You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Christian Books’ tag.
“It is a satanic trap denying essential beliefs taught by Jesus, the Apostles and Bible believers throughout the Church Age. It is also exactly what Young believed in 2004. It is what he believed when he wrote The Shack and whether he believes it today or not you can be fairly certain that with millions of dollars at risk he is not about to re-edit The Shack to try and make theological corrections – at least without an act of God anyway. “
From Eric Barger
TAKE A STAND! MINISTRIES
THE DEATH OF DISCERNMENT
Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad: for who is able to judge this thy so great a people? – I Kings 3:9
I like Paul Young. Having heard him speak about his life and book three times recently in Portland, Oregon I found him to be passionate, witty and funny. While at Young’s alma mater (Warner Pacific College), I was able to spend a few moments with him privately during which time I asked him to personally respond to several criticisms and concerns that I and other Christians are raising about the theological contents of his book. I wish I could report that he allayed my apprehensions but instead, I went away convinced that The Shack is more than just a little offbeat but is, as Dr. Albert Mohler pegged it on his radio program, “blatant heresy.”
Yes, The Shack is indeed a novel. And many will wonder what could be wrong since it is identified as a Christian book and authored by a man who claims to be a Christian? After all, The Shack is heralded by many seasoned Christian leaders. Pastors are preaching from it. Sunday School classes and small groups are reading and discussing it. Many Christians are buying it by the case to give as gifts. Some Christian Schools are even sanctioning and encouraging the reading of the book. But this is not just a benign story of man overcoming life’s challenges. Make no mistake, the book presents doctrine throughout its clever and gripping story – something the author clearly intended to do. Therein lays the problem.
Trading the Kingdom for a Shack
For those unaware of the book’s storyline, here is the description of The Shack from Amazon.com.
“Mackenzie Allen Philips’ youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation, and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.
Four years later in the midst of what he refers to as ‘The Great Sadness,’ Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend.
Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack’s world forever.
In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant ‘The Shack’ wrestles with the timeless question, “Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?”
The Shack is a publishing phenomenon but you may ask “is it really any big deal?” This self-published book has sold 4+ million copies since its May 2007 release. It debuted at #1 on The New York Times Bestseller List and has remained there for the past 25 weeks as of this writing. It has also held the #1 position on many other bestseller lists including Amazon.com, USA Today’s Top 150 Books, Barnes and Noble, Borders Books and is the #1 book of 2008 at ChristianBook.com. According to the author, the book is currently selling 87,000 copies a week in the secular book stores alone. All of this has allowed Young and his two publishing partners the luxury of holding out for just the right major motion picture deal as well. But there is a reason why several dozen publishers turned this book down. Here are a few of my observations – and objections.
The Shack’s Trinity
Several chapters into the book, a most unorthodox version of the Holy Trinity is revealed. Young’s tale diminishes Almighty God from His rightful position as a supernatural being. Instead of speaking by His Word and His Spirit, He is morphed into a feminine figure reduced to passing notes to those whom she wants to communicate with.
God is portrayed in The Shack as a large African-American woman named “Papa” also called “Elousia.” (Talk about gender confusion!) Jesus is a Jewish carpenter complete with a tool belt and the Holy Spirit is depicted as an Asian woman named after “Sarayu,” a mystical river in ancient India related to the Hindu deity Kali. Clearly, there is a trinity in The Shack but it is absolutely not the Trinity.
From my first glance at The Shack, it struck me that the idea of God in human form – even in the pages of a novel is more than just theologically questionable. It is forbidden by several passages from both the Old and New Testaments not the least of which is the Second Commandment (Exodus 20: 4-5). The Apostle Paul proclaims, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…” (Romans 1:21-23a)
Of The Shack, Chuck Colson’s BreakPoint contributing editor Travis McSherley wrote, “This is the root of the book’s problems. In the course of the biblical narrative, God the Father never reveals Himself in the form of a human. In fact, Christ rebukes His disciples for even suggesting it. (See John 14:5-10)
The Shack would not dispute these limits of understanding – it dedicates many pages to chastising believers who cling too tightly to traditional views of God’s nature. Yet, instead of expanding our thinking and our appreciation for divine mysteries, the book shrinks them quite dramatically by creating a deity so clearly influenced by human expectations of what God should be.”
Sin, Hell, Judgment, Salvation, the Incarnation,
Hierarchy and Authority in the Godhead, a Polynesian
Goddess and other assorted problems
Here are just a few of the many issues raised by The Shack:
– Young’s Papa character insists that sin is its own punishment. This distorts the reality of Hell and discounts eternal retribution for sin.
– Readers of The Shack are told that Jesus is only the best way to know God – not the only way.
– The Shack teaches that when Jesus went to the cross, God Almighty died there too. This is a heresy known as patripassianism. (In our private conversation I challenged Young about this but to no avail.)
– The Shack states that there is no structure or hierarchy within the Trinity and that the three personages of God are all equally subject to one another and to humans as well. I challenge fans of The Shack to open a Bible and try to make that square with the Scriptures!
– Young’s “Papa” character is suspiciously akin to a Polynesian/Hawaiian goddess who also happens to be known as “Papa.” When I quizzed Young on this he denied any knowledge of such a deity. However, the similarities with The Shack’s God character are stunning.
Now lets move on to perhaps the biggest concern.
Is Paul Young still a “Reconciling Universalist?”
I have noticed that in nearly every electronic or print media interview Paul Young volunteers that he is “not a universalist” and does so without ever being asked about it. But is he merely parsing words? Young is obviously nervous about the Christian world becoming convinced of any such thing. That said, it strikes me as odd that on a web page intended to answer critics of the book one of his editors, Wayne Jacobson, acknowledges that Young had previously embraced a form of universalism known as “universal reconciliation” and that this belief indeed appeared throughout the original manuscript. (Jacobson refers to it as “ultimate reconciliation” to avoid using the dreaded “U” word, universalism.)
Jacobson’s website states:
Does The Shack promote Ultimate Reconciliation (UR)?
“It does not. While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it. In my view UR is an extrapolation of Scripture to humanistic conclusions about our Father’s love that has to be forced on the biblical text.
Since I don’t believe in UR and wholeheartedly embrace the finished product, I think those who see UR here, either positively or negatively are reading into the text. To me that was the beauty of the collaboration.” (See: http://www.windblownmedia.com/shackresponse.html)
It is obvious that Young, Jacobson, and partner Brad Cummings all have a great deal to lose by not doing their best to debunk the book’s critics. They are very aware of where Young was theologically when he wrote the book. And that is the point isn’t it? It is the contents of the book (and presumably that of the forthcoming motion picture) that is being criticized here.
In the very beginning, I began to smell universalism in The Shack by simply reading it. These thoughts were more than confirmed through a very scholarly paper critiquing The Shack written by Dr. James De Young. Other leaders who have been critical of the book including Dr. Michael Youssef, Janet Parshall, Jan Markell and Dr. Larry DeBruyn have quoted Dr. De Young’s research – and for good reason.
