Here is a email exchange my friend and brother in the Lord had with Dan Boone President of Trevecca Nazarene University.

here is a link to Mannys site and the original article as well-I added a couple quotes and closing comments to this article.

http://reformednazarene.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/conversation-with-a-university-president/

Posted on February 8, 2010 by reformednazarene
As they say on Fox News, “we report, you decide.” I have been in a back and forth dialogue with the President of Trevecca Nazarene University, Dr. Dan Boone, since I posted my article, Trevecca Nazarene University Promoting Mysticism and Pagan Practices. We have had a cordial conversation, in spite of the harsh criticism of Trevecca that I have given in my article. In fact, this is the first real “conversation” of substance that I have had with anyone in Nazarene leadership in the past year and a half, and that is greatly appreciated, because dialogue is what concerned Nazarenes have been looking to have for a long time. All we have been asking for is direct answers to the questions we have about some things that have been troubling us in the past several years.
So I am posting an exchange between Dr. Boone and me (he has given me permission to share them). Here are the emails, unedited and uncensored. Dr. Boone’s words are in blue text, my original words are on black, and my added comments are in red).

Brothers and sisters, please read this carefully and judge for yourself but only in the light of scripture.

————————————————
From: Boone, Dan
Sent: Tue 2/02/10 10:04 PM
Dear Manny,
Greetings friend. I just got home from a campus revival service. Over 500 students gathered for great worship. The song Be Thou My Vision captivated us in worship and praise. The preacher has been walking us through the Lord’s Prayer. (Monday night) – Hallowed name = the sanctification of the name of God in his people remaking us in the image and likeness of God. (Tuesday morning) – Kingdom come/will be done = the deliverance from self-rule and self-sovereignty for a life of obedience to God and his mission in the world. (Tonight) Give us bread = to be human is to be needy before the provision of God and humble enough to receive it. About 100 were at the altar praying tonight.
Leading up to revival, we always create a prayer room where our students can prepare themselves for revival. There are 5 prayer stations. At the first one, students read and meditate on the Psalm, “search me and know my heart, try me and know my ways….” At the second station, they pray for the entire campus to be open to the preaching of the word. At the third station, they pray for lost friends on the campus to be saved during the meeting. At the fourth station, they pray for our chaplain, the musicians, and the evangelist. And at the fifth station, they pray for their family and church back home. Two years ago we called this a prayer labyrinth. This identification bothered some people because of the association with pagan labyrinths. So we stopped calling it that. But the Concerned Nazarenes have never explained what we were doing, nor stopped hammering us about being pagan/emergent/liberal/and any other bad names they can come up with. I have answered this hundreds of times. I wish they would stop taking one word, filling it with deceptive suggestion, and labeling us. It is beneath the dignity of holiness folk.
You’ve probably also seen the accusation that we force students to take yoga as a way of introducing them to Hindu spirituality. For the record, in 110 years, Trevecca has never had a yoga class. A campus visitor saw an ad for a yoga class on our intercampus TV network. It was sponsored by Trevecca Towers, an independent HUD housing project for the elderly. They have a yoga class to increase the mobility of their residents. Most of the folk in the class are over 65 and many of them are retired Nazarene pastors and missionaries. We haven’t lost any to Hinduism that I know of.
I regret the pain you have experienced in your church and I wish you God’s healing. I can assure you that those who are targeting Trevecca as anti-Christian will not bring you much peace. They are full of fear and anxiety. I pray for them and stand ready to forgive.
Blessings,
Dan Boone

