Extreme Theology

Emergent Polytheism?

Are some in the Emergent church openly embracing polytheism? I have just posted an article that addresses the polytheism being taught by Emergent author and contributor to the Huffington Post, George Elerick. Click Here to Read.

Fascism Reborn

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost.” [1]

Sixty-seven years ago, the combined blood, treasure and matériel of the free nations of Western Civilization defeated the most horrifically evil regime to ever arise in the known history of the sons of men, Nazi Germany.

Since the defeat of Hitler and the Axis powers, scholars have been looking for an answer—an answer to a vexing and perplexing question, “How does a society comprised of reasonably well educated citizens, modern technology and an affluent culture turn into a collective pack of murderous thugs devoid of a moral compass or conscience?”

The standard schoolbook answer put forward by historians talks about the political and economic hardship and unrest in Germany in the wake of her defeat in World War I and the humiliating terms of the Treaty of Versailles as the primary reasons for the rise of the Nazi party.

On the surface this answer seems reasonable enough but when you study the writings of those who fled Nazi Germany shortly after the rise of Adolf Hitler you discover that economics and wounded national pride are not considered to be the core explanations given for the rise of the Nazis. Those who lived through those turbulent years instead point to the spiritual break down of Europe and the rise of irrational philosophy as the primary forces that breathed life into the Fascist regimes of Franco, Mussolini and Hitler.

Many people today have a woefully limited understanding of the philosophical and political ideas that gave rise to Hitler. Most give little or no thought to the subject. It’s as if Hitler fell out of the sky or was a fluke of nature. Many simply dismiss the subject and think that Hitler was “just a madman” who hated Jews and thought the Aryan race was superior to every other race on the planet and he was tragically in a position that allowed him to act on those beliefs. But, few understand or remember that Hitler was a Fascist and that in the 1930’s, prior to World War II and the establishment of the concentration camps, the word “Fascism” had a definition and a meaning. Rather than being a fluke, Hitler was instead a true product of his time and his political ideas were the direct result of the philosophical, political, religious and economic ideas of the Völkish period.[2]

Said Mussolini, “If each age has its doctrine, the innumerable symptoms indicated that the doctrine of our age is the Fascist one.”[3] When Mussolini penned this sentence he did not have in mind the currently popular and historically ignorant definitions of Fascism that most people possess today, definitions like:

Fascism = Arizona’s 2010 immigration bill.[4]
Fascism = The Conservative Political Platform of Ronald Reagan.
Fascism = Anti-Semitism

The phrase “Epic Fail” comes to mind when I read such ignorant and uninformed definitions of Fascism. Anyone who truly understands Fascism understands that it is notoriously difficult to define precisely because it CANNOT be primarily defined by means of a positive ideology.

Here is how the late Peter Drucker, who grew up within the philosophical conversation of the Völkish milieu of Austria and Germany and who later fled the Third Reich in 1934, described Fascism:

“Fascist totalitarianism has no positive theology, but confines itself to refuting, fighting and denying all traditional ideas and ideologies...Fascism not only refutes all old ideas but denies, for the first time in European history, the foundation on which all former political and social systems had been built...”[5]

A good illustration would be to liken Fascism to antimatter. Physicists tell us that matter has an evil twin called antimatter and when matter and antimatter come in contact with each other they are both destroyed. Antimatter is difficult for us to comprehend because of the fact that we have only experienced matter. Its difficult to imagine a substance that is the exact opposite of matter. Fascism is equally difficult to understand because its hallmark is NOT that it affirms anything but that it denies practically everything. Fascism is ANTI transcendent truth. Fascism is ANTI individual rights. Fascism is ANTI rational thought. Fascism is man taking his God-given gift of reason and using that reason to deconstruct and debunk reason itself and all societal and religious institutions that rely upon reason.

Said Peter Drucker, “I...realized that the new totalitarianisms, especially Nazism in Germany, were indeed a genuine revolution, aiming at the overthrow of something much more fundamental than economic organization: values, beliefs, and basic morality. It was a revolution which replaced hope by despair, [and] reason by magic...”[6]

Drucker further goes on to state that, “Nazi leaders have prided themselves publicly on their disregard for truth...”[7]

If Drucker is correct, then the very first blitzkrieg of the German Fascists was not waged against Poland, Belgium nor the Netherlands. The very first victims of the Fascist revolution were values, beliefs and basic morality. Once these citadels fell then there were no moral, philosophical or rational obstacles left to stop the Fascists from committing the most unthinkable crimes.

What is historically vital to note about Drucker's description of Fascism is that it was published in 1939 and predates the wartime atrocities committed by the Nazis. Drucker's definition was constructed from his firsthand experiences while living and breathing and conversing with Fascism in the years prior to Hitler's rise to power. Drucker's definition demonstrates that Fascism should not be defined by the brutality that it ultimately engaged in. Instead, it should be defined by the irrational, deconstructive philosophy that it embraced. The logical consequences of this anti-rational philosophy were the unspeakable evils committed by the men who, having been stripped of transcendent truth and morals had no checks upon their sinful human nature. One could argue that the day the Fascists succeeded in deconstructing values, beliefs, basic morality and reason itself was also the day when the foundations were poured for Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau and Bergen-Belsen.