Dr. De Young is a conservative professor at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. He is fluent in Greek and Hebrew and also teaches an elective on the early Church Fathers. He is well equipped to expose universalism from both biblical and historical perspectives. Perhaps equally important to our discussion here, is the fact that for several years both Dr. De Young and Paul Young were members of a theological discussion group or “think tank” known as the M3 Forum. In response to the bountiful amount of universalistic ideas found in The Shack, Dr. De Young has published a well-documented 39 page paper which can be accessed at: http://theshackreview.com. Once on the website you will also find several shorter documents and a discussion forum with remarks from readers, many of which defend The Shack. These comments serve to illustrate the tremendous confusion and lack of biblically thinking we see abounding inside the Christian community today.
After having Young tell me face to face that he was not a universalist, I asked him about Dr. De Young’s paper. He bristled at me and made several accusations about De Young which I now understand to be unfounded. Since the meeting with Paul Young, I had the opportunity to meet personally with Dr. De Young for several hours. In our meeting he shared another yet-to-be-released paper with me which he has written exposing Paul Young’s very bold defense of universal reconciliation. I can best describe the information in it as shocking. In fact, in the Spring of 2004, Paul gave one of the most complete defenses of universal reconciliation imaginable and reiterated this position on at least two occasions – the latest being in May-June 2007 – after writing The Shack.
Having had no previous indication that a staunch believer was in their midst, Paul Young’s revelations heralding universal reconciliation came as a complete blind-side to the M3 Forum members. After the group contested Young’s ideas, Dr. De Young gave a lengthy rebuttal to all of Paul’s points, branding Young’s position as heretical, citing a church council decision from the 6th century. After this event in 2004, Paul Young ceased participating in the M3 Forum.
In reflecting on my personal conversation with Young at Warner Pacific in October 2008, I wish I had asked specifically “Are you now or have you ever been an advocate of universal reconciliation?” (Note that classical universalists believe that all religions lead to the same place where as those who hold to universal reconciliation believe that all men <read that “ALL”> are already saved because of Jesus’ work on the cross.) This position purports that there is no penalty for sin, no literal hell and no need to accept Christ and repent of one’s sins. It dramatically undermines the work of the Church, evangelism and the core teachings of the New Testament. It is a satanic trap denying essential beliefs taught by Jesus, the Apostles and Bible believers throughout the Church Age. It is also exactly what Young believed in 2004. It is what he believed when he wrote The Shack and whether he believes it today or not you can be fairly certain that with millions of dollars at risk he is not about to re-edit The Shack to try and make theological corrections – at least without an act of God anyway. Again, it is not how skillfully Young may craft his words in denial of being a universalist or even what he may actually believe today that is the real question. It is the theological contents of The Shack that orthodox Christian critics are concerned with. Besides, universalism is but one of the many glaring unbiblical aspects of the book.In reflecting on my personal conversation with Young at Warner Pacific in October 2008, I wish I had asked specifically “Are you now or have you ever been an advocate of universal reconciliation?” (Note that classical universalists believe that all religions lead to the same place where as those who hold to universal reconciliation believe that all men <read that “ALL”> are already saved because of Jesus’ work on the cross.) This position purports that there is no penalty for sin, no literal hell and no need to accept Christ and repent of one’s sins. It dramatically undermines the work of the Church, evangelism and the core teachings of the New Testament. It is a satanic trap denying essential beliefs taught by Jesus, the Apostles and Bible believers throughout the Church Age. It is also exactly what Young believed in 2004. It is what he believed when he wrote The Shack and whether he believes it today or not you can be fairly certain that with millions of dollars at risk he is not about to re-edit The Shack to try and make theological corrections – at least without an act of God anyway. Again, it is not how skillfully Young may craft his words in denial of being a universalist or even what he may actually believe today that is the real question. It is the theological contents of The Shack that orthodox Christian critics are concerned with. Besides, universalism is but one of the many glaring unbiblical aspects of the book.
The REAL Problem
The bottom line concerning books, movies, television shows and other input like The Shack is that if our emotions rule and we fail to use scriptural discernment we can be taken captive by “evil imaginations”
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit… – Colossians 2:8
Knowing that the author actually portrayed himself as both Shack characters Missy (the violated-then-murdered six year-old) and her father, Mack (the one searching for God in a painful world) one’s heart surely breaks for what Paul Young has evidently endured in his lifetime. However, if readers fail to think biblically and allow only The Shack’s emotional storyline to grip them, they chance becoming prey to the very thing that I believe has duped many Christians into accepting and even endorsing the book. Empathy towards the author or his characters or becoming enamored by what many testify to as the positive real-world outcome of reading the book cannot trump one’s biblical analysis of the work. Young plays upon emotions constantly in the book and also as he lectures publically equating that because hearts are allegedly being touched that God must be giving approval to The Shack. When speaking to me personally, he emphasized the concept that results are all that matters. I responded that just because people testify that the book is somehow helping them, this does not necessarily mean that it is actually ordained by God. After all, God can use many means to reach people. God regularly uses disasters, accidents and tragedy of all sorts – even unorthodox or cultic books for His glory. This however doesn’t mean that God somehow deems heresy or terrible events as somehow good or positive in and of themselves.
The Nicest Heretic
Paul Young is perhaps the nicest heretic I have ever dealt with personally. That may sound flip but it’s true. He is a very nice guy who is presenting and defending some very dangerous even seductive heresies. As one who wears his emotions on his sleeve and who found himself being swayed by the heartbreaking storyline of The Shack, I must again caution. To allow a gripping story to cloud our ability to detect even the subtle theological errors strewn throughout its pages is exactly what Dr. Michael Youssef meant when he described The Shack as “a deep ditch that’s covered by beautiful landscape.”
The disturbing truth is that books like The Shack would never become a bestseller in the Christian world if Christians were on guard, thinking biblically and were willing to follow the Scriptures! In these dangerous days it is paramount that we actively develop “eyes of understanding” which constantly check everything by the Word of God – especially the stuff that claims to be of God. The Scripture implores us to prove or test all things (I Thessalonians 5:21-22) and this test can only be accomplished one way – by knowing the Bible and then utilizing what we know from it. Every Believer needs to be alert to the reality that in these last days deception is going to come at a rate never fathomed before. Mark my words, as time passes Satan is preparing to use unheralded and brazen trickery that will look and sound very spiritual, even Christian. The only hope we have to successfully avoid the traps is by prayerful, dedicated and aggressive study of God’s unchangeable Word. Otherwise, sooner or later we’ll find ourselves amongst a growing number from previously trustworthy evangelical circles that are heading straight for apostasy.
Jesus warned us in Matthew 24 that if the end days were not shortened by His return even the very elect would be deceived. Can we not assume that many who currently hang around the Church – and even some who preach or write books now popularly accepted in Christian circles – may in reality never endure to the end and are thus actually wolves in sheep’s clothing?
Source:
http://www.ericbarger.com/emailers/2008/update11-22-2008.htm
Archaeology
In what ways have the discoveries of archaeology verified the reliability of the Bible?
Over the years there have been many criticisms leveled against the Bible concerning its historical reliability. These criticisms are usually based on a lack of evidence from outside sources to confirm the Biblical record. Since the Bible is a religious book, many scholars take the position that it is biased and cannot be trusted unless we have corroborating evidence from extra-Biblical sources. In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent, and a lack of outside evidence places the Biblical account in doubt.