From: Boone, Dan
Sent: Fri 2/05/10 11:38 AM
To: Manny Silva
Good morning Manny. Please call me Dan.
It is a joy to reply to you. I’ve regretted that 98% of the concerned Nazarenes/reformed Nazarenes communication has felt like a drive-by shooting – with the exception of one email, no one except you has even called or written me.
I am thankful for your concerns that the church be rooted in the scriptures, and also that our Wesleyan heritage be valued. As a Wesleyan, I concur with the quadrilateral of scripture, tradition, experience, and reason. This has guided the holiness movement across centuries.
In your email below I have tried to respond to the objections you have raised. Also, please note my closing note to you at the end of your letter.
From: Manny Silva
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 7:53 AM
To: Boone, Dan
Dear Dr. Boone,
Thanks for getting in touch with me, although I should have sent the article to you right away. I appreciate the response, as many of us have been seeking answers from leadership to questions about the emerging/emergent church, contemplative spirituality practices, Roman Catholic works-based rituals, Open Theism, and other teachings that have caused us to be concerned, and not just simply a few of us who are “officially” connected to Concerned Nazarenes. Please understand that I and others are equal opportunity critics, and have been also raising questions about practices and teachings at such schools as Northwest Nazarene, Point Loma, and Eastern Nazarene College, where I attended for several years.
Thank you for the thought regarding my experience at my church, but sadly, it is but one of many similar stories of faithful Nazarenes being forced out of their churches because of this emergent ideology. It is not an isolated incident, and I keep receiving more and more of these stories from folks around the country. Did you know that many people are leaving the Nazarene denomination, sometimes starting their own church instead of putting up with pastors who don’t completely trust the Bible? Much of it is due to the contemplative spirituality, emergent philosophy, and introduction of Roman Catholic practices and rituals to students and churches. Why are these things being welcomed into our holiness denomination? To be holy is to be set apart, yet we seem to be going the other way.
Regarding the prayer stations you mentioned, I object to those and see them as inappropriate for Christians. Nowhere is something like it found in the Bible, and they are simply a man made ritual originating from old Roman Catholic traditions similar to the Stations of the Cross. The same goes for prayer labyrinths, of which the school prominently displays on the website. Prayer labyrinths are in use now in Nazarene churches as well, and it is a practice borrowed from pagan religions which has absolutely no biblical justification for its use, and certainly is not part of our wonderful Nazarene heritage. If I am wrong on both of these, I still wait for men much more learned than me, to justify the use of these with the scriptures.
Dan Boone: I think things like this actually are found in the Bible. The practice of the OT people of God in the temple includes Psalms of individual confession of sin, thanksgiving, offering up sacrifice, prayers for their nation and king. The practice of Jesus was to go into the mountains and pray with the Father. His followers were so moved by his practice that they asked to be taught to pray as he has prayed. In the Sermon on the Mount we are instructed to go into our prayer closet, close the door and pray to the Father in heaven. The epistles are full of instructions regarding the kind of prayers we are to pray. Please read these words from my earlier email as a model of this kind of praying – “Leading up to revival, we always create a prayer room where our students can prepare themselves for revival. There are 5 prayer stations. At the first one, students read and meditate on the Psalm, “search me and know my heart, try me and know my ways….” At the second station, they pray for the entire campus to be open to the preaching of the word. At the third station, they pray for lost friends on the campus to be saved during the meeting. At the fourth station, they pray for our chaplain, the musicians, and the evangelist. And at the fifth station, they pray for their family and church back home.” We learned to pray like this from the Bible. The fact that some of these forms were practiced by the Catholic Church is incidental. Given they were the only church for 1500 years after Christ, it would be expected that the church formed in the Protestant Reformation would do some of the same things they did.
I grew up in a church that had cottage prayer meetings, 48 hour continuous prayer at the church altar, and open altar times during the early morning. I learned this from people much older than me, not from emergent theologians or Catholics. And given the setting of a college campus, with 4 to 8 people living in a suite of rooms, it is hard for students to find space and place to pray alone. To set aside a room where they can pray is a very Biblical thing to do. For someone to grasp the word labyrinth and fill it with meaning that is pagan, and accuse us of those type practices, is either a gross misunderstanding or an intentional lie.