Ernst Nolte, in his book Three Faces of Fascism said, “Georg Lukács in his book, Die Zerstörung der Vernuft... attempts to describe philosophical irrationalism as an essential component of and background to National Socialism, as the ‘reactionary answer to the great problems of the past hundred and fifty years.’ On Germany’s path ‘from Schelling to Hitler’ is to be found practically every name of any stature in German philosophy after Hegel’s death: Schopenhauer and Nietzche, Dilthey and Simmel, Scheler and Heidegger, Jaspers and Max Weber.”[8]

This reaction against rational thought and its corresponding blatant disregard for transcendent truth is precisely what is at the heart of the oft quoted Fascist maxim, “a lie becomes accepted as the truth if it is only repeated often enough”.

Said Drucker, “Fascism, however, goes much further in its negation of the past than any earlier political movement, because it makes this negation its main platform. What is even more important, it denies simultaneously ideas and tendencies which are in themselves antithetic. It is antiliberal, but also anticonservative; antireligious and antiatheist, anticapitalist and antisocialist...—the list could be continued indefinitely.”[9]

Today, Fascism has a new name. Even though the name has changed, the exact same irrational philosophies that helped give rise to the 20th Century totalitarian Fascist regimes of Italy, Spain and Germany are alive and well today. The new name that Fascism has taken for itself is Postmodernity.[10]

From Foucault to Derrida, John Franke to Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren to Doug Pagitt, Pete Rollins to Tony Jones all of these men are disciples of and dealers in the irrational philosophies of such men as Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, and Heidegger.

Just like their 20th Century counterparts these philosophers and theologians are characterized not by their positive ideologies and theologies but by their strident attacks against rational thought, knowable transcendent truth, individual rights, individual salvation, transcendent morals, systematic theology, and the bedrock reasoning upon which all of the societal structures of Western Civilization are built, including Constitutional Republicanism, the free market and the Church.

Fascism was not defeated on the battlefields of Western Europe. Their armies were defeated. But, Fascism lived on. It lurked in the shadows for decades and was ultimately imported to the United States and the European democracies through universities and institutions of higher education. Fascism took a new shape in the field of literary criticism through the postmodern deconstructionism of Derrida and has now grown like a cancer that has spread from literary criticism to philosophy to politics to economics to religion. Once again the very foundations of thought are under assault. Once again the rights of the individual are being deconstructed and the idea of the primacy of the community (Gemeinschaft) is being exalted. Once again all transcendent truths and morals are being deconstructed and attacked. They are being replaced with an irrational epistemology founded upon subjective feelings (authenticity) with a hatred for so-called meta-narratives. Once again free market capitalism is under assault and being accused of causing the oppression of the poor and creating an unfair system that creates haves and have-nots. Once again there is talk of ‘creating the millennial Kingdom of God’ here on earth by destroying or ‘redeeming’ all the political and economic structures of society.

The Postmodern conversation has taken place before. It was the philosophical conversation of the 20th Century European Fascists. Its a conversation that had no answers but only deconstructing questions. The same is true today. But the big difference between 20th Century Fascism and 21st Century Postmodernity is that this time the conversation is global.

---

1 Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. Dir. Peter Jackson. 2001. DVD. Taken from the narration in the prologue to the film.

2 See Poewe, Karla, and Irving Hexham. "The Völkisch Modernist Beginnings of National Socialism: Its Intrusion into the Church and Its Antisemitic Consequence." Religion Compass 3.4 (2009): 676-96. Print.

3 Mussolini, Benito. Fascism; Doctrine and Institutions. New York: H. Fertig, 1968. Print. see 31.34.n2

4 "Ellison: Arizona Immigration Law ‘fascist, Racist’ «." Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. Web. 3 May 2010. 

5 Drucker, Peter F. The End of Economic Man: the Origins of Totalitarianism. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A.: Transaction, 1995. 11. Print.

6 Ibid. xxii

7 Ibid. 19

8 Nolte, Ernst. Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism, National Socialism. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. 22. Print. emphasis added

9 Drucker, 13

10 Veith, Gene Edward. Modern Fascism: the Threat to the Judeo-Christian Worldview. St. Louis: Concordia, 1993. Print.



Socialism Comes in Another Color

If you’ve read Brian McLaren’s books, Everything Must Change, The Secret Message of Jesus and A New Kind of Christianity, then you know that Brian McLaren is advocating a new global economy that is a ‘synthesis’ between the current Capitalist free market and Marxism. To the American ear this sounds just like Marxism. This has to do with the fact that when Americans hear about collectivist, centrally controlled economies where wealth is forcibly redistributed the ONLY thing that comes to the American mind is Red Bolshevik Marxism. In the American mind those Western European nations that are slipping deeper and deeper into collectivist redistributive economies are turning deeper and deeper shades of Red.

