures to settle disputes. But when ‘relationships and feelings’ are prioritised out of balance with truth, then procedure is only applied when it is convenient for those in power. Insisting on doing so is seen as legalistic. The result is that disputes are settled in an ad-hoc manner which usually gets very messy and painful. Not obeying scriptural procedure thus results in more relational pain. The Postmodern promise doesn’t deliver.

Seventh, the Bible gives us the expectation that if we are godly, we will suffer persecution including social ostracism and abuse (1 Peter 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:12). Nevertheless, Postmodern Christians want to be accepted by the world and the result is to avoid doing whatever the world disapproves of. So for example they avoid confronting people with the need to repent of their sins and receive Christ and speaking up against social sin in society – rather simply trying to ‘build relationships’ in the hope that someone somehow will decide that Christians are nice and they want to join them. Maybe this will lead to some superficial peace between the church and the world, but such an approach leads to very few if any conversions – and thus the masses live in unreconciled relationship with God – not knowing what to do to reconcile with God. Furthermore, sin in society, when not confronted grows and spreads, wreaking relational damage in the individuals and families it affects.

Eighth, we as Christians have a corporate as well as an individual relationship with God. In other words, God deals with us not just as individuals, but also judges and blesses us as nations (Romans 11) and churches (Revelation 2-3). As individuals we are affected by God’s corporate judgments and sin in our church and society will indirectly affect how God treats us. Thus we need to use our influence to persuade the group of which we are a part to obey God and live according to his standards. We have a corporate responsibility to ensure correct church discipline especially where there is scandalous leadership behaviour. We must speak up for righteousness lest we be judged ourselves as part of the group. Postmodernists, however baulk at the whole idea of God judging groups for their sins. How politically incorrect can you get? But it is Biblical. Where a group rebels against God, one of the common judgements is that God causes conflict within that group (Zechariah 8:10). Thus while Postmodernism may deliver temporary smooth relationships, God’s judgment on the sin of the group will ultimately do more harm to relationships.

CONCLUSION

Thus the Postmodern promise of better relationships is false and a lie. Hopefully, eventually society will wake up and realise this, just as after the Cold War they woke up to realise that the Communist promise of helping the poor was a lie. But until they do that, we as Christians need to confront and change this muddled thinking in the church and recover Biblical Christian thinking on relationships. We need to prioritise our relationships according to the Bible; base or relationship with God on the truth of the scriptures; use the absolute standards of right and wrong in the scriptures to settle disputes; reject evil unbiblical relationships; distinguish between categories of standards of right and wrong so we don’t fight about the wrong things; follow biblical due process to settle disputes; be prepared to suffer persecution for righteousness to help reconcile others with God and do our part to encourage holiness and corporate relationship with God. All of this is contrary to Postmodernist ethics. But it is the Biblical way of better relationships – and unlike Postmodernism it does deliver better relationships.

Yes, postmodern ‘tolerance’ and ‘sensitivity to feelings’ may result in temporary superficial smooth relationships, but overall it does more harm than good.

Since the promise better relationships is the main argument being used to push Postmodernism in the church and attack Biblical Christianity – we need to not just respond to the need for truth, but also warn other Christians how Postmodern thinking actually hurts rather than helps relationships.