I also believe that the trip to the Abbey at Gethsemani is wrong and should not be allowed to happen. Students all over the country seem to be getting introduced to Roman Catholic practices and monastic rituals on a regular basis, and I ask again, why? Why are Nazarene students going to this monastery to “fellowship” with those whose basis for salvation is works based, and not by faith alone in Jesus alone. Why is it that your university, along with others, is increasingly promoting these events, as well as promoting the use of books by such authors as Thomas Merton, a man who equated Buddhism with Christianity, and Henri Nouwen, who was a universalist. Do you embrace the official teachings of Roman Catholicism as being par with our Wesleyan heritage? I have a love for Roman Catholics, but I want to present the true gospel to them, not fellowship with them and thereby give our tacit approval to their heretical teachings by associating with them in such a manner. I have seen the agenda for this retreat, and it is disturbing.
Dan Boone: The trip to the Abbey started in the late 1960’s with Dr. Bill Strickland, one of our religion professors. We choose the Abbey for our silent retreat for several reasons. It is affordable room and board for our students. The monks there run a retreat business that is highly hospitable. It is a beautiful setting for a retreat. It also is designed for minimal distractions – no TV’s or radios in rooms, no lobby music blaring, no fast food restaurants up and down the street. Students today live in the middle of noise all the time. We think it is important to teach them to practice the command – “Be still and know that I am God”.
The monks neither teach nor participate in the retreat.
(* Clarification: The opening prayer is scheduled to be delivered by a monk, and the students are given options to participate in some of the regular hours of prayer that the monks participate in).
We show them common Christian courtesy by inviting them to welcome the group and tell us about the Abbey requirements, much as would happen on any camp ground being leased. To leap from renting a retreat facility to embracing the Catholic theology or the works of Thomas Merton is like saying that someone who stays in a Marriott Hotel is being Mormonized. A Mormon family, or maybe it’s a Latter Day Saints family, owns Marriott. I actually like to stay there because I get a good room rate and they are clean. I am not approving their teachings by renting a room from them. This retreat is a model of what Jesus did – leaving the crowds and the noise to go into the mountains to pray, to get alone with God, to listen to the Father. The occurrence of the words “hear”, “listen”, “what the Father says”, and other similar phrases are all over the Bible. Jesus got away, quieted himself, and listened to the Father.
Manny, I am shell-shocked that any Christian would attack us for teaching students to do this and providing the most affordable, hospitable, quiet place we could find that would be conducive to this experience. We’re raising up a new generation of praying college students. Being called pagan and Catholic and new age and heretical is just unreasonable. I still have a hard time understanding this type attack.
I was not really aware of the yoga story you mentioned, but (with all due respect) I question the discernment of Nazarene pastors and missionaries who would participate in yoga, of which there is nothing Christian about it. It is again, the incorporation of a pagan religious practice, and that cannot be separated from it.
Dan Boone: I don’t even have a dog in this hunt.
Dr. Boone, there are many of us who will not let up in asking for answers and for accountability.
Dan Boone: have hereby accounted for what we are doing, defending it as Biblical, Wesleyan, reasonable, and rooted in a common Christian experience of generations of Nazarenes. I have also included Judge Charles Davis on the email as the Chair of our Board of Trustees, to whom I as President am accountable for my leadership of Trevecca. I also am fully aware that I stand accountable to the church and have included the two General Superintendents that you have been corresponding with, along with the GS in Jurisdiction of Trevecca. Above and beyond this, I am accountable to God and am fully at peace that we are following the ways of Jesus and seeking to live as holy servants.
All we are doing is really… to try to warn you about a serious danger to the church. We love our denomination too much to ignore what is spreading throughout the Christian world like cancer. We are in no way hateful Nazarenes, or mean-spirited, although admitting we are not perfect. I would disagree with one of your comments, and would say that it would be beneath our dignity, not to say anything and speak out. We are dedicated to one thing right now, and that is to preserve the purity of the gospel, which was “once for all entrusted to the saints.”
May I also offer a warning? The doctrine of Holy Love, entire sanctification is being muddied by unfounded accusations, insinuations of evil intent where there is none; and all this (with the exception of you and one other) is being done on a public website rather than person to person. It is based on a word (labyrinth) and a retreat place (the Abbey). We no longer use the word because we seek not to offend you, and the practices associated with the word never occurred. We’ll keep using the prayer retreat site because it is a good place for our students to get alone with God.