In the American Mind: Capitalism + Marxism = A Milder form of Red Communism

Why do Americans think this way? Well, because we fought the Cold War against the Red Soviet Union. We fought the Red North Koreans and the Red Chinese. We fought the Red Vietcong and the Red Santinistas. In the American mind there is only one existing color of socialist ideology that remains on planet Earth and that color is Red.

Those who think Brian McLaren is a Red Bolshevik Marxist are missing a VERY important yet somewhat subtle nuance in McLaren’s rhetoric and the ideology that he is promoting. I am challenging all of you to open your eyes and educate yourselves on this matter because correctly understanding what color of Socialist McLaren is will make all the difference in the world in your being able to correctly understand what he is promoting and what needs to be done to refute him and those he is working with.

Some Insight Regarding This Other Color of Socialism

The other color of Socialism is VERY difficult to define and scholars have only recently been able to pin down most of the common ideological themes in this other form of Socialism. One of the reasons why it has been difficult to pin these themes down is because this other color of Socialism is more than a political theory. In fact, it is truly a “Political Religion” and therefore must be studied theologically in order to correctly understand and analyze it. This “Political Religion” is overtly utopian and envisions a global state that will usher in the “Kingdom of God” on earth by achieving its social, political and economic objectives.

What are the social, political and economic objectives that McLaren is promoting in his understanding of the “Kingdom of God”? He doesn’t hide them. They can easily be summarized as:

security - an end to all war and religious violence

economic justice - a third way between capitalism and marxism (a Hegelian synthesis of the two)

social justice - an end to victimization by deconstructing individualism and the 'us vs. them' mentality found in many groups that 'exclude'. These will be replaced by 'inclusive communities', through a realized unity of plurality.

ecologically sustainable global prosperity - a completely "Green Global Economy" with an emphasis not only on limiting or eliminating fossil fuels but also strict regulation of human diets and health.

I’ve gleened these four objectives from McLaren’s books. In A New Kind of Christianity, McLaren chides all the world’s religions for not effectively handling these crises. Which means that in McLaren’s mind solving these crises is the job of religion. YET, all four of these objectives really are political objectives and not religious objectives. (and they certainly are not the objectives that Jesus laid out in the Great Commission)

So...ask yourself this question: Why does Brian McLaren believe these ‘political objectives’ are supposed to be solved by religion? (1)

The answer is shockingly simple. Brian McLaren is a follower of a heretical political utopian religion that has hijacked the Biblical term “Kingdom of God”. McLaren is an ideologue NOT a theologian and if you do your homework you will discover that what he is really promoting is the “other color of Socialism”.

Definitions of the Other Color of Socialism

One author defines this other color of Socialism as:

________ is religion of the state.

________ assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a natural leader who is attuned to the will of the people.

________ is holistic in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified in order to “achieve the common good.”

________ takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action through regulation and social pressure.

Everything including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.

Rousseau’s political philosophy beats in the heart of this other color of Socialism. He envisioned a ‘divinized community’ that wasn’t defined by ethnicity or geography or custom. Rather, would be bound together by the “collective will” which in turn would be enforced by an all powerful “God-State”.

Another author, back in 1993 defined the ideological heart of this other color of socialism as:

“the practical and violent resistance to transcendence. _______ spirituality is one of immanence. A mysticism of nature and community.... that would heal the alienation of modern life”

Violent resistance to transcendence??? That sounds EXACTLY like the Emergents and their Progressive cousins and their incessant attacks against God’s transcendent word and God’s transcendent moral laws and Christ’s return in glory to judge the living and the dead.

A mysticism of nature and community??? That sounds like it could have been written yesterday as a description of the general mystique of the Emergent milieu. But it was written 17 years ago as part of a definition of the other color of Socialism.

Why is McLaren waging war against the historic Christian faith? Answer: because he is a follower of a rival religion. His religion IS the other color of Socialism.

It’s time for you to wake up and understand what that other color of Socialism is and what it believes because its back and it has been waging war against historic Christianity for many years now and its currently winning because Christians haven't correctly understood what they are really fighting against.

---

If you are ready to understand the truth then you need to read this book. When you've finished the first book then you need to read this one.

---

1. See pages 252-259 in A New Kind of Christianity

McLaren’s Theory Regarding Elohim & Theos is a Complete Joke

In the opening chapters of Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity he posits one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments I’ve encoutered to date as to why Christians need to abandon the historic/traditional understanding of the Bible and create a 'new kind of Christianity'. McLaren’s contention is that today’s Christians are guilty of looking backward at Jesus through a Greco-Roman narrative lens that misconstrues and distorts the true nature of God and the gospel message itself. Said McLaren:

I believe the Christian religion in the West, as it habitually read the Bible backwards through the lenses of later Christians, largely lost track of the frontward story line of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and so on, within which Jesus had emerged. It unwittingly traded its true heritage through Jesus from Judaism for an alien heritage drawn from Greek Philosophy and Roman Politics...

Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the Biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus (Jupiter for the Romans), but we will name him Theos. The Greco-Roman god Theos, I suggest, is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1, or LORD referring ot the unspeakable name of the Creator of Genesis 2 and 12, not to mention the Abba to whom Jesus prayed. As a good — no, make that perfect — Platonic god, Theos loves spirit, state, and being and hates matter, story and becoming, since, once again, the latter involve change, and the only way to change or move from perfection is downward in decay. In fact, as soon as something drops out of the state of perfection, Theos is posessed by a pure and irresistible urge to destory it (or make it suffer).

So, having created a perfect world, now Theos is perfectly furious because it has been spoiled and is now decaying. It has fallen from its high table of perfection and is shattered on the floor...

Theos stands above, holding his thunderbolts ready to strike, ready to melt the whole damned think down to primal lava, ready to purge all that is imperfect...Every time we use terms like "the Fall" and "original sin," I believe, many of us are unknowingly importing more or less of this package of Greco-Roman, non-Jewish, and therefore nonbiblical concepts like a smuggler bringing foreign currency in the biblical economy or tourists introducing invasive species in the biblical ecosystem. (McLaren, pp. 41-43)

So, in McLaren’s view the ‘god’ that Christians have been worshiping for nearly two millenia isn’t the loving and benevolent fatherly and kind Biblical god ‘Elohim’ but instead is the false and bad tempered wrathful Greco-Roman god ‘Theos’.

McLaren’s theory is almost too stupid to warrant a scholarly response. And his caricature and straw man mischaracterization of the God worshipped and believed in by historic Christianity through McLaren's 'theos' character is nothing more than intentional dishonesty on his part. But, sadly in today’s Biblically-Illiterate church it is crucial that an easily understood scholarly refutation be given to this and many more of McLaren’s laughable postulations.

Genesis 6

The simplest rebuttal to McLaren’s claim is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis 6. In that chapter both of the Hebrew names for God that McLaren writes favorably of are used, YHWH and Elohim. Let’s look at the relevant verses of this chapter and see what impact they have on McLaren’s theory. Each time God is mentioned in the verses below I will provide the Hebrew name written in the Masoretic text rather than an the English translation.

Genesis 6:5   YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה) said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of YHWH (יְהוָ֔ה).

6:11  Now the earth was corrupt in Elohim’s (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth. 13 And Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth. ...17 For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die.

This one section of the book of Genesis levels a broadside against McLaren’s theory and blows it out of the water (notice the intentional pirate lingo).

First, in Genesis 6 The God Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) claims that the thoughts of man's heart were only "evil continually". This is a verse in favor of the historic Christian doctrines of the fall and original sin. (Another clear statement from God regarding man's fallen and sinful nature is found two chapters ahead in Genesis 8:21. In that verse God says this about mankind "the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”) Furthermore, we learn from Genesis 6 that Elohim's (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) heart is greived because of mankinds inborn inclination to evil and Elohim's (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) solution is to punish mankind and 'blot out man' from the earth through a flood. In other words, the minkind's sin problem described in Genesis 6 sounds similar to the so-called "foreign Greco-Roman narrative" that McLaren claims was smuggled into Christianity. Furthermore the solution to the problem offered by Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֛ים) sounds similar to the solution that the false platonic god 'Theos' would call for. How can that even be possible IF these ideas of mankind's fall into sin and God's wrath are 'foreign to the text' as McLaren claims in his book? Answer: These doctrines are not foreign to the Biblical text at all! McLaren is engaging in deception.

What's even more embarrassing for Mclaren's 'theory' is the simple historical fact that Genesis 6 was written LONG LONG LONG before the rise of the Greco-Roman civilizations and cultures and is chronologically cut off from ANY Hellenistic or Roman influences. Fact is, Genesis was recorded by Moses somewhere between 1446 and 1406 BC. While Alexander the Great on the other hand, wasn’t even born until 356 BC. So Genesis predates any Greco-Roman influences by 1100 years. To claim that a Greco-Roman meta-narrative had any influence upon this text would be like claiming that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln had a profound political influence on Charlemagne who lived from 742 A.D. to 814 A.D.

So what's really going on here?

Any unbiased reader of Genesis can easily see that the Hebrew text, written long before the rise of the Greco-Roman world teaches that humanity was created by God and enjoyed a face to face relationship with God prior to disobeying God by eating the fruit that God commanded our first parents not to eat. The result of Adam and Eve's rebellion resulted not only in a cursed creation but also a catastrophic alteration and marring of mankind's nature that made it so that the intention of man's heart was "only evil continually" and "evil from his youth". Furthermore, God has the moral and judicial right to punish all of mankind for their evil.