This standard is far different from that applied to other ancient documents, even though many, if not most, have a religious element. They are considered to be accurate, unless there is evidence to show that they are not. Although it is not possible to verify every incident in the Bible, the discoveries of archaeology since the mid-1800s have demonstrated the reliability and plausibility of the Bible narrative.
Here are some examples:
- The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
- The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
- Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon’s wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon’s prosperity was entirely feasible.
- It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon’s palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
- Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus’ son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.html
Manuscript evidence for superior
New Testament reliability
The New Testament is constantly under attack and its reliability and accuracy are often contested by critics. But, if the critics want to disregard the New Testament, then they must also disregard other ancient writings by Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. This is because the New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous than any other ancient writing. Because the copies are so numerous, they can be cross checked for accuracy. This process has determined that the biblical documents are extremely consistent and accurate.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
| Author2 | Date Written |
Earliest Copy | Approximate Time Span between original & copy |
Number of Copies |
Accuracy of Copies |
| Lucretius | died 55 or 53 B.C. | 1100 yrs | 2 | —- | |
| Pliny | 61-113 A.D. | 850 A.D. | 750 yrs | 7 | —- |
| Plato | 427-347 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1200 yrs | 7 | —- |
| Demosthenes | 4th Cent. B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 800 yrs | 8 | —- |
| Herodotus | 480-425 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 8 | —- |
| Suetonius | 75-160 A.D. | 950 A.D. | 800 yrs | 8 | —- |
| Thucydides | 460-400 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 8 | —- |
| Euripides | 480-406 B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 1300 yrs | 9 | —- |
| Aristophanes | 450-385 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1200 | 10 | —- |
| Caesar | 100-44 B.C. | 900 A.D. | 1000 | 10 | —- |
| Livy | 59 BC-AD 17 | —- | ??? | 20 | —- |
| Tacitus | circa 100 A.D. | 1100 A.D. | 1000 yrs | 20 | —- |
| Aristotle | 384-322 B.C. | 1100 A.D. | 1400 | 49 | —- |
| Sophocles | 496-406 B.C. | 1000 A.D. | 1400 yrs | 193 | —- |
| Homer (Iliad) | 900 B.C. | 400 B.C. | 500 yrs | 643 | 95% |
| New Testament |
1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. | 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) |
less than 100 years | 5600 | 99.5% |
NUMBERS OF COPIES
2, 7, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 10, 10, 20, 20, 49, 193, 643, 5600
ACCURACY OF COPIES
Homer 95%
New Testament 99.5%
As you can see, there are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the first century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the first century that contest the New Testament texts.
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.
Below is a chart with some of the oldest extant New Testament manuscripts compared to when they were originally penned. Compare these time spans with the next closest which is Homer’s Iliad where the closest copy from the original is 500 years later. Undoubtedly, that period of time allows for more textual corruption in its transmission. How much less so for the New Testament documents?
| Important Manuscript Papyri |
Contents |
Date |
MSS Date |
Approx. Time Span |
|
| p52 (John Rylands Fragment)3 |
John 18:31-33,37-38 | circa 96 A.D. |
circa 125 A.D. |
29 yrs | |
| P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus) |
Rom. 5:17–6:3,5-14; 8:15-25, 27-35, 37–9:32; 10:1-11, 22, 24-33, 35–14:8,9–15:9, 11-33; 16:1-23, 25-27; Heb.; 1 & 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col.; 1 Thess. 1:1,9-10; 2:1-3; 5:5-9, 23-28 | 50’s-70’s | circa 200 A.D. |
Approx. 150 yrs |
|
| P66 (Bodmer Papyrus) |
John 1:1–6:11,35–14:26; fragment of 14:29-21:9 |
70’s |
circa 200 A.D. |
Approx. 130 yrs |
|
| P67 | Matt. 3:9,15; 5:20-22, 25-28 | circa 200 A.D. |
Approx. 130 yrs |
If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper. On the other hand, if the critics acknowledge the historicity and writings of those other individuals, then they must also retain the historicity and writings of the New Testament authors; after all, the evidence for the New Testament’s reliability is far greater than the others. The Christian has substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than he does for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
http://www.carm.org/evidence/textualevidence.htm
Illustration of Bible text manuscript tree
and variant readings
The following diagram illustrates manuscript corruptions in the biblical texts that are produced, for whatever reason, and copied down to later manuscripts. The purpose of the illustration is to show how errors are copied down from one manuscript to another, how they are counted, and how we can determine which is the correct reading.
In this example, of the 26 existing manuscripts (represented by solid black and red sheets) nine of them have a textual problem where a phrase was incorrectly copied. Therefore, in this illustration, we would have a total of nine variants in 26 manuscripts. But, it is really only one.
However, manuscripts can be categorized in family trees by analyzing their location of discovery, jars found in, type of papyri written on, type of ink used, style of writing, etc. Therefore, daughter manuscripts can be matched very accurately to father manuscripts.
In this example we see that the word “only” was omitted from a 3rd century document and copied in subsequent, daughter documents. All we need to do is to take a look at the manuscripts and even though we see nine variants here, actually we can tell that there is only one which has been copied. Also, we can accurately determine which is the correct reading by looking at the father document from the 2nd century.
With this type of method, the New Testament documents can be reconstructed with an incredible accuracy. Furthermore, the New Testament is approximately 99.5% textually pure. This means that of all the manuscripts in existence they agree completely 99.5% of the time. Of the variants that occur, mostly are easily explainable and very few have any effect on the meaning of passages. In all, no New Testament doctrine is affected by any variant reading.
http://www.carm.org/index.html
What archaeological discovery has had the all-time greatest Biblical impact?
“Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. They have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
—Dr. Bryant Wood, archaeologist, Associates
What is the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls?
One of the most important contributions of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the numerous Biblical manuscripts which have been discovered. Until those discoveries at Qumran, the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures were copies from the 9th and 10th centuries AD by a group of Jewish scribes called the Massoretes. Now we have manuscripts around a thousand years older than those. The amazing truth is that these manuscripts are almost identical! Here is a strong example of the tender care which the Jewish scribes down through the centuries took in an effort to accurately copy the sacred Scriptures. We can have confidence that our Old Testament Scriptures faithfully represent the words given to Moses, David and the prophets.
Cave 4 at Qumran where approximately 15,000 fragments from some 574 manuscripts were found.
These articles contain compelling evidence of the truth of the scriptures and that we can truly rely the books of the Bible. Many just don’t know that the evidence is out there.
I have a book from Josh McDowell called “More Than A Carpenter.” I read this little book from the lending library in a resort in Mexico. I wanted this book and found it on-line and ordered the evangelization packet of 8 books.
On page 55 he says:
“After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have been forced to conclude that they are historically trustworthy. If one discards the Bible as unreliable historically, then he or she must discard all the literature of antiquity. No other document has as much evidence to confirm its reliability.
A book that every Christian shoul have in their library is Josh McDowell’s “Evidence That Demands A Verdict.”
The forward says:
Thus, it is the Christian who will derive the greatest benefit from reading “Evidence That Demands A Verdict.” It will not only strengthen his own faith in Christ, but it will also provide evidence that will enable him to share his faith more effectively with others.
“We are discovering Christianity as an Eastern religion as a way of life.”
The Emerging Church -The Latest Heresy By Stephen Holland
Preached on: Sunday, February 10, 2008
Westhoughton Evangelical Church
King Street, Westhoughton
Lancashire, UK BL5 3AX
Online Sermons: http://www.sermonaudio.com/revholland
Now a few year ago I heard a talk given on the Emerging Church and after it went away
and thought, “I haven’t a clue what he was on about.” So I hope after this session that
you will not go away with the same opinion.
If you have not come to hear of it, the chances are you soon will. A search on the internet
search engine Google will bring up no less than 616,000 references to what has come to
be known as Emergent or Emerging Church.
A check to your local Christian bookstore and see you find such titles as A New Kind of
Christian or Vintage Christianity for New Generations or The Forgotten Ways or The
Lost Methods of Jesus or Adventures in Missing the Point, Liquid Church, A Generous
Orthodoxy: More ready than you realize, Finding Faith Post Christendom, Changing
Worlds, Changing Church, Emerging Church, Emerging Churches, emerging-
church.intro. Those were just found on one shelf in one Christian so called bookstore.
There could be added-and will be many more titles added-to the list in the coming
days. Some authors with in the Emerging Church are Brian McLaren, Ralph Bell, Dan
Kimball, Doug Paget, Leonard Sweet, Spencer Burke, Yurgin McMannis, Tommy Collolen, Jason Clock, [?], Richard Foster and Tony Jones. And we could add also to that
people like Tony Campolo and Steve Chalk.
A tour is apparently being planned in 11 states of the USA to run from February to May
of this year. That tour is called “Everything Must Change Tour.” The title, of course,
that gives almost the game away. We are told by the organizer, Brian McLaren that this
is a tour for people short on hope. This tour is named after McLaren’s latest book Everything Must Change. The subtitle of this book reads: Jesus, Global Crisis and a Revolution
of Hope. This tour is for people of all thoughts, but seems especially aimed at those who
are fed up and disillusioned with-quote-traditional church. It is for people looking for
new ways of doing church. That is the in word today, doing church.
So what, may you ask, what’s all the fuss about?
Well, the very term “Emerging Church” suggests itself that they are emerging from
something. The very titles of the books just quoted suggest the same thing. Terms like
“lost message” or “new kind of Christian” or “forgotten ways” or “finding faith” or
“missing the point” or “post-Christendom” or “changing worlds, changing church.” All
this suggests some form of revolution is taking place or is about to take place and within
branches of the professed Christian Church.
So what, again, you may be asking. After all, the Church has changed, hasn’t it, from
one generation to next and from one century to another. And, of course, our world is
every changing.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with change. None of us, I take it, came here today by
horseback like many of our forefathers would have done or are dressed like our Puritan
brethren of the 17century. We live in a very advanced age where change is happening
at an incredible pace.
Is the Church in danger of being left behind or even in danger of extinction all together
unless she adapts? These people would tell us, “Yes.”
Men can doubt that the Church of Jesus Christ is at a low point as far as man can see. We
are told that excluding deaths and transfers 1500 people are thought to be deserting
churches in Britain every week. The promised hopes of the decade of evangelism have
not materialized. In the early 1990s it was hoped that about 20,000 new churches would
be opened by the close of the century. Rather, a survey has revealed that only 1867 new
churches were opened in England while 2557 closed. We are told that the fall in church
attendance was expected to decline in Scotland from 17.1% in 1980 to 10.3% by 2005. In
Wales from 14.1% to just 6.4% while in England from 10.1% to 6.7%.
The attendance of young people in churches seems to be even more depressing. In 1979
1,000,416 under 15s attended church. In 1989 it was 1,177,000 and by 1998 it was down
to just 717,100. One has estimated that 94% of young people are not in church on a Sunday. [?] of course, in spite of all its boasts and claims has failed to stem the decline. The
situation seems bleak and desperate. The Church is being increasingly told that she is out
of date, out of touch and irrelevant to our post-modern generation.
What is the answer to our plight? Is this new phenomena, the Emerging Church, the savior of the supposed dying Church? Have we found the answer in this newest of movements? One author things to think so. Michael Moynagh in his book emerging-
church.intro he says this of his own book, “It argues that church of a different timbre is
key to Christianity’s revival, perhaps survival in the western world.” He does, though, go
on to say, “But Emerging Church is not a magic solution. Emerging Church is not a quick
pick me up for a sick body. It is a collection of new vessels for new…for all the ingredients that are essential to Church and up dimension in worship and in dimension in community, announced dimension in mission and an of dimension as individual churches see
themselves as part of the body of Christ.” End quote.
Well, how would we define the Emerging or Emergent Church? How would you define
the Church? Well, let me give you a quote from one of the leading spokesmen, Brian
McLaren, and see if you can figure it out for yourself.
On the front cover of his popular book A Generous Orthodoxy he says this. “Why I am
missional and evangelical and post Protestant and liberal conservative and mystical poetic and biblical and charismatic contemplative and fundamentalist, Calvinist and Anabaptist, Anglican and Methodist and Catholic and Green and incarnational and [?]…”
You are not surprised, “Yet hopeful and emergent and unfinished Christian.”
Well, you were beginning to thinking that here is a man who really isn’t quite too sure
what he is all about. He seems to be one who certainly hasn’t arrived at certainty. And
this really sums up the whole Emerging Church. It doesn’t quite know what it is itself or
where it is going.
Michael Moynagh says, again-quote-“Emerging Church is a mindset. We will come
to you, rather than a model. It is a direction rather than a destination. It rests on principles rather than a plan. It rises out of a culture rather than being imposed on a culture. It
is a mood scarcely yet a movement.”
The same author goes on to say-quote-“Emerging Church is more than a pragmatic
response to declining numbers. It is a theological vision, a wide eyed vision that escapes
a blinked past, challenges the status quo and calls for new forms of Christianity in which
individuals can encounter Christ authentically. Might these communities renew inherited
congregations and become the crucible of the Church in the Postmodern world?” End of
quote.
Though the Emerging Church has no leaders, official leaders or base, one widely recognized as a leading spokesman and author is Brian McLaren. He says, Brian McLaren
says, “Right now Emerging Church is a conversation, not a movement. We don’t have a
program. We don’t have a model. I think we must begin as a conversation then grow as a
friendship and see if a movement comes of it.”
Moynagh says, “The lack of a single term reflects how cutting edge it all is. Not even the
language has been defined.”
Leonard Sweet, one such Emergent pioneer, has used the acronym EPIC to describe what
Emergent is all about. E stands for experimental. You see, this is because the Postmodern man, we are told, wants to experience the spiritual. The P stands for participants because Postmodern man wants to enter into things and not just be an observer. So, you
see, we may as well do away with the sermon and have a conversation instead. The I relates to image because our Postmodern man, supposedly, in this generation is sight oriented so we might use things like images-artwork, film and video-in our presentation
and in our worship. C is for communal because Postmodern man wants essential community and belonging.
Well, these things are not necessarily wrong, of course, in and of themselves, but there is
more to it than seems to be. It is not just all innocence.
Rob Dell, who is another one of the leaders in this movement puts us in the picture when
he says, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We are discovering
Christianity as an Eastern religion as a way of life.”
Well, having no official position as yet has caused one critic to comment, “The Emerging
Church is a rather slippery name for a rather slippery movement. By slippery I mean that
the movement is so new-originating in the late 1990s-so fragmented, so varied that
nailing it down is like nailing the proverbial Jello to the wall. There are no official leaders
or headquarters. Some have said that there are thousands of expressions yet only a few
churches have sold out to the concept. And even those claiming the name can’t agree on
what is going on. Although maybe they are not yet a force to be reckoned with, this
movement will no doubt grow, have its adherents, take its casualties and then give way to
the next heresy to attack the Church of Jesus Christ.”
We need to be very clear that what we are dealing with here in the movement Emergent
Church. We are not simply dealing with differences within evangelical theology or with
secondary issues upon which Christians must agree to disagree. We are not dealing with
what the apostle…we are dealing with what the apostle Paul would describe as “another
1
gospel.”It is another gospel which is not a gospel to begin with.
Here is another devilish attempt at muddying the waters of the pure gospel of Jesus
Christ. Well, should we be concerned? Should we be taking a few hours out on a Saturday to look at this new phenomena that is coming in to the Church and claming to be
Christian? Well, we should be as concerned as the apostle Paul was concerned in combating heresy that attacked the Church in his own day. We are called to “earnestly con
2
tend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”And Paul says that we are
3
“set for the defence of the gospel.”
So the answer is a definite yes. We should be concerned about this false, heretical Emerging Church that is coming upon the scenes and you will soon see to hear about it or get to
hear about it.
One pastor on the fringes of the movement, although it is not entirely Emergent in the
heretical sense of it, Mark Driscoll, who was one of the early young pastors who got involved in this and how it all started in the United States as a group of men gathering together to meet. None of them seemed to have much theological understanding at all, but
they seemed to get together and hold conferences. And out of this grew the Emerging
Church. But he says, “I have to distance myself from one of the many streams in the
Emerging Church because of theological differences. The Emerging Church is the latest
version of Liberalism. The only difference is that the old Liberalism accommodated modernity and the new Liberalism accommodates Postmodernity.”
This really brings us to the heart of the movement. The Emerging Church is a move to
make the gospel attractive and acceptable to Postmodern man. The big challenge, we are
told, is how to tap in to the heart and mind of our Postmodern generation. In order to do
this we must start, of course, they say, with 21st century man, start with where he is at.
1
See Galatians 1:6
2
See Jude 3
3
See Philippians 1:17
How do we do that we ask. Well, we must start with experimentation. After all, as one
Emergent leader tells us, “That is exactly what God did when he created the world.”
Moynagh says this. “Experiments are one of the defining features of Emerging Church.
What is evolution if it is not a history of experimentation? One species flourishes. Another doesn’t. A third mutates.”
Of course we tell him if he read Genesis he would know there is no such thing to begin
with so his movement would flop there.
But he goes on and it gets even worse. He then goes on to say that that is exactly what
God did, experimented when he created Adam. To quote him again, “Does Genesis
two,” he asks, “contain a picture of God in experimental mode? He places Adam in the
Garden and then decides that it is not good for man to be alone. ‘I will make a helper
4
suitable for him.’He forms all the animals and brings them to Adam to see what he
would call them. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. Has God’s experiment not
succeeded? So God tries again. He creates the woman. The experiment produced the
desired result. God seems to be learning.”
He quickly, of course, see the heresy cries coming and admits that seems to go against
one of the basic attributes of God. But he says that God seems to limit himself. He goes
on to say, “It is a part of God’s perfection that he can be surprised by creation. He has
created in us, for example, with not the songs that humans compose. Each new chart
buster can amaze and perhaps delight him. There is something [?] fitting about a wonderful surprise. Is God to be denied that emotion?”
Do you see where these people are coming from? No understanding of a theology of
God.
One fellow Emergent leader, George Lings, takes great delight in what has been said.
And he adds this complement in the book, “I am glad Mike has been daring and picked
up on the open and creative relationship God has with his creatures to which the Bible
testifies,” to which I say-and this is me-it most certainly does not. And then he goes
on, “And which makes so much better sense of a world where things go wrong. I would
only add that God’s grand experiment or risk was to choose to create beings who have
genuine freedom to love him or not. All the rest flows from this audacious fact.” We are
also told, “Experimentation is part of human being. So it will be second nature for Christians to try and try again with church.”
So after 2000 years we have still not got it right and we must keep on trying and experimenting.
To say that the Emerging Church has a faulty theology of God is an understatement. Any
heresy usually has a defective view of God himself and the Emerging Church has gone
4
See Genesis 2:18
wrong on its attempts to spread the gospel because it has a wrong view of God and a
wrong view of the Bible.
Well, at the heart of the Emerging Church is the adopting of a Postmodern culture. We
are living in what has come to be termed as Postmodernism. You see, we pass through
the Premodern era, a period stretching from Medieval times up to the French Revolution
of 1789. That was the Premodern era. In such a period man had difficulty in believing
the supernatural. Spirits, demons, hell, heaven and an afterlife and even much superstition is said to have abounded in that period. You would not have had difficulty in persuading people that God or even gods existed. Such beliefs, however, began to be challenged and their sources of authority. This began the Modern era, said to have begun with
the Enlightenment period. Philosophers like Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) began to challenge and question the dogmas of the past age. The Enlightenment would bring in the
age of Modernity.
One writer, Michael Kruger, says, “With the rise of the Enlightenment there came a new
guardian of truth to replace the Church. Science. No longer would human beings stand
for the irrational musings and archaic dogmatism of religion. Science, with reason as the
foundation, was the new god. And all intellectual theories had to bow and pay homage in
order to be seriously considered. Science viewed Christians as being naively committed
to ancient myths, unable to see past their bias and to take an objective and neutral look at
the world. So Modernity proffers the idea that mankind, armed with rationalism and science, is able to access absolute truth and make unlimited progress toward a better life for
itself. Therefore at its core Modernity is a celebration of human autonomy.”
Well, such a period, of course, was a very exciting period in the history of mankind. It
was a period of discovery, a period of development and a period of growth. It appeared
to offer mankind hope for the future. However, the discoveries being made were not too
deliver. Not only has science and learning not provided man with the satisfaction desired
and prayed for, but it has neither provided him with an answer to life’s most perplexing
questions.
In the area of religion the Modernist theologians have destroyed any belief in a supernatural God who spoke through a divinely inspired and infallible Bible. These two
worldviews, then-Premodernism and Modernism-have failed miserably. Of course,
we would expect them to do so as neither can be said to be firmly rooted in the Word of
God.
Well, we now come to our present worldview today. It is called Postmodern,
Postmodernism, a Postmodern generation. Well, it is a matter of debate among scholars
as to when this new period began, but many place it at the time of the collapse of the
Berlin wall in 1989. Some have put it somewhere in the 70s with the sexual revolution
and all the rest. But whichever we say, it is a new era that has come in, Postmodern.
With both Premodernism and Modernism failing to satisfy, man has become disillusioned. Answers to the meaning, purpose and direction of life have not been found. Man has been looking for truth and meaning. The Premodernist stores it in a revelation-albeit
the wrong one-the Church. Well, at least the Church of our day. The Modernist stores it
in science and reason. The Postmodernist now sees his worldview as one in which, for
example, that there is really no such thing as truth. So that is Postmodernism. There
really is no such thing as absolute truth. Absolute truth, he tells us, cannot be. Truth is
rather created and not found. So a culture, for example, may invent its own truth. And
yet another culture, its own version of truth even though they may be contrary to each
other. But there can be no universal truth that belongs to all and everyone. In other
words, there is no absolute truth and it must not even be sought.
Michael Kruger says, “Postmodernity, in contrast to Modernity, rejects any notion of objective truth and insists that the only absolute in the universe is that there are no absolutes. Tolerance is the supreme virtue and exclusivity, the supreme vice. Truth is not
grounded in reality or in any sort of authoritative text, but is simply constructed by the
mind of the individual or socially constructed.”
Another author says, “For the Postmodernist thinkers the very idea of truth is decayed
and disintegrated. It is no longer knowable. At the end of the day truth is simply what
we, as individuals and communities, make it to be and nothing more.”
If you think that is not yet affecting your worldview you are wrong. It is. We have so
many different paths in society, don’t we? So many religions. We are not allowed to say
that one has absolute truth, somebody else is wrong. No, no. You can’t say that. Everything is relative. If it is right for them, then it is right. If they are happy, if that is their
belief, then it is acceptable.
But for Postmodern thinking, “Well if it is…if to them, you know, it’s a flower, it’s a
flower. If to somebody else it’s a weed, it’s a weed. It is whatever you think it to be.”
And hasn’t that come in even in subtlety in things like, with so called, certain crimes,
homophobic crimes, so called, racist crimes, so called. If the person perceives it to be
such then it is. There is no real objective truth.
If such is now the culture and the world we are living in how are we to get the gospel
across?
Well, first we must…first we are to remember that the world in which we live must never
be allowed to shape the gospel that we believe. The Emerging Church has embraced-
like its forefather the Modernist-the belief of its age. It, too, denies that there is such a
thing as truth.
Take the words of Brian McLaren, one of its main architects, “Ask me of Christianity.
My version of it, yours, the pope’s, whoever’s, it is orthodox meaning true. And here is
my honest answer. A little, but not yet. Assuming by Christianity you mean the Christian’s understanding of the world and God, Christian’s opinion on soul, text and culture. I
have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong. And
even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open. To
be a Christian in a genuinely orthodox way is not to claim to have truth captured, stuffed
and mounted on the wall.”
This is a man who claims to give adherence to the Word of God.
Christians for over 2000 years have believed, rejoiced and often died for the absolute
truth they find in the teachings of Christ and his Word. Yet after all these years we are
now told that there really is no such claim on truth.
Interesting that, McLaren’s latest book is called The Secret Message of Jesus. He and those who follow him are constantly telling us that they are dissatisfied with doing church the traditional way. They are tired of evangelical right they tell us. They are seeking to break free from all that they belonged to the past. Could it be, I ask, that such people have never known the truth and have never known the real Jesus of the Bible? Could it be that they are so dissatisfied because they have never known the liberating power of the gospel of Jesus
Christ? I believe that is so. Christians have traditionally and robustly rejoiced in the certainties and steadfastness of the foundation of the gospel. We have read about it,
preached it with conviction and sung about it with rejoicing. It houses the Emergent
Church, Emerging so called Christians see such.
Rob and Christine Bell, his wife, in the beginning of being interviewed said this concerning the Bible, but they have discovered the Bible as a human product. “I do the thinking,”
she says, “that we figured out the Bible, that we knew what it means.” Now she says, “I
have no idea what most of it means. And yet I feel life is big again like life used to be
black and white and now it is color.”
Brian McLaren sums it all up in the closing of his book A Generous Orthodoxy. “Consider for a minute what it would mean to get the glory of God finally and fully right in
your thinking or to get a fully formed opinion of God’s goodness or holiness. Then I
think you will feel the irony. All these years of pursuing orthodoxy ended up like this, in
front of all this glory, understanding nothing.”
So McLaren would like us to believe at the end of it all we really end up understanding
and knowing nothing. And yet the Christian can say with a certainty like Jeremiah nine
verse three, “And they bend their tongues like their bow for lies: but they are not valiant
for the truth upon the earth; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they know not me,
5
saith the LORD.”
Unbelief and uncertainty like this is found nowhere in the teaching of Christ or the New
Testament epistles. In fact, the Christian message is not only solid, but simple, too. The
message of the Bible is neither lost, uncertain, complex or difficult. It is a message that is
clear, plain and easy to understand.
5
Jeremiah 9:3
Oh, yes, there may be a few difficult passages in Daniel or Revelation to interpret, but the
overall message of the Bible is simple and plain. And for people like Christine Bell we
would say she ought to get on her knees, humble herself before the God of heaven and
submit to his authoritative, inspired, easy to understand revelation.
The message of the Bible is not complex. They seem to great delight in saying, “We can’t
understand anything. We don’t know truth. We don’t know what it is all about. And yet
life is big again.”
We say, “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest
6 the light of the glorious gospel…”
How do we share the gospel, then, in their eyes with the unchurched? Well, one of the
key words in the Emerging Church is missional. That is the big word, missional. We
want to be a missional church.
What do we understand by missional? Well, the old meaning, of course, of doing missions, going to the lost, preaching the everlasting gospel of God’s saving grace and rescuing sinners from hell and seeing them get into heaven is not quite what they mean by
missional. A clue to what being a missional Christian is all about is found in the
McLaren’s work, his most well known, although he seems to be spewing out these books
and heresies one after another. But in [?] he says this. “But what about heaven and hell
you ask. Is everybody in? My reply. Why do you consider me qualified to make this
pronouncement? Isn’t this God’s business? Isn’t it clear that I do not believe this is the
right question for a missional Christian to ask?”
Let me break in and say there what caused men like William Carey and others to leave
everything behind was the eternal soul of the people that they were to go and preach to,
but that they were concerned about the eternal destiny of man’s never dying soul.
Not so being missional within the Emerging Church. McLaren goes on, “Can’t we talk
for a while about God’s will being done here on earth as it is heaven instead of jumping
to how to escape earth and get to heaven as quickly as possible? Can’t we talk for a
while about overthrowing and undermining every hellish stronghold in our lives and in
our world?”
Doesn’t this sound very much like the old “damnable heresy” of the Modernist, Liberal
social gospel that emptied our churches and robbed the gospel of all its saving power?
He goes on to say, “Missional Christian faith asserts that Jesus did not come to make
some people saved and others condemned. Jesus did not come to help some people be
right while leaving everyone else to be wrong. Jesus did not come to create another exclusive religion, Judaism having been exclusive based on genetics and Christianity being
exclusive based on belief which can be a tougher requirement than genetics.”
6
2 Corinthians 4:4
McLaren has no understanding of the New Testament gospel at all. He himself admits
so. He says, “We must continually be aware,” and this is him speaking, “that the old, old
story may not be the true, true story.” He goes on, in other words, “We must be open to
the perpetual possibility that our received understanding of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly [?] or downright warped and twisted.”
Here we must retain the good, Protestant, evangelical and biblical instinct to allow Scripture to critique tradition including our dominant and most recent tradition and including
our tradition’s understanding of the gospel. In this sense, Christians in missional dialogue
must continually expect to rediscover the gospel.
Note how he is prepared to us-or we would say misuse-Scripture to critique what he
says is tradition. He wants us to rediscover the gospel he says. Yet he doesn’t even know
what the gospel is himself. This really is the gospel according to Brian McLaren. It is a
gospel full of uncertainty, mystery and we say falsehood. And he wants us to join him in
his journey of rediscovery?
The gospel of McLaren and the Emerging Church is not the saving gospel from sin and
hell, but another gospel of making a better world and a better you.
But he goes on to say, “From this understanding we place less emphasis on whose lineage, rights, doctrines, structures and terminology are right and move emphasis on whose
action, service, outreach, kindness and effectiveness are good in order to help our world
get back on the road to being truly and wholly good again the way God created it to be.
“We are here on a mission to join God,” he tells us, ” in bringing blessings to our needy
world. We hope to bring God’s blessing to you,” he says, “whoever you are and whatever you believe. And if you would like to join us in this mission and the faith that creates and nourishes, you are welcome.”
I say, “No thank you.”
Note his intention is to join God in bringing blessing to a needy world. He tells us it
really doesn’t matter what you believe. Why, of course, would you when none has arrived at truth anyhow or orthodoxy anyway because he has imbibed a Postmodern age?
His gospel is not to get you into the kingdom, but to bring the kingdom to you.
Dan Kimball, another Emergent leader, says, “Our faith also includes kingdom living.
Part of which is the responsibility to fight local and global and social justice on behalf of
the poor and needy. Our example is Jesus,” he tells us, “who spent his time among the
lepers, the poor and the needy.”
Are we saying that these thing are unimportant and unnecessary? Well, by no means.
Jesus did, in fact, heal the sick, raise the dead, feed the hungry and perform other miracles. We are not saying doing good works is a bad thing. No, they follow the fruits of the gospel. Yet we must always remember that the forming of such miracles was first and
foremost to point to who he was and what he had come to do, of course, to testify that he
was the Savior of lost sinners.
Jesus, in fact, said virtually nothing about social injustice, nothing about the environment
or political tyranny or eradication of poverty or making the world a better place.
What is the true gospel itself? Whereas it has transformed the lives, that society has been
so changed for the better, this was never the priority of Christ, the apostles or the early
church. Christ did not come to bring a paradise to earth through his Church. He came to
rescue sinners from the wrath to come, to give spiritual life to the dead, to draw men back
to the Father, to be a propitiation for men’s sins, to shed his blood for the forgiveness of
those sins, to provide a mansion in heaven, to reconcile sinners to a holy God. He himself
7
has said that he had not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword.As the truth divides
and brings a different color…literal thought, of course where people fight each other. That
is not the gospel. Christians willingly lay down their lives for the gospel, but the sword is
the Word of God which cuts against truth and separates from truth and error. That can
never happen with McLaren’s gospel or the gospel of the Emerging Church because it
has imbibed a Postmodern culture that tells us there is no such thing as truth.
So he certainly can’t earnestly contend for the faith because he doesn’t know what that
faith is. This aspect of the social here and now gospel is seen in McLaren’s two questions that he asks which are these. What are the biggest problems destroying our world?
And what do the life and teaching of Jesus have to say about these global crises?
The Emerging Church is more world focused than heaven focused. The early Church
8
looked for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.The Emerging
Church is man centered. Its starting point is not with the truth as expressed in God’s
Word, but-imbibing a cultural philosophy of the day-truth cannot be established anyway.
The well being of man is the beginning. We hear things like, “We will come to you
rather than you come to us.” “We’ll do church on your terms rather than on ours or the
Bible’s terms.”
Rob Bell writes for the media in the States, but all this may be new to you, but it is big
news in the States and it will come over here. They consider him the next Billy Graham
although why I am not sure. He has neither gifts nor theology, well, as he had in his
younger day. Rob Bell says, “For Jesus the question wasn’t how do I get into heaven, but
how do I bring heaven here. The goal isn’t escaping this world, but making this world the
kind of place God can come to. And God is making us into the kind of people who can do
this task, this kind of work.”
7
See Matthew 10:34
8
See 2 Peter 3:13
One wonders which Bible are these people reading. He seems to be ignorant of the fact
that Scripture teaches, “The heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned
9
up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved….”What does Peter say? Not
put on a global mask to solve the world’s dilemmas and problems, but in light of this Peter says, “What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on
10
fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?”There, and as we
have quoted earlier, “We look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth right
11
eousness.”
I want to look-the time is moving on-to the mystical aspect of the Emerging Church.
Due to the fact that the Emerging Church is not truth based means it is susceptible to all
forms of error and falsehood as one might expect. As we are not moved by the truth of
God’s Word then we will seek experiences outside of that Word. And that is exactly
what we find in the Emergent movement. There is no real Jesus in the Emerging Church.
I believe it is not the Jesus we find in the Bible. Christ himself warned that, “Many will
12
come in my name.”And there appears to be as many Jesus’ in the world as there are
Jones’ in Wales. The big question is: Which Jesus do we have and which Jesus are we
following?
Peter Rollins, an Emergent Leader in Northern Ireland-so it has come over into this
country already-Icon. They all have strange names. They don’t have, you know, Emergent Evangelical Church or Emergent Church. They have stupid, silly names. And here is
one Icon. And the very name will suggest where it is going.
Icon, “We as Icon,” they say, “are developing a theology which derives from the mystics,
a theology without theology to complement our religion without religion.”
You notice all this double talk. It doesn’t make sense. And you read their books. It
doesn’t make sense. Much of the Emergent Church thinking is not based on what the Bible teaches. And they do not derive their theology from the Bible, but rather, their theology-if it can be called that-from experience.
Dan Kimball, another Emergent leader says, “The old paradigm taught that if you have
the right teaching you will experience God. The new paradigms says that if you experience God you will have the right teaching.”
Another Emergent leader [?] in England, so it has arrived on our shores near to here,
Sanctus One, you know, so it is not, you know, the Baptist Tabernacle or somewhere.
They adopt one of their silly names. Sanctus One which is actually in Manchester says,
9
2 Peter 3:10-11
10
2 Peter 3:11-12
11
2 Peter 3:13
12
See Matthew 24:5, Mark 13:6, Luke 21:8
“We believe that God is not defined by theology. Experience is vital and experience defines us.”
Now in our second talk I am going to jump to the next section because we will be all afternoon otherwise, but I want to jump on briefly and then we can close with some questions. You see, this searching for meaning and experience has not driven this movement
to the Word of God, but back into the world of Medieval Catholicism and Eastern mysticism.
Of course the Roman Catholic Church will endorse anything that furthers its own cause.
An official endorsement in 1965 by the Vatican reads this. “In Hinduism men seek release from the trials of the present life by ascetical practices, profound meditation and
recourse to God in confidence and love. Buddhism proposes a way of life by which man
can with confidence and trust attain a state of perfect liberation and reach supreme illumination either through their own efforts or by the aid of divine help.” And then they go
on to say, “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions.”
The Second Vatican Counsel then or some time afterwards mentioned, “It longs to set
forth the way it understands the presence and function of the Roman Catholic,” in this
context, “Church in the world today. Therefore the world which the Counsel has in mind
is the whole human family seen in the context of everything which envelopes it. This is
the reason why this sacred synod in proclaiming the noble destiny of man and affirming
an element of the divine in him offers to cooperate unreservedly with mankind in fostering a sense of brotherhood to correspond to this destiny of theirs.”
You are not surprised, then, at the Emerging Church going down the pathway not just to
Eastern mysticism, but to Romanism as well. In Soul Shaper: Exploring Spirituality and
Contemplative Practices in Youth Ministry Tony Jones advocates 16 ancient future, both,
spiritual tools or disciplines such as-quote-“the Jesus prayer, [?] diviner, silence and
solitude, stations of the cross, center in prayer, [?] and the labyrinth.”
Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest says this, “Assuming that the Roman
Catholic Evangelical split over the gospel is a thing of the past,” which we know it is not,
“Jones begins by defining his Postmodern approach to youth ministry by combing aspects
of what he sees as common spirituality and evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism and
Eastern Orthodox traditions along with Eastern religious practices gleaned from Buddhism and Hinduism.” Then it goes on, “Tony Jones’ involvement with youth ministry
and leaders of youth ministry is particularly dangerous. This is the cause of cases of obscure heretical practices from papal Rome when he then passes off on the unsuspecting as
if he has rediscovered a long hidden spiritual treasure for Postmodern Christianity. His
major goal is to make his very Roman Catholic view of the past come alive in the present,
something Bible believers should consider carefully especially regarding his very young
audience.”
This man, by the way, Tony Jones, is a foul mouthed individual who uses foul language
of the worst kind even in describing the Bible. It is for this reason that you will find some
Emergent Churches lighting candles, crosses and other ritual things being performed, all
done in seeking a deeper experience of the divine. So they light their candles. They will
have their crosses They will have their music and their lights. Of course, they will all be
different.
But what are they doing? They are seeking an encounter with the divine. They are seeking an encounter with the spiritual. For the true evangelical we say we are not seeking or
searching for the divine God out there whoever he may be. We have found him in Jesus
Christ, the Jesus alone in the pages of God’s Word.
We are never against experiences, but experiences come from the Word of God and are
based and tested by that very Word.
You will notice many of these people talk about seeking the divine and their masks that
they are having with McLaren and all this everything must change in 11 states of the
United States. They are all telling, “We are seeking something.”
I am not seeking anything. I found it. I am not seeking God or deeper experiences. He is
there in the Word in the written page.
And just in closing: Many young people will be attracted to this Emergent Church. They
will pack them out. The man we just quoted from, Tony Jones, you have seen his influence as to so many Emergent leaders among the youth. The Emergent Church targets the
young and is of particular attraction to young people. One of the reasons is that it uses an
anything goes approach in worship. You can have your bands. You can have your hip
hop, your reggae, whatever music you want. You can have it. You can bring your drums
and whatever you want into worship, whatever is appealing, whatever you want, whatever you are into. Bring it along.
And people will think, “This is great.”
But it is just like the world. You can bring anything into it. All forms of worship and
fleshiness come in. It would not amiss to say it is an almost anything goes approach. Any
form of music no matter how much it represents the debased culture around us seems to
be acceptable and even encouraged. So it will attract the young people who have no understanding of the gospel.
Another reason for why it attracts and will attract the young people is because it appeals
to their sinful nature. It has almost a no rules policy. If you are to go into an Emerging
Church you will find standard. Whatever is right for you is right. You will find one
standing, another sitting, another slouching because anything goes. Just fill out whatever
takes your fancy. We will have appeals, not appeals. There is no such thing as, “Let all
13
things be done decently and in order.”However, this pandering and [?] to the young is
sinful.
The young of our church-and they are to be those who are shown authority and leadership-they are not to be those who are considered as to what they would like to see in
church or what pleases them or what will attract them or what will keep you here. Leadership shall be done by those who are mature adults in the faith. And this pattern of lead
14
ership is seen right throughout Scripture. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord.”
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your
15
souls.”Considering those who would be leaders there is one that ruleth his household
well having his church or household in subjection.
See, man’s heart is rebellious and will be attracted to this fleshy, false gospel of the
Emergent Church. It is a denial of the clear truth oriented certain foundation of biblical
Christianity.
And I am going to close by summing up two quotes from the Emerging Church and then
we will hand back to our chairman. Sanctus One, an Emerging Church in Manchester
says, as stated on their blog site, “Churches in the West are increasingly experimenting
with more symbolic, reflective spiritualities [?] from Orthodox and Celtic traditions and
sing digital technologies and ambient music. How far can we engage with the Eastern
spiritualities of our Sikh, Hindu and Muslim neighbors whilst retaining our Christian integrity? What might an Emergent Church look like in a multi faith context?”
Our second quote, “Does a little dose of Buddhism thrown into a belief system somehow
kill off the Christian part?”
Real Christians would say a loud, “Yes.”
“My Buddhism doesn’t, except for the unfortunate inability to embrace Jesus,” as if that
is a side issue, “is a better Christian based on Jesus’ description of what a Christian does,
but almost every Christian I know…”
It could be well, he doesn’t know any Christians.
“If they are using Matthew 26 as a guide she would be a sheep and almost every Christian I personally know would be a goat.”
And I say in the Emerging Church they are all goats and may be warned and discerning
about Emerging Church?
13
See 1 Corinthians 14:40
14
Ephesians 6:1
15
Hebrews 13:17
From a great site The Great Apostasy you can now order Christian books, music and movies.
This is from “Eds” site.
****************************************
Believe it or not, I now have a full Christian bookstore online, complete with a secure shopping cart and seperate categories (run in conjunction with Amazon).
The offerings on the new bookstore site are fairly limited at this point … but they’ve been hand-selected so you shouldn’t find too much apostasy running around there (although some of the automatic recommendations that might show up in the sidebar from Amazon aren’t necessarily items I would’ve personally recommended). As with all things, use your own discernment.
Most books are sold at a discount (sometimes as much as 30-70% off the cover price) … plus, you’ll qualify for free shipping with a total purchase of over $25. That can make shopping here even less expensive than ordering through your local Christian bookstore. 
To visit my brand new online Christian bookstore, go to: Believers’ Books, Bibles, Music, Movies and More
–”Ed” and family
DiscernIt 
Recent Comments