(*If the word labyrinth is not being used anymore, is the practice still happening? Because it is the practice or ritual which we find wrong, not whatever it is called).
What we are seeking is answers to questions such as these, and perhaps you or someone from the theology department can answer these questions:
1. Is the use of prayer labyrinths justified by scripture? If so, please show me.
Dan Boone: We’ve stopped using the word, please stop beating us over the head with it.
(* See: The Labyrinth: A Walk to Life or A Walk To Death?)
2. Are prayer stations biblically justified?
Dan Boone: I really don’t know. I actually don’t care whether you call the place you pray a prayer station, a prayer closet, an altar, a bedside, or a quiet retreat place. But I am absolutely certain that providing places to pray, confess, intercede for others is Biblically justified.
3. If it’s okay to fellowship with Roman Catholic monks at a monastery, is it also okay to fellowship with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, who also say they believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior?
Dan Boone: If you believe all Catholics to be lost and unsaved (which I don’t), this would make them sinners. I recall that Jesus was accused of fellowshipping with sinners quite frequently. I guess I am guilty. I actually think God wants us to be with them.
(*Clarification from Manny: I do not believe all Catholics are lost. I do believe the institution of the RCC does teach heretical doctrines, such as: praying to Mary or the saints; purgatory; the communion wafer and wine being the actual body and blood of Christ; works-base salvation. Therefore, creating a doctrine contrary to the gospel is in direct disobedience to Jesus Christ and His command to obey Him in everything).
** Further clarification: A Catholic who believes in the same heretical dooctrines as the RCC teaches, and believes in works-based salvation- well, that Catholic could not be saved, because that would be believing in another Jesus. Same goes for Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. These folks are not truly saved).
4. Is practicing the silence (as advertised for in the retreat) a spiritual discipline, and if so, where is that taught in the Bible?
Dan Boone: “Be still and know that I am God.” Numerous Psalms that speak of quieting the heart. All the commands to listen and hear. The practice of Jesus getting alone with the Father – mountains, Gethsemane. John on the Island of Patmos, Paul praying in the prison. I can’t believe God wants us to do all the talking. I’m sure God prefers that we get silent and listen.
(* Note from Manny: See my post regarding Psalm 46:10, which is used as the main reason to practice contemplative prayer).
5. Is there such a thing as Christian yoga, and should Christians incorporate this into their lives as a good thing?
Dan Boone: I have no opinion on this. I do think exercise is good for the body. You are more than free to make your case against yoga. I just have other things that I see as more valuable to oppose – human trafficking, alcohol destruction, hunger, etc. I am not suggesting that you don’t care about things like this, but the websites I see attacking us don’t mention these kinds of issues – only yoga, labyrinths, Catholics, and other stuff.
6. So if I listen long enough, I can hear the voice of God? How do I know that what I hear is really the voice of God?
Dan Boone: What God says is in keeping with the written word of God, it is aligned with the character of Jesus, it is faithful to the doctrine that has been handed down to us by our Wesleyan-holiness fathers and mothers, it is confirmed by the common experiences of other believers, and it is reasonable… being that God is a God of order.
I have so many other questions to all of the universities and even to our General Superintendents, for example: how can I trust God if I believe that God makes mistakes? (Open Theism). But that can be another day I guess. There are many Nazarenes who truly believe that there has be a serious correction, a repentance, throughout our universities and churches, by those who are pushing the emergent/contemplative/Roman Catholic practices in the Nazarene denomination, or serious judgment will come because of a failure to recognize and respond to this crisis. We love our church. Why would we otherwise pay such a price that we have paid, for what we have stood for? Either we are confused and are disobeying God, or it is the result of faithfulness to God, and an indication of what was promised in 1 Tim 3:12: “Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution.
I sincerely am praying that this event will be canceled. I understand that many were at the altar praying at that revival, but I would rather see one contrite person who has responded to the true gospel, than see 100 people praying, of which some perhaps are putting their trust in man made practices and rituals that have no basis in scripture.
Sincerely in Christ,
Manny Silva
Dan Boone: I respect your right to question these practices. I hope my response has been helpful to your understanding of the truth. One of the things I try to do when I disagree with someone is to look for signals that God may be blessing what they are doing. The fruit of Godly living, Christian service, and holy witness being borne by the students and faculty of Trevecca is easy to see. Come visit us. I wish you continued healing in your life.
Blessings,
Dan

My Closing Comments-

Dan refers to the Catholic Church as the only church for the first 1500 years. That is historically untrue. I called Dan out on his statement  and he changed his statement in the comments section on Manny site.

Dan has also referred to both Thomas Merton and Ignatius of Loyola as spiritual giants, so it is erroneous logic for Dan to state: “To leap from renting a retreat facility to embracing the Catholic theology or the works of Thomas Merton is like saying that someone who stays in a Marriott Hotel is being Mormonized.”
I find that statement to be absurd–you don’t get Gethsemani without getting Merton. It isn’t benign like staying in a hotel; keep in mind as well that Dan has referred to Thomas Merton as a spiritual giant./span>

Here are two more quotes from Dan I will let you decide what you think of this.

“The Hebrew creation account is a re-telling of the Babylonian tale. Their Hebrew feast days are re-interpretations of the Canaanite days. The Royal Psalms in the collection of Psalms were once Canaanite songs.”

I have consulted with all the original leadership in our group before sending this out.
Just wanted to bring back the focus on what we are about.
And sometimes that means stating for the record what we are not about (as a group per se).
Here is the origin of the group from our website.

http://www.concernednazarenes.org/page12.php

Our whole purpose has been to warn others about what is going on within their denomination or group.
We of course started this within the Nazarene denomination first.
This has now expanded to the entire Body of Christ and the DVD we produced (and distribute for free) has crossed all denominational lines and is even now being handed out at race tracks here in the United States (go figure that one but praise God for His open doors).
We are not only Concerned Nazarenes but Concerned Christians.
Our group is comprised of many different members of the Body of Christ from different denominations and groups.(Romans 12:4-21).
We also have website’s which take the information to the people.
I’ve been doing this for about 10 years now but there are also other very good solid websites that expose error.
Some have just recently got onboard like Manny and Brenda others (like Sandy Simpson and Mike Oppenheimer,Gary Gilley) have been around a lot longer.
We are all in this fight together.
OUR MAIN PURPOSE-is to warn others of the heresy that is already here.
And then LET THEM DECIDE for themselves if what we say is true as THEY (meaning you) search the scriptures Acts 17:11-12.

WHAT WE ARE NOT-
1.It was never our intention to split any denomination but if a denomination splits because of heresy within so be it.
Nazarenes have policy and measures in place to be able to change their leadership.
I would suggest that those policies and measures be followed if you want to change your leadership.
I do believe in following the chain of command when you are a member of a certain denomination and should operate within the policies set up by that group or denomination.
We do that here.
If you dont like the rules or policies by all means go forward and attempt to change these policies (as many here have done).
If not and you want to start your own denomination of course go as God leads you.
Thats not what we are about though.
OUR PURPOSE is to WARN OTHERS ABOUT THE HERSEY THAT IS ALREADY HERE.

2.We are not KIng James Only Advocates.
For the record I use King James because it is a good and solid translation.
I also like RSV and New King James.
I do not like parapharses because it is not a literal translation but what the author (not God) thinks the scripture states.
Scripture intreprets scripture-if you hold true to that and are lead by the Holy Spirit you will never go wrong.
I also believe their are many bad translations out there such as The Message.
I cringe when this book is quoted.
Its bad for a paraphrase and is just a extension of Eugene Petersons new age agenda.
But again King James Only is not a fight that our group is in (as a group).

3.We do not endorse or fight against women pastors as a group.
I know that the Nazarene denomination does allow for female pastors.
I personnally would not sit under a female pastor because I believe the Bible is very clear about this teaching.
Women should not have authority over a man in the Body of Christ.
But again this is not the Concerned Nazarenes group battle.
here is a solid link to this if you would like to see what scripture teaches on this subject

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/1-tim-212-13-and-women-pastors-and-elders

This is not meant to hurt or offend any female pastors but I believe the Bible is very clear on this.

4.We do not do discernment or run our articles by commitee or a board.
Concerned Nazarenes group does not have a board, commitee or anything like that.
Nor will we ever.
We do however council with others on articles.
I speak with Manny at least a couple times every week as well as Sandy Simpson and Mike Oppenheimer as well as Ray Yungen. I also speak with Deb at Lighthouse trails either by phone or email as much as I can.
I also actively seek the council of godly pastors who will read my articles and give me input.
We council with others on where God has our focus and where our enemy satan and his minions seem to be hitting.
We will NEVER as a group or individuals seek a board or group approval to get out the articles we publish.
We will however seek godly council.
We do adhere to biblical teaching on getting godly council Proverbs 1:5
1. Godly counsel is
consistent with Scripture.
2. Godly counsel should
be filtered with solitude
and prayer.
Some may not be able to see the difference between godly council and board/commitee approval.
If you can’t see the difference I’m sorry but thats the way we will continue to operate
Above all our articles should agree with scripture and you will notice those who oppose us rarely (if ever) call us out on scripture.
Even though that would be inconsistant with many of our oppositions low view of scripture.
If you do not stand on the authority of scripture and that the scriptures are without error we do not even have enough common ground to be able to talk about the issues raised.
It has also been a side note that we need to impress scholars.
I can assure you it has NEVER been this group Concerned Nazarenes intention to ever impress or seek the approval of scholars.
Yes sometimes our grammer and punctuation drives you English majors crazy.
Sorry about that if its a stumbling block to you.
What matters the most is what we teach and if our intrepretation of scripture is correct.
If it is wrong by all means reject it or call us out on it.
But you can only do that if you believe that Gods Word is 100% without error.
If not every argument becomes relative to the individuals personal intretpretation of scripture instead of letting scripture intrepret itsef.
Most of us are simple folk who just believe in the Bible.
Seeking godly council and getting board approval are two totally different things.
If you have spent at least a year in a church you know this is true.

These are just of a few of the side issues that have been bought to my attention and I wanted to address them publically.
Again I wanted to refocus our groups efforts and help those of you who are watching determine what we are about as a group.
Sincerely in Christ
Tim

{{desc}}

via Northwest Nazarene University President Responds Regarding New Spirituality Speaker.

The Emergent Church’s Retreat into Pre-Reformation Darkness

by Paul M. Elliott
www.trinityfoundation.org

In recent years, the Emergent Church movement has become a headline-grabbing favorite of the religious media establishment. Emergent leaders’ books and videos line the shelves of religious bookstores. Press coverage of their activities and pronouncements is overwhelmingly favorable. The movement has received national exposure in a two-hour PBS television special and on ABC’s Nightline. Emergents’ influence has spread like wildfire in colleges, seminaries, and churches – mainline liberal, Roman Catholic, and Evangelical alike.

Emergent Church1 leaders and their supporters promote the movement as “the way forward” for the church. It is, they claim, a “new Reformation” with its own “95 theses” and its own new Luther pointing the way. But the Emergents’ “way forward” is in fact a headlong, headstrong retreat into pre-Reformation spiritual and intellectual darkness.

“By Their Fruits You Will Know Them”

Most Bible-believing Christians know little about the Emergent Church movement, even as it devours once sound churches, Christian colleges, and seminaries. Many sincere Christians have been confused and even deceived. They are ready to give Emergents the benefit of the doubt because the movement’s place on the theological spectrum seems difficult to pin down. Are they liberals? Are they conservatives? Do they simply defy conventional labels?

Emergent’s own definition of their movement is unhelpful: “a growing, generative friendship among missional Christians seeking to love our world in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.”2 Emergents make up their theology (if it can be dignified by that term) on the fly, and it changes with the winds.

Bible-believers need not be confused by the Emergent confusion. The Lord Jesus Christ himself gave us a straightforward procedure for evaluating all men and movements:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorn bushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:15-20)

We must evaluate Emergents’ fruits by the infallible standard of Scripture alone. The Bible employs none of the man-made, sliding-scale labels churches too often apply in such evaluations – liberal/conservative, classical/progressive, traditional/contemporary, old-school/new-school. Nor does the Bible speak in terms of following a “third way” of compromise. In His Word, the Holy Spirit uses only two categories: truth and error.

The dividing line between truth and error is fixed and well-delineated in God’s Word. It is the Christian soldier’s battle front. On one side is light, on the other side darkness. There is no demilitarized zone where the forces of truth and error may meet under a flag of truce and negotiate. Unless Christians view the fruits of the Emergent confusion in those terms, we view them un-Biblically.

Those fruits include deconstruction of the Bible, grace, faith, salvation, and the church. Emergents’ deconstruction of the person and work of Jesus Christ is openly blasphemous. Emergents arrogantly pro-claim that the Gospel of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in the finished work of Christ alone, is an insult to their intelligence. Man, not Christ or the Bible, is preeminent in Emergent thinking. The Emergent Church may be the most narcissistic movement in church history.

Emergents reject truth/error thinking. Their keynote is the deadly embrace of paradox. Emergent leaders have invented an Orwellian newspeak that employs terms such as “orthoparadoxy” (“correct paradox”), and “paradoxology” (the “glory of paradox”) to describe their approach to all things.

New Luther or Blind Leader?

In 2004, Emergent guru3 Brian McLaren published what was hailed as a landmark book called A Generous Orthodoxy.4 Phyllis Tickle, who according to her website is “a lay Eucharistic minister and lector in the Episcopal church,”5 wrote the foreword, in which she said:

Religion is like a spyglass through which we look to determine our course, our place in the order of things, and to sight that toward where we are going [sic]. On a clear day, no sailor needs such help, save for passing views of a far shore. But on a stormy sea, with all landmarks hidden in obscuring clouds, the spyglass becomes the instrument of hope, the one thing on board that, held to the eye long enough, will find the break in the clouds and discover once more the currents and shores of safe passage. Ours are stormy seas just now; and I believe as surely as Martin Luther held the spyglass for sixteenth-century Europe, so Brian McLaren holds it here for us in the twenty-first….

…The emerging church has the potential of being to North American Christianity what Reformation Protestantism was to European Christianity. And I am sure that the generous orthodoxy defined in the following pages is our 95 theses. Both are strong statements, strongly stated and, believe me, not lightly taken in so public a forum as this. All I can add to them in defense is the far simpler statement: Here I stand.

So, on that basis, the one thing that remains is to invite you to join thousands and thousands of others who have already read these words and subsequently assumed them as the theses of a new kind of Christianity and the foundational principles for a new Beloved Community.6

The “Beloved Community” of which Tickle speaks is a term coined by pseudo-Christian philosopher Josiah Royce (1855-1916). In his 1913 book, The Problem of Christianity, Royce said that the doctrine of the incarnation is not about the coming of God in the person of Jesus Christ, but the incarnation of God in the visible church. He added that “the visible church, rather than the person of the founder [Jesus Christ], ought to be viewed as the central idea of Christianity.” To Royce, the “problem of Christianity” was Jesus Christ.

Royce also said that the visible church forms a “Universal Community of Interpretation” that redefines “Christianity” to suit the conditions of the times. Royce is a favorite philosopher of the Emergents. Tellingly, his long-out-of-print book was recently republished by the Catholic University of America, an institution of the greatest chameleon church on Earth. 7

Confused and Proud of It

Brian McLaren is clearly comfortable in the intellectual and theological company of people like Tickle and Royce. The full title of McLaren’s “95 Theses of the Emergent Church” is quite a mouthful:

A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional-Evangelical-Post-Protestant -Liberal/Conservative-Mystical/Poetic-Biblical-Charismatic/Contemplative-Fundamentalist/Calvinist-Anabaptist/ Anglican-Methodist-Catholic-Green-Incarnational-Depressed-Yet-Hopeful-Emergent-Unfinished Christian

Rather than being ashamed of his confused state of mind, McLaren wears this complex and contradictory title proudly. He uses each of the descriptions in the lengthy subtitle of his book as the title of a chapter within it. McLaren presents himself as the guru of a “new Reformation” built not on Biblical orthodoxy, but on a man-centered theology of paradox.

A follow-up book, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (2007), authored by McLaren and twenty-six other Emergent thought leaders, is an equally confused and confusing theological Tower of Babel. Its architects and builders are bent on not simply tearing down the Reformation, but on taking the church back into pre Reformation darkness. In the process, McLaren and his fellow Emergents leave no doubt that they are not really Christians at all.

The Origin of the Term “Emergent”

The Emergent Church movement is unabashedly postmodernist. Emergents’ only absolute is that there are no absolutes. Feelings and experience preclude the acceptance of propositional truth. Emergent “truth” comes through dialogue and consensus, and therefore today’s “truth” is not necessarily tomorrow’s. Theology is “conversational.” Truth itself is “emergent.”

What is the definition of “emergent”? Brian McLaren offers this:

There are many kinds of thinking. Some thought is discursive, tracing the development of an idea in a linear way. Some is polemical, staging a winner-takes-all fight between ideas. Some is analytical, breaking down complex wholes into simple parts or tracing complex effects back to simpler causes. But some thought seeks to embrace what has come before – like a new ring on a tree – in something bigger. This is emergent (or integral, or integrative) thinking.8

This definition of “emergence” has its roots in the philosophy of a man named Ken Wilber, who mixes elements of Christianity, Buddhism, New Age, and Eastern philