Extreme Theology

Who's Responsible for the Defects of the Knowledge Based Products of the Druckerite Companies?

Many Christians have an incorrect view about what the Purpose-Driven Network, the Willowcreek Association and Leadership Network are. Many mistakenly believe these organizations are churches, or some form of a quasi-denomination. They’re not. These organizations are businesses and these businesses offer knowledge based products to the church leader / pastor market.

The reason I am circling back to clarify these points is that yesterday I called on Peter Drucker's disciples, Rick Warren, Bob Buford and Bill Hybels to issue a safety recall for their entire Emerging Church product line. This type of language seemed odd and out of place to a few people since speaking of Leadership Network, the Purpose-Driven Network and the Willowcreek Association as businesses contradicted what many people assumed about them. Part of the reason for this confusion is that two of these organizations are headed up by men who also happen to be pastors.

Therefore, what I want to do in this post is explain the real nature of these companies so that you can properly understand what these organizations are doing and can properly and realistically scrutinize their offerings in a correct and Biblical way. But, this means that I will need to make some statements that may challenge your assumptions about these companies.

In order to accomplish this task I will put forward a series of ‘theses’ that will help paint a realistic picture of these organizations and their leaders. As basic as these 'theses' may appear, many people have not taken the time to think through them and their implications.

1. Rick Warren is the head pastor of Saddleback Church.
2. Rick Warren is also the functioning CEO of the Purpose-Driven Network.
3. Saddleback Church and the Purpose-Driven Network are two distinct entities.
4. When Rick Warren is preaching at Saddleback he is functioning in a Pastoral Office.
5. When Rick Warren is making decisions about the direction of the Purpose-Driven Network he is functioning in a Chief Executive Office.
6. Therefore, the Purpose-Driven Network is a business entity that is separate and distinct from Saddleback Church but it happens to be run by a man who is both a CEO and a Pastor.
7. Bill Hybels is the head pastor of Willowcreek Church.
8. Bill Hybels is also the functioning CEO of the Willowcreek Association.
9. Willowcreek Church and the Willowcreek Association are two distinct entities.
10. When Bill Hybels is preaching at Willowcreek Church he is functioning in a Pastoral Office.
11. When Bill Hybels is making decisions about the direction of the Willowcreek Association he is functioning in a Chief Executive Office.
12. Therefore, the Willowcreek Association is a business entity that is separate and distinct from Willowcreek Church but it happens to be run by a man who is both a CEO and a Pastor.
13. The Purpose-Driven Network’s target market is church leaders / pastors.
14. The Willowcreek Association’s target market is church leaders / pastors.
15. Leadership Network’s target market is church leaders / pastors.
16. The Purpose-Driven Network develops and sells knowledge based products to its target market.
17. The Willowcreek Association develops and sells knowledge based products to its target market.
18. Leadership Network develops and sells knowledge based products to its target market.
19. Knowledge based products are concepts, ideas, models, methods and practices.
20. Although knowledge based products are not tangible products like iPods and cell phones they are products none the less.
21. Knowledge based products are delivered via books, DVDs, lectures, conference keynote addresses, articles and one on one coaching.
22. Knowledge based products must be developed just like tangible products must be developed.
23. When the Purpose-Driven Network (PDN) holds a conference at Saddleback Church, it is not a church function it is a business conference where PDN’s knowledge based products are delivered to church leaders for a price.
24. The business conference also happens to be hosted by the church that Rick Warren pastors.
25. When the Willowcreek Association (WA) holds a conference at Willowcreek Church, it is not a church function it is a business conference where WA’s knowledge based products are delivered to church leaders for a price.
26. The business conference also happens to be hosted by the church that Bill Hybels pastors.
27. When the Leadership Network (LN) holds a conference at a church, it is not a church function it is a business conference where LN’s knowledge based products are delivered to church leaders for a price.
28. LN, PDN and WA although they are separate companies offer very similar knowledge based products and services to the church leader / pastor market.
29. LN, PDN and WA all sell knowledge based products and services that are based upon and firmly rooted in the leadership, management concepts and theories of the late business guru Peter Drucker.
30. Just like McDonalds, Burger King and Wendys all sell hamburgers... LN, PDN and WA all sell Peter Drucker’s business and management ideas.
31. Drucker’s leadership theories form the common ground for all of the knowledge based products that LN, PDN and WA sell to the church leader / pastor market.

With these theses in mind, there are several other things that you must also keep in mind regarding my call for the Druckerites to issue a safety recall for their entire Emerging Church product line.

1. I am calling on Rick Warren the CEO of the Purpose-Driven Network to take responsibility for the defective knowledge product known as the Emerging Church that PDN helped develop and bring to market.
2. I am calling on Bill Hybels the CEO of the Willowcreek Association to take responsibility for the defective knowledge product known as the Emerging Church that WA helped develop and bring to market.
3. I am calling on Bob Buford the CEO of the Leadership Network to take responsibility for the defective knowledge product known as the Emerging Church that LN helped develop and bring to market.

All three of these Druckerite CEO’s bear some responsibility because of their roles in helping to develop and release the knowledge based product known as the Emerging Church. The reason they are responsible is because none of these businesses have put quality control measures or systems in place in order to insure that the knowledge based products that they bring to market and sell to church leaders / pastors are not infected with false doctrine and heresy.

If Pastor Warren and Pastor Hybels want to continue moonlighting as CEO’s then they must take responsibility for the doctrinal safety of the knowledge based products that their businesses are developing and selling to church leaders / pastors.

The Fatally Incorrect Assumption of the Emergent Church

Yesterday I interviewed Doug Pagitt on my radio program and he told us the real story regarding the birth of the Emergent Church. (You can hear that interview in its entirety by clicking here.)

During the program I hinted at the fact that in the interview Doug revealed the incorrect assumption of many in the Emergent movement and that this incorrect assumption explains why were seeing the theological distortions and the false gospel that have become the hallmark of the Emergent Church.

I want to highlight this incorrect assumption for you. Therefore, I've created a short soundbite montage that may sound a bit obnoxious because of the repetition of certain phrases in it. But, I am using repetition in this montage to really drive home and highlight the incorrect assumption that these 'innovative leaders' have been working from.

Click Here to download Montage 1

Now compare this assumption about changing the actually meaning of the gospel to make it appeal to post-modern culture to what Jesus instructed the apostles to do in Luke 24:46-48

“and [Jesus] said to them, “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. You are witnesses of these things.” (Luke 24:46–48)

Jesus wanted a VERY SPECIFIC message to be proclaimed to ALL NATIONS. The message itself was NOT changeable. The strategy of preaching the Gospel NEVER included altering the message to make it more appealing to different cultures in different nations. Yet from the earliest days of the Emergent Church they assumed that the actual gospel message had to be changed in order to appeal the emerging post-modern culture and THEIR expectations about what the church should be and THEIR expectations about the spirituality that the church should convey.

Yet scripture could not be clearer, the Gospel message cannot be changed or altered. The consequences of changing the gospel message is that a distorted gospel will be proclaimed in its place that is no gospel at all and that distorted gospel will ultimately eternally condemn those believing and proclaiming it.

“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)

Now that you know that from the beginning, the Emergent Church was working with a fatally incorrect assumption, listen to this montage that highlights the fact that the primary thing that was trully at the heart of the Emergent movement was INNOVATION, INNOVATION, INNOVATION. Yet the scriptural call for the church is FIDELITY, FIDELITY, FIDELITY to the gospel message as handed down in the scriptures.

Click Here to download Montage 2

Governing Narrative??

As I have been re-reading N.T. Wright's Fresh Perspectives on Paul. I've noticed that Wright's erroneous conclusions regarding the doctrine of Justification, imputed righteousness and his particularly impotent 'good news' that Jesus is Lord not Caesar, have their genesis in a fatally flawed hermeneutic.

Wright on several occasions discusses what he calls "the governing narrative" and its impact upon his reading of scripture. This so-called "governing narrative" is comprised of all sorts of bits of historical data and ideas gleaned from extra-biblical sources including Dead Sea Scroll material from the Qumran communities.

The fatal error in this approach is that it gives interpretive governing authority to extra Biblical material that has been cobbled together into this 'governing narrative'. Ultimately, this approach puts human subjectivity on the interpretive throne and will allow for, as it already has, all kinds of interpretive mischief. For which two scholars are going to agree as to which data should and shouldn't be included in the 'governing narrative'? Biblical interpretation will no longer depend on what the scriptures say but only on what the 'governing narrative' says that it is saying. In the end the 'governing narrative' will become nothing more that a purely political and subjective playground that will be used for all types of fanciful and false Biblical interpretations. And as Wright has so eloquently demonstrated the first doctrine to get thrown out is the good news of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus Christ and His righteousness imputed to justified sinners.

Lutheran dogmatician Francis Pieper exposed the dangers of this hermeneutical approach long before N.T. Wright came on the scene. Said Pieper,

Exegesis loses its theological character if the exegete does not adhere throughout to the “Scriptura Scripturam interpretatur” and “Scriptura sua luce radiat.” No extra-Biblical material, philological or historical, may determine the exegesis. That holds true particularly with regard to historical circumstances. Interpreting the words of Scripture according to a “historical background” not furnished by Scripture itself but, wholly or in part, by contemporary secular writers, is false exegesis. All the historical background necessary for the correct understanding of Scripture is given by Scripture itself. (Christian Dogmatics, Vol 1. Page 101)

Or as Luther pointed out so eloquently, men will always be inclined, “in their perverse desire to reach false heights, like blind idiots, to take no notice of the divine simplicity of the words of Christ.”

Why Does Rob Bell Sound NOTHING Like the Ancient Christians?

As I've previously pointed out, Rob Bell, in his book Velvet Elvis claims that, "The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up."

This is not an isolated instance of Bell speaking like this. In an interview with Christianity Today on topic of the "Emergent Mystique" Bell said he and his wife found themselves increasingly uncomfortable with church after they launched Mars Hill in 1999. The interview goes on to say:

"Life in the church had become so small," Kristen says. "It had worked for me for a long time. Then it stopped working." The Bells started questioning their assumptions about the Bible itself—"discovering the Bible as a human product," as Rob puts it, rather than the product of divine fiat. "The Bible is still in the center for us," Rob says, "but it's a different kind of center. We want to embrace mystery, rather than conquer it." (Online Source)

The term "embracing mystery rather than conquering it" sounds so spiritual and enlightened. But, did our ancient Christian forbears "embrace mystery" or did they embrace and worship God using the neat lines and clear definitions of God laid out for us in God's Holy Scriptures?

By way of comparison, here is the confession of faith that Irenaeus confessed. See if you can detect any "mystery embracing" by this ancient saint who learned the Christian faith from Polycarp. (Polycarp learned the Christian faith directly from the Apostle John.)

The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess” to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,” and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Irenaeus - Against Heresies, Chapter 10:1

Notice that Irenaeus' confession incorporates the clear teachings and definitions laid out for us in both the Old and New Testaments. Irenaeus wrote his book Against Heresies in the mid to late 2nd Century and it was written against the multiple forms of the Gnostic heresy that were threatening and convoluting the Christian faith in his day.

Point of Note: If you read Irenaeus' work you will discover that the "Christianity" that Rob Bell is promoting sounds EXACTLY like the gnostics and NOTHING like the Christianity that Irenaeus confessed.

Maybe the reason why Rob Bell sounds NOTHING like the ancient Christians is because he doesn't confess the same faith as they do but instead confesses a faith that the ancient Gnostics were more familiar and comfortable with.

"God in a Box" or God As He Has Revealed Himself?

Today, if you happen to be conversing with a group of CHRISTIANS and you boldly, confidently, and succinctly talk about God and His characteristics, attributes and what He has done you are very likely to be accused of "putting God in a box"?

One of these Christians might even throw a Rob Bell quote or two in your face and tell you that you need to not be so arrogant and should adopt a more humble hermeneutic. According to Bell, "The moment God is figured out with nice neat lines and definitions, we are no longer dealing with God. We are dealing with somebody we made up." (Velvet Elvis, Page 25)

Poppycock!

In the scriptures we have God's revelation of himself and that divine self-revelation gives us some very hard neat lines and definitions about who God is, what He is like, what He has done and what true worship of Him entails. Those neat lines about God do not have their origin in the human imagination. Instead, their origin is God Himself (2 Tim 3:16, 2 Pet 1:20-21) . In other words, God wants us to know who He is and what He has done so that we will worship Him in spirit and in TRUTH. But, we must always be careful to not allow our imaginations to go beyond what God has revealed about Himself in his word. That which God has not revealed about himself is still mystery.

Ambrose said it this way:

“The things which God wishes to be hidden are not to be examined; and the things which He has made manifest are not to be rejected, lest we as ingrates be improperly curious toward the former and damnably ungrateful for the latter.” (De Vocatione Gentium, Bk. 17)

The Apostle Paul put it like this:

"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I KNOW in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." (1 Cor 13:12).

Notice that Paul didn't say that we "can't know" but that we only KNOW IN PART. But, that part that we do know is sure and certain and has neat lines and clear definitions. Here are just some of those neat lines and clear definitions that we glean directly from God's Holy Word about the One and Only True God, The Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; Begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of very God; Begotten, not made; Being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, And was incarnate by the Holy Spirt of the Virgin Mary, And was made man: And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried: And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures: And ascended into heaven, And sits at the right hand of the Father: And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the livign and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Spirit, The Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the Prophets: And I believe one Christian and Apostolic Church: I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins: And I look for the Resurrection of the dead: And the Life of the world to come.

Amen.

This confession about God contains neat lines and clear definitions. Yet, none of it pertains to a 'god' that we've made up. Instead, it richly, beautifully and poetically summarizes the God who has revealed Himself to us in the Holy Scriptures.

Review of The Voice New Testament - Part Two

This is part 2 of my critique of the new Emergent “translation” of the Bible entitled The Voice.

I apologize for the delays in publishing this second installment. However, on this section of scripture I wanted to insure that my scholarship dug a little deeper than my first installment because the passage of scripture what I will be reviewing touches on the very heart of the Gospel message itself.

The passage we will be reviewing is Romans 3:21-26. As a Lutheran this passage has very significant historical and theological meaning. It is this passage of Scripture that the Holy Spirit used with Martin Luther in order to open his eyes to Biblical doctrine of Salvation by Grace Alone Through Faith Alone by Christ’s Work Alone. This passage of scripture is literally ground zero for the Protestant Reformation and is one of the central passages of scripture that clearly teaches ‘forensic justification’ (the teaching that sinners are declared righteous by God not because of their good works and law keeping but purely as a gift for the sake of Jesus Christ.) Mangling or manipulating this text is tantamount to obscuring and changing the Gospel Message itself. Unfortunately, that is precisely what The Voice does.

I’ve reproduced a side by side comparison of The Voice, The ESV and the Greek New Testament. Yellow highlights indicate highly problematic phrasing in The Voice and red highlights indicate extremely problematic phrasing in The Voice.

Romans 3:21

The Voice begins this passage by claiming it is announcing the ‘good news’. This is a highly charged Biblical phrase and as a theologian that phrasing causes me to pay very careful attention to what follows because it claims to be The Gospel. Therefore, the question I will want to answer is whether or not the ‘good news’ offered in this section of The Voice is the true Biblical gospel or ‘another gospel that is no gospel at all’ (Gal 1:6-9)?

Immediately we run into a significant problem. The translators of The Voice have translated the greek phrase ‘diakaiosune theou’ as ‘restorative justice’. This phrasing is very foreign and is fraught with lexical problems.

Let's first look at what that phrase really means. BDAG in wrestling with the phrase ‘diakaiosune theou’ states:

quality or state of juridical correctness with focus on redemptive action, righteousness. Equitableness is esp. associated w. God and in our lit. freq. in connection w. exercise of executive privilege in conferring a benefit. Hence God’s diakaiosune can be the opposite of condemnation 2 Cor 3:9 ; in it God is revealed as judge Rom 3:5—in contrast to human wrath, which beclouds judgment—displaying judicial integrity ... In Pauline thought the intimate association of God’s interest in retaining a reputation for justice that rewards goodness and requites evil, while at the same time working out a plan of salvation for all humanity, complicates classification of his use of diakaiosune. On the one hand, God’s diakaiosune is pardoning action, and on the other a way of sharing God’s character with believers, who then exhibit righteousness in the moral sense. God achieves this objective through exercise of executive privilege in dispensing justice equitably without reference to nomos by making salvation available to all humanity (which shares a common problem of liability to wrath by being unanimously in revolt against God Ro 3:9–18, 23) through faith in God’s action in Jesus Christ. The genitival constr. diakaiosune theou accents the uniqueness of this diakaiosune.: Ro 1:17; 3:21f, 25, 26; 10:3, and diakaiosune. alone 5:21; 9:30 (3 times); 2 Cor 3:9 ...All these refer to righteousness bestowed by God...

In other words, the correct way of understanding the greek phrase “ diakaiosune theou” is to understand that this is a righteousness that is BESTOWED by God. As you will see in later verses this interpretation of 'diakaiosune theou' dovetails perfectly with the greek verb dikaioo (to pronounce or declare righteous) that is found in Romans 3:24.

The Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (ALGNT) confirms BDAG’s understanding of this phrase. The ALGNT states:

in Pauline thought of the divine action by which God puts a person right with himself and which then becomes a dynamic power in the believer’s life making right(eous); state of having been made righteous.

How is this righteousness bestowed on us? Romans 3:24 makes this VERY clear, it says we are justified by God's grace as a gift. What does 'justified' mean? The greek word here couldn't be clearer. The greek word is Dikaioo and it literally means, "to pronounce or declare someone to be righteous". Dikaioo is a legal term that applies to a judge rendering a verdict. In other words, God by His grace as a gift declares sinners to be righteous through Jesus Christ. But, The Voice obscures this amazingly good news by turning the righteousness of God into "God's Restorative Justice".

The question that now needs to be addressed is whether or not the phrase that The Voice employs, “God’s Restorative Justice” correctly conveys this concept of a righteousness that is bestowed and pronounced by God or if it is something else.

On its face, the phrase “God’s Restorative Justice” doesn’t appear to convey a meaning that implies the bestowal of righteousness by God that the greek language conveys. Instead, the phrase “God’s Restorative Justice” seems to be implying some type of ‘restorative process’. In fact, the term “Restorative Justice” is so unique and foreign to the text that it caused me to do further research to see if this phrase already had an established meaning. Through my research I discovered that the term “Restorative Justice” does already have an established meaning among those who are proposing alternative and post-modern approaches to settling legal disputes.

Here is what I found at the Suffolk University website:

Restorative justice is a broad term which encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm, problem-solving and violations of legal and human rights.

These range from international peacemaking tribunals such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa to innovations within our criminal justice system, schools, social services and communities.

Rather than privileging the law, professionals and the state, restorative resolutions engage those who are harmed, wrongdoers and their affected communities in search of solutions that promote repair, reconciliation and the rebuilding of relationships. Restorative justice seeks to build partnerships to reestablish mutual responsibility for constructive responses to wrongdoing within our communities....

Restorative justice is a value-based approach to conflict and harm. These values are often identified as inclusion, democracy, responsibility, reparation, safety, healing and reintegration. But one value is more essential than any other—Respect.

Restorative Justice is Process

For Victims. Restorative responses empower victims by offering them a voice in the process, an opportunity to ask questions and seek answers, afford them a role in decision-making and avenues for healing, restitution and emotional support.

For Wrongdoers. Restorative responses enable wrongdoers to be accountable for their conduct; affords opportunities to make amends and express remorse; offers constructive ways to repair harm; supports making responsible choices; and creates forums for forgiveness, reconciliation and reintegration.

For Communities. Restorative responses re-invest citizens with the power to contribute meaningfully to the resolution of community problems; allows citizens to articulate and affirm the moral standards of the community; provides a forum for addressing the underlying conditions which generate harm; and contributes towards the building of safe, thriving and peaceful communities.

In other words, my suspicion that the term “God’s Restorative Justice” sounds more like a process than a bestowal of righteousness by God appears to have some merit.

The connection between the The Voice’s use of the term “Restorative Justice” and the already established definition of this term may only be coincidental. However, I do not believe that it is a coincidence. Romans 3:21-26 employs Greek legal language and concepts that one must understand in order to properly translate and interpret the passage. The Voice, by employing the phrase “Restorative Justice” is injecting an alternate and foreign understanding of legal justice into the text that, at best, obscures the forensic nature of justification that is so clearly seen in the Greek text. It is important to also note that forensic justification (i .e ., an act of God as Judge proceeding according to Law, declaring that the sinner is just, i .e ., that the Law no longer condemns him, but acquits and pronounces him to be entitled to eternal life) is intimately tied to the doctrine of Christ’s substitionary atonement which is openly rejected and held in derision by many in the Emergent movement.)

Romans 3:22-26

The Voice, translates the greek phrase “dia pisteos Iesuo Christou” in verse 22 as a subjective genitive rather than an objective genitive. This translation is problematic at best but when it is combined with the phrase ‘redeeming justice’ it becomes exceedingly problematic because it undercuts salvation by grace through faith IN Jesus Christ.

In order to explain the difference between the the objective and subjective use of the genitive I’ve reproduced Dana and Mantey’s explanation from their Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament:

The Subjective Genitive. We have the subjective genitive when the noun in the genitive produces the action, being therefore related as subject to the verbal idea of the noun modified.

The Objective Genitive. We have this construction when the noun in the genitive receives the action, being thus related as object to the verbal Idea contained in the noun (Dana and Mantey. A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament. New York: Macmillan, 1955, pp.78,79).

If “dia pisteos Iesuo Christou” is translated as an objective genitive we should read it as ‘through faith IN Jesus Christ’ (the genitival form of Jesus Christ is the object of the greek word pistis (faith) which has taken the genitive form because of its connection to the word dia. When dia connects to another word via the genitive it is translated ‘through’ and implies the means by which something happens or is accomplished)

If, on the other hand, we translate it as a subjective genitive we read it as ‘through the faith OF Jesus Christ’ (Then the faith mentioned in this verse IS NO LONGER OUR FAITH but instead is Christ’s faith).

Translating this verse correctly has huge implications regarding salvation and the gospel. And getting this translation correct requires us to look at other passages of scripture to compare similar language and get a correct sense and feel for how the apostolic authors employed these terms. This is known as the hermeneutical principle of scripture interpreting scripture.

Thankfully, the apostolic authors used a variety of phrases that describe faith and its object. This variety of phrases gives us a far better understanding who or what we are to have faith in. One of these synonymous phrases occurs only three verses later in Romans 3:25.

The greek phrase is “dia pisteow en to autou haimarti”

The literal translation of this phrase is “through faith IN his blood”. The use of the dative in describing Jesus blood rules out a translation like “through the faithfulness of His blood” (which would be a very silly translation indeed).

Instead, verse 25 tells us that God put Jesus forward as a propitiation (hilasterion - a blood sacrifice or expiation for sins that turns away God’s wrath) and this propitiation is received through faith IN Jesus’ blood. This is another way of saying “Faith IN Jesus Christ.”

Notice how The Voice obscures the simple meaning of verse 25. It’s translation of 25 is very difficult to understand AND it incorrectly separates Jesus’ blood from the word faith. The Voice takes the word blood and no longer uses it as a something that we have faith in but instead has Jesus’ blood becoming a demonstration of God’s restorative justice. The translators of The Voice are literally trying to smuggle an alternate teaching of the atonement into this passage and obscure the substitionary atonement which is so clearly taught in verse 25.

Let’s take a look at a bunch of other passages that clearly establish the fact that the object of our faith IS Jesus Christ. We Believe IN Him. Our Faith is IN Him.

John 12:11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and believing in Jesus. - (episteuon eis ton Ieœsoun, the greek word pisteuo is the verb form of the noun pistis [faith]).

John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

1John 5:10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son.

John 9:35   Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

John 2:11 This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.

John 3:16   “For God so loved the world,that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 4:39   Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me all that I ever did.”

John 6:28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
John 7:31 Yet many of the people believed in him. They said, “When the Christ appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?”

John 8:30 As he was saying these things, many believed in him.

John 10:42 And many believed in him there.

John 11:45   Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him,

John 10:42 And many believed in him there.

Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.”

Acts 14:23 And when they had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

Rom. 10:14   How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Phil. 1:29 For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake,

1Pet. 1:8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory,

Matt. 18:6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

John 6:35   Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

John 11:25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live,

John 12:44   And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.

John 12:46 I have come into the world as light, so that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness.

John 14:12   “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father.

John 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;

John 17:20   “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word,

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

Acts 9:42 And it became known throughout all Joppa, and many believed in the Lord.

Acts 11:17 If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?”

Acts 16:31 And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Acts 22:19 And I said, ‘Lord, they themselves know that in one synagogue after another I imprisoned and beat those who believed in you.

1Tim. 1:16 But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

Rom. 9:33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Rom. 10:11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.

1John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ

Acts 13:39 and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses.

Rom. 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

1Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

Acts 20:21 testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 24:24   After some days Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish, and he sent for Paul and heard him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

Acts 26:18 [Jesus is speaking] to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

Col. 2:5 For though I am absent in body, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the firmness of your faith in Christ.

Philem. 5 because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints,

Over and again, verse after verse after verse after verse from practically every New Testament author (including Paul) demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus is the object of our faith, belief and trust. The overwhelming weight of this evidence more than provides the necessary proof to support the fact that the objective genitive “faith IN Jesus Christ” is the correct translation of Romans 3:22 AND 3:26.

By mistranslating Rom 3:22, The Voice introduces a theology that is foreign to the text and New Testament Christianity. It undermines the clear teaching of forensic justification and EVEN WORSE in Rom 3:26 The Voice uses it’s mistranslation of this passage to smuggle works-righteousness and a salvation based upon the law keeping by making justification contingent upon trust AND commitment to Jesus. Yet NO WHERE in text does it say that God justifies those who 'commit themselves to Jesus'. This idea cannot be supported from the greek and it outright contradicts the teaching of the passage itself.

I could go on, but I think I've made my points.

Review of The Voice New Testament - Part One

Emergent church leaders such a Brian McLaren and Chris Seay in conjunction with a pack of poets, songwriters and storytellers have just released a new “translation” of the Bible that they claim is a “fresh expression of the timeless narrative known as the Bible”. The name of this fresh “translation” is The Voice and it claims to be a dynamic translation of the Bible. Unfortunately, not since the release of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Greek Scriptures in 1950 has there been a bible published that so blatantly mangles and distorts God’s Word in order to support a peculiar and aberrant theological agenda. Please See James Sire's Scripture Twisting Methods of the Cults

I recently purchased a copy of this fresh “dynamic translation” of Bible and spent some time doing comparative work with key passages of the New Testament from The Voice, The ESV and the Greek text. Sadly I must report that this new Emergent “translation” is so far off the mark that I think one could reasonably argue that by producing their own distorted version of the Bible the Emergent church has crossed the line from being a ‘movement’ to actually becoming a cult.

Over the next few posts I will review selected passages of scripture from The Voice. The passages that I’ve selected touch on important non-negotiable Christian doctrines. As you will see, The Voice inserts peculiar teachings into the text that do not belong. The end result of these ‘insertions’ is a text that obscures the gospel, distorts Jesus substitutionary work on the cross, teaches Pelagianism and promotes a liberal form of works Righteousness.

The Voice claims that it is "based on the earliest and best manuscripts from the original languages." However, it employs the use of italicized words that the translators admit are not in the original text. They claim that those italicised "words or sentences may contain information that would have been obvious to those originally addressed in the Gospel or letter and are meant to help the reader better understand the text without having to stop and read footnotes." It is primarily through this device that The Voice smuggles false doctrine and teaching into the Biblical text.

Note: for each passage I will produce a side by side view of The Voice, including italics, the ESV and the original Greek. (I apologize if you don’t read Greek. As needed I will explain why The Voice is not correctly translating the Greek and will do so in a way that will be sensitive to the fact that most people don’t read Greek)

John 1:9-13

I’ve bolded and underlined words in The Voice that are problematic and highlighted words that are outright wrong. My commentary follows below.

Verse 10 - This verse takes a lot of unwarranted liberty with the text. There are no verbs in the greek that support their insertion of the words ‘call out’ and ‘speaks clearly’ as evidenced by the fact that The Voice uses italics for these words. Neither words are supported nor implied in the original text which leads me to ask, by what objective criteria did the translators of The Voice use to determine that these words "would have been obvious to the original readers of this Gospel?"

Verse 11 - This verse has some very serious problems. In this verse the translators of The Voice build on the originally italicized words ‘call out’ and ‘speaks clearly’ which they injected into verse 10. In verse 11 they add the idea that The Voice (their unfortunate translation of the Greek word logos) utters only truth and that people refuse to listen. Again they've added these words in italics but I can see no reason why we should think that the original audience would have assumed these thoughts. What is even more troubling is that the translators have Jesus speaking to us through an ‘inner calling’. This is neither supported nor implied by the Greek text yet they do not have the words 'inner calling' italicized.

The true theological thrust of the opening statements of the Gospel of John is the incarnation of Christ. In verse 11 John tells us that the Incarnate Word came to his own creation and his own creation did not receive him.

The Voice undermines the doctrine of the incarnation in verse 11 by turning Jesus’ coming into a “truth speaking inner calling” that people have rebuffed. The scriptures NO WHERE speak of a ‘truth speaking inner calling’. This verse injects foreign and false Eastern mystical concepts into the Gospel of John that cannot be supported from the original languages. This idea of a ‘truth speaking inner calling’ undermines the incarnational points of John’s opening statements in his Gospel.

For the record, God speaks to us through his written word not through ‘truth speaking inner callings’.

Verse 12 - This verse builds off of the disembodied 'inner calling' that was injected in verse 11 and says that we are reborn as Children of God if we hear and trust the disembodied Divine Voice and embrace Him.

Verse 13 - This verse wrongly inserts the words “we can only be reborn to God by accepting His call.” Even though these words are italicised, this is a VERY serious error and insertion. Not only can this not be supported from the original languages, the Greek text itself categorically rules out the possibility that humans can ‘accept His call’.

In verse 13, the Apostle John under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit writes of the new-birth that “oude ek thelematos sarkos oude ek thelematos andros”. Simply translated this statement says tht the new birth is NOT “of the will of the flesh or the will of man”. These words utterly rule out the possibility that man can choose, will or accept the call of God.

By adding the words “we can only be reborn to God by accepting His call” the translators of The Voice have inserted the Pelagian heresy into the text of scripture. They may attempt to defend this by pointing out that the words were italicized. But that defense would not fly because the translators claim that the italicized words would have 'been obvious' by the originally intended audience of the gospel. Since the translators italicized words that outright contradict the clear teaching of the passage itself there is no way that these inserted words would have been obvious to the original readers. As you can see these italicized words are clearly being abused in a way that obscures the real meaning of the passage.

Verse 14 - The Voice again adds very bizarre mystical concepts into this passage that cannot be supported by the text. The italicized words “The Voice had been an enigma in the heavens” are not only absent from the original text, they end up obscuring the simple and poetical language of John’s narrative that reveal that God became flesh and dwelt among us. Notice also that The Voice widens the idea that God dwelt among us (which focuses on humanity) to instead say that He chose to “live surrounded by His creations”. (These words should have been italicized but are NOT)

This mis-translation takes the emphasis off of Christ’s mission to and among fallen humanity and blurs it by making Him generically dwell among His creations. This mis-translation takes the joy out of the incredibly good news that God was incarnate and dwelt among fallen humanity.

Also, The Voice’s words ‘evidenced in the perfect balance of grace and truth’ makes Jesus out to be some type of Eastern holy man who gives us the perfect example of the perfect balance of grace and truth. This is worlds apart from what the Apostle John actually says when he states that Jesus was FULL of or filled (pleres) with grace and truth. The differences between the two concepts cannot be understated.

The Apostle John provides us with this incredible picture of God coming to fallen humanity in the flesh and full of grace and truth (one can scarcely miss how John’s description of Jesus’ coming sounds like a loving and caring father who has returned from a long trip away from his children and he’s loaded with love and hugs and presents for his children) while The Voice’s translation keeps Jesus locked in enigma as some type of guru that embodies the “perfect balance” of grace and truth.

This passage is just one of scores of passages that this new Emergent ‘translation’ of the scriptures completely biffs.

I will provide further examples of the Voice’s duplicity in the days ahead.

McLaren at Davos

I am very critical of Brian McLaren and view many of his ideas to be down right dangerous and unorthodox. That being said many of you would be surprised to find out that I think that on some issues McLaren is asking the RIGHT questions.

I would like you to put away your opinions of McLaren for a couple of minutes and listen to the issues that he brings up in this video from his trip to the World Economic Forum at Davos.

One of my strongest criticisms of American Evangelicalism is that it has become overtly AMERICAN. We've lost sight of the fact that we are the church catholic and have become the church American.

So rather than reacting to McLaren as an Emergent, I'd like to know what you think of his questions and the experience he shares about his trip to Davos.

Dark Ages Return Thanks to Emergent Heresy and Willow Creek

This short video is by Mark Van Steenwyk. He was one of the speakers at Willow Creek's "Ancient-Future Community" Conference.

This video pretty much says it all. The pastors at Willow Creek, rather than obeying the Bible and feeding Christ's sheep with the word of God are now telling Christians that they should become 'self-feeders'. What better way is there to 'feed yourself' than to join a monastic community?

Christianity has just reentered the dark ages.

PBS Look at the Emergent Heresy