McLaren is doing nothing more than cherry picking the passages of the Bible that he likes and suppressing the ones he doesn't like in order to craft his own 'god'. The 'god' McLaren has constructed has some of the attributes of the God who has revealed Himself in the scriptures. But, those other attributes of God that McLaren has deemed to be "undesirable" have been omitted and suppressed. Fact is, Brian McLaren's 'god' is an idol and a false deity. SHE was deceitfully constructed from a highly redacted use of the Bible. But, its not hard to spot the Biblical passages that McLaren is trying to cover up and suppress. Genesis 6 is one of many that I could bring up.

The Druckerites Must Issue a Safety Recall For Their “Emerging Church” Product Line

Rick Warren, Bob Buford and Bill Hybels are the Druckerite “trinity”. All three of these men were personally mentored by the late business guru Peter Drucker and these three men more than any others are responsible for innovating the church by purposely changing congregations from a pastoral leadership model to a CEO / Innovative Change Agent leadership model. All of these innovations were strategically crafted under the careful eye of Peter Drucker. And all of these innovations were incubated, introduced and injected into the church through the coordinated efforts of Drucker’s disciples through their different but intimately connected organizations; Leadership Network, the Purpose Driven Network and the Willow Creek Association.

What many people don’t realize is that the Emerging Church is a product created by and promoted by the Druckerites.

If you don’t believe me then it is time for you to listen to or re-listen to my interview with Doug Pagitt regarding the genesis of the Emerging Church. Pagitt provides us with an expert insiders look at how the Emerging Church came into being and got off of the ground. What you will discover is that without the Druckerites there may have never been an ‘emerging church’. The Druckerites formed, bankrolled and promoted the Emerging Church much the same way a music marketing company might form and promote a boy band like the Backstreet Boys or N Sync.

Here’s the interview.

After listening to Pagitt’s retelling of the story of the emergence of the Emerging Church is it any wonder then why Druckerites like Rick Warren and Bob Buford lent their support and credibility to the Emerging Church? They were responsible for creating it.

Take a look at who endorsed Dan Kimball’s 2003 book The Emerging Church. In that list you will see both Druckerites as well as out right Emergent Heretics all singing the praises of Kimball’s book. In fact, Rick Warren AND Emergent Apostate Brian McLaren both wrote the forward to the book.

Emergent Innovators List

Why would a supposedly conservative evangelical pastor like Rick Warren want to lend his credibility to the Emergent Church and have his name be directly associated with men like Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt and Brian McLaren? Rick Warren is a Druckerite and the Emerging Church is a product developed by the Druckerites. Rick Warren is in fact one of the Fathers of the Emerging Church. That's why he lent his name and credibility to the product.

What’s also patently clear is that when the Druckerites spend time and money developing new church business products they spend zero time and money on quality control. Sadly, the Druckerites are so enamored with innovation that they have no systems in place to vet out false teachers and heretics. As a result, Druckerite products may in fact pose a severe safety risk to the church.

Case and Point: I have been saying for almost 5 years now that Brian McLaren is a heretic and a dangerous post-modern liberal. Yet, McLaren has written articles that have been featured at pastors.com. Rick Warren lent his credibility and endorsement to the Emerging Church movement without even so much as a hint that he had any concerns about the troubling doctrine and theology of its leaders. Bill Hybels has invited Emergent Leaders like McLaren to speak at Willow Creek Conferences and Youth Leader Conferences and Bob Buford’s Leadership Network has been promoting and selling McLaren’s books for years on the Leadership Network website.

What does this prove? It shows that there is absolutely ZERO doctrinal and theological oversight when it comes to the Druckerites and the products that they develop.

In light of the fact that Brian McLaren has finally decided to come clean and lay his theological cards on the table in his new book A New Kind of Christianity AND in light of the fact that McLaren has finally admitted that those of us who’ve been saying that he denies the fall of man, hell, Christ’s penal substitutionary atonement, the inerrancy and authority of scripture and Christ’s return in glory to judge both the living and the dead were right all along...

I am calling on the Druckerites, Rick Warren, Bob Buford and Bill Hybels to issue a safety recall for their ENTIRE Emerging Church product line.

Futhermore,

I am calling on the Druckerites to publicly repudiate and rebuke Brian McLaren, Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt for their heresies.

I am calling on the Druckerites to remove all Emerging Church products from all their youth groups including any books by emerging authors as well as all Nooma DVD’s.

I am calling on the Druckerites to issue an apology to the body of Christ for failing to put the proper safety systems in place to vet out false doctrine and heresy from the products they develop.

I am calling on the Druckerites to convene a standing theological safety committee to doctrinally review and scrutinize all Drukerite products and methods in light of sound doctrine and a Christ-Centered / Gospel Centered Theology. The decisions of this safety committee must be binding.

This safety committee should be comprised of top theologians and church practitioners who still firmly hold to the doctrines and confessions of the Protestant Reformation. For this committee I nominate Dr. Mike Horton, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt, Dr. Albert Mohler, Dr. Alister McGrath, Rev. William Cwirla, Rev. Todd Wilken, Rev. Ken Jones, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, Rev. Paul Washer, Phil Johnson and the Rev. Jeff Noblit.

It’s time for Rick Warren, Bob Buford and Bill Hybels to do the right thing and admit they’ve endangered the body of Christ by releasing a doctrinally defective and theologically dangerous product. For the sake of the body of Christ they MUST issue a safety recall for their entire "Emerging Church" product line.

Mathetes Contra Brian McLaren

As I am reading through Brian McLaren's New Kind of Christianity I am struck by just how disconnected McLaren's ideas are from actual Christian history.

McLaren has the misguided hubris to think that he can wipe the slate clean and build a new "christianity" from the ground up and that he can simply ignore what the church has taught from its beginning. Rather than making a new kind of christianity (as if that were even possible) McLaren has created his own false religion / cult that utilizes Christian words and phrases but has completely emptied them of their historic and Biblical meanings. With the publication of this book McLaren will forever be named as being in the company of such men as Cerinthus, Arius, Pelagius, Nestorius, Marcion, Apollinarius, Eutyches of Constantinople, Noetus, Donatus, Charles Taze Russell, Mohammed and Joseph Smith.

Below, I have reproduced one the earliest Christian epistles that dates back to the generation that immediately followed the Apostles. It is entitled, The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus and I offer this epistle and the salient points that I've highlighted in the document as a historic counter point to McLaren's heretical claims. Enjoy it and distribute it freely to help inoculate the body of Christ against the McLaren virus.

Hint: this document is best viewed in full screen mode.

Mathetes Contra McLaren

Defection From the Emergent Church

Here is my interview with Jeremy Bouma regarding his defection from the Emergent Church after spending 5 years in the conversation.

This is an important and fascinating interview that gives us an inside perspective on the seduction and errors of the Emergent Church. Interestingly, this interview offers a sobering critique of the CEO model of leadership that is being adopted by so many churches and how that model alienates teens and young adults during the time when then need a personally involved pastor in their lives the most.

Click on the Menu button on the player above and you can embed this radio segment on your blog or website.

Rebutting Brian McLaren’s Latest Heresies: Was Paul’s Gospel Different Than Jesus’ Gospel?

Brian McLaren’s latest book A New Kind of Christianity is set to hit stores this week. I’ve been reading the online preview of this little book of liberal heresy and I am thanking Brian for finally coming right out and explaining what he believes. Not surprisingly, what he believes is precisely what I and a host of others have been saying he believes for years. The only difference is that McLaren, rather than being whimsical, coy and conversational has instead decided to be clear and unequivocal about his postmodern liberal heresies. Ironically, even though Emergents and postmoderns bristle at the thought of systematic theology, McLaren’s new book could easily be described as the closest thing to an Emergent "systematic theology".

The errors, heresies, eisigesis and outright Bible twisting that McLaren engages in while putting forward his beliefs are breathtaking to behold and any careful reader of the scriptures will easily see that McLaren has long ago abandoned the historic Christian faith and is instead a member of a postmodern liberal heretical cult with christian-ish terminology which attacks, impugns and denies the authority and inerrancy of scripture and the Biblical gospel itself.

This post will be the first in a series of posts that will document McLaren’s heresies and Biblically answer and rebut McLaren’s serious heresies and false doctrine.

One of the things McLaren attempts to do in his latest book is resuscitate the tired, old, liberal tactic of redefining the gospel by trying to drive a wedge between the Apostle Paul and Jesus Christ. This same tactic was employed by McLaren’s modernist liberal forebears and has already been soundly debunked and discredited by J. Gresham Machen in his 1921 classic The Origins of Paul’s Religion.

Here’s McLaren’s postmodern attempt at this modernist liberal tactic. Said McLaren:

Like a lot of Protestants, for many years i “knew” what the gospel was. I “knew” that the gospel was the message of “justification by grace through faith,” distorted or forgotten by those pesky Catholics, but rediscovered by our hero Martin Luther through a reading of our even greater hero Paul, especially his magnum opus, the Letter to the Romans. If Catholics were called “Roman Catholics” because of their headquarters in Rome, we could have been called “Roman Protestants,” because Paul’s Roman letter served as our theological headquarters. As its avid students, we “knew” without question what it was about. To my embarrassment, though, about fifteen years ago I stopped knowing a lot of what I previously knew. A lunchtime meeting in a Chinese restaurant unconvinced and untaught me. My lunch mate was a well-know Evangelical theologian who quite rudely upset years of theological certainty with one provocative statement: “Most Evangelicals haven’t got the foggiest notion of what the gospel really is.” He then asked me how I would define the gospel, and I answered as any good Romans Protestant would, quoting Romans. He followed up with this simple but annoying rhetorical question: “You’re quoting Paul. Shouldn’t you let Jesus define the gospel?” When I gave him a quizzical look, he asked, “What was the gospel according to Jesus?” A little humiliated, I mumbled something akin to “You tell me,” and he replied, “For Jesus, the gospel was very clear. The Kingdom of God is at hand. That’s the gospel according to Jesus, right?” I again mumbled something, maybe “I guess so.” Seeing my lack of conviction, he added “Shouldn’t you read Paul in light of Jesus, instead of reading Jesus in light of Paul?” (A New Kind of Christianity, pp. 138-139)

This quote leads one to ask the obvious question, “How does McLaren define Jesus’ ‘gospel’ of the Kingdom of God?” Answer:

The Kingdom of God is at hand [means] God’s new benevolent society is already among us...the phrase shimmers and glows in relation to the dominant social reality of Jesus time: the kingdom-oriented term “Christ” means “liberating king,” the one who will free God’s people from oppression, confront and humble their oppressors, and then lead both into a better day. (p. 139)

McLaren’s strategy is very easy to spot. His goal is to drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul in order to create the impression that each had a different ‘gospel’ that they were preaching. Since Jesus is greater than Paul, people will then ignore, impugn and belittle the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone by Christ’s work alone that Paul taught through the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name and instead adopt McLaren's new and novel gospel that is never explicitly taught by either Jesus, Paul or any of the Apostles but is instead a postmodern liberalized gospel that is akin to Marxist Hegelian Liberation Theology.

Pitting Jesus Against Paul Is A Subtle & Deadly Attack Against God’s Word Itself

Anyone who pits Jesus against the Apostle Paul is in reality attacking God’s Word. Christians must not chop the Bible up and teach either in principle or practice that some portions of the Bible are more authoritative or more true than others. Although to the unsuspecting Christian it may sound very pious and reverent to claim that Jesus’ words carry more weight that the Apostle Paul’s, the fact is that anyone who is trying to pit Jesus against Paul is purposefully and deceitfully attacking God’s Word in order to deceive you and teach you false doctrine by cutting you off from the entire council of the word of God.

Scripture couldn’t be clearer, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16–17)

ALL SCRIPTURE is God Breathed. No where in scripture do we read that some scriptures are more “God breathed” than other scriptures nor are we ever told that some passages can be ignored because they are less inspired than other passages. Pitting Jesus against Paul tacitly implies that Paul’s Epistles are less inspired and less authoritative than Jesus’ words recorded in the gospel narratives. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

Jesus is the one true God and if we truly believe what is recorded in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 then we must also believe that Jesus is the one who breathed out the very words that the Apostle Paul penned in his epistles. Paul didn’t record his mere opinions about the gospel and sound doctrine, he wrote inspired and authoritative scriptures which bear the imprimatur of the Kingdom of God. This fact is even born out by the Apostle Peter. Said Peter:

“Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14–18)

Peter clearly believed Paul’s letters to be the inspired Word of God and warned against the ignorant, unstable and lawless false teachers who were twisting Paul’s words to their own destruction. In fact, it is clear from Peter’s second epistle that he did not share McLaren’s view of Paul’s letters and the gospel that Paul preached. Instead, it is painfully clear that Peter was warning us against men like Brian McLaren.

McLaren’s attack against the scripture’s is further made evident through his derogatory phrase “Roman Protestants”. What is being impugned and maligned by McLaren is not the city of Rome but the very Word of God recorded for us in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans as if holding to the Gospel that is outlined in Paul’s Epistle is a form of unfaithfulness to God and the gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus proclaimed. By coining and using the derogatory phrase “Roman Protestants” McLaren has unequivocally demonstrated his disdain for God’s Word recorded in Paul’s epistles but even more he’s demonstrated his disdain for the Biblical gospel that was recovered during the Protestant Reformation.

Sound Hermeneutical Principles

In order to properly understand the Bible and the different genres of the documents that are contained in it one must understand that the Bible records human history that is theologically interpreted. For example, the historical biographies about Jesus’ life all tell us that He was crucified like a common criminal under Pontius Pilate. Plenty of people were crucified by Pilate that’s a historical fact. But the theological interpretation of the historical event of Christ’s crucifixion is what informs us about what couldn’t be seen through the five senses of those witnessing Jesus crucifixion, namely that Jesus death was a sacrifice for the sins of the world that propitiated God’s wrath. (Romans 3:21-25)

Edward John Carnell outlines sound hermeneutical principles in his book The Case for Orthodox Theology. Carnell gives us simple foundational rules for properly understanding the Bible and these rules stand in sharp contrast to McLaren’s attempt to pit Jesus against Paul. Along with understanding that the Old Testament must be interpreted by the New Testament, we also learn that the Gospel narratives must be interpreted by the Epistles, not the other way around.

The Gospels record the historic events of our redemption—the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ. But by themselves historic events are not sufficient We need an authoritative word that tells us the true significance of those events.



If a man thinks he can look at a historic event and out of his own head interpret what that event means, he puts himself in the place of God. Take the historic fact of the resurrection for example. It is not for us to presume what the resurrection means. The Epistles spell out to us what it means, and he who goes beyond what is interpreted in the Epistles is fabricating a doctrine out of his own head—or passing on what someone has fabricated out of his head. Neither is it the prerogative of the church to interpret any of the events of redemptive history. God sent apostles for that purpose, and we must not add or take away from their word.



We need to go to the Epistles to correctly interpret the events recorded in the Gospels. The church often fails to follow this fundamental principle. She often tries to justify some practice or custom by drawing some "spiritual" lesson from the life, death or resurrection of Christ, but this is a human rather than a divine interpretation of the gospel. "He that hath an ear, let him hear."[1]

By pitting Jesus against Paul, Brian McLaren is rejecting the theological interpretation of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection recorded for us by Paul through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. By silencing Paul, McLaren is instead trying to smuggle in his own false gospel that Jesus was supposedly announcing the presence of His new ‘benevolent society’. But, no where in the epistles do any of the men who were eyewitnesses to Jesus life, teaching and resurrection interpret Jesus’ mission as establishing a ‘benevolent society’ that sets people free from oppressive political regimes. In order to establish his new and novel postmodern ‘gospel’ McLaren must first silence Paul and the other apostles and that in fact is exactly what McLaren is attempting to do.

Jesus Gave Paul the Gospel That He Proclaimed and Jesus Approved of the Gospel that Paul Preached

Modernist and postmodernist liberals purposefully suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18) that Paul received the gospel he preached from Jesus Christ himself. Said Paul:

“For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11–13)

In other words, Paul’s gospel was not contradictory to Jesus’ gospel. Paul’s gospel was the very gospel that Jesus Himself instructed the Apostle Paul to preach and proclaim. This is further borne out by the fact that Jesus appeared to the Apostle Paul in Corinth and encouraged him to keep preaching the gospel that He gave him.

“And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.” (Acts 18:8–11)

It’s hard to imagine that Jesus Christ didn’t approved of Paul’s gospel or that it was substantially different from and contrary to the gospel that Jesus preached during His earthly ministry since Jesus himself told Paul to keep on preaching what he was preaching.

Further proof that Paul’s gospel was not different than the Gospel that Jesus wanted proclaimed is the fact that the Apostle Paul traveled to Jerusalem and laid out his gospel to those who had been discipled directly by Jesus and they did not add anything to Paul’s gospel. Said Paul:

“Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.” (Galatians 2:1–6)

In light of all this evidence, it is clear that the gospel that Paul preached and proclaimed is the exact Gospel that Jesus Christ personally wanted to be preached and proclaimed.

What was the content of Paul's gospel? Its summarized for us in 1 Cor. 15:1-8 which states:

“Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.” (1 Corinthians 15:1–8)

This gospel that Paul preached and recorded for us in the epistles, that he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit fits perfectly with the message Jesus instructed the disciples to preach just before Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Said Jesus:

“Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” (Luke 24:46–47)

No where in the New Testament do we hear either Jesus or his disciples proclaiming the pressence of a benevolent society that has come to set those free who are being oppressed by Caesar and other political oppressors like him. Instead, Jesus came to set us free from our real enemies and our real oppressors, namely: sin, death and the devil.

Brian McLaren, by attacking and impugning the gospel that Paul proclaimed, defended and recorded for us in his epistles is in fact attacking none other than Jesus Christ himself because Jesus was the one who gave Paul the gospel that Paul proclaimed. The reason McLaren is attacking the gospel given to Paul by Jesus is clear. McLaren wants to overthrow the Biblical gospel and replace it with a false gospel of his own liking. But Paul’s words of warning to those who would do such a thing ring out against Brian McLaren and his postmodern liberal emergent cult members:

“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6–9)

---

[1] A fantastic summary of the hermeneutical principles in Carnell's book The Case for Orthodoxy can be found in volume 12 article 2 of Present Truth Magazine. I quoted from this article in this blog post.

The Brutal Truth About Lectio Divina

Christianity is Incompatible With Postmodernity

God's word teaches that the church is not called to meet and cater to the spiritual expectations of any nation, culture or competing worldview. The church is called to boldly proclaim repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Name to all nations (Luke 24:46-47). This bold and certain proclamation that Jesus is THE way, THE truth and THE life (John 14:6) flies directly in the face of the epistemological assumptions of postmodernity; particularly that objective truth is unknowable and that there is no ultimate spiritual authority.

Therefore, the church must call postmoderns just like every other lost human tribe to repentance of not only of their sins but also of their false epistemology and worldview. (2 Cor. 10:5) Biblical Christians must struggle to release postmoderns from the fog of uncertainty (Heb.11:1-2) and the mistaken belief that truth is a plurality and call them into the brilliance and glory of the singular and certain truth that Jesus Christ, the one true God (Isaiah 43:10-11) in human flesh (John 1:14) died on the cross for their sins (1 Cor. 15:3-6). He died to propitiate the wrath of God (Rom 3:23-26, Heb. 2:17) which is soon to be revealed (Rom. 2:5) and He rose again for their justification (Rom. 4:25). The proclamation of this good news, the true Biblical Gospel once and for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3), requires unwavering trust and such courage of conviction that you'd rather face Caesar's lions in the sands of coliseum than deny it (Matt. 10:33).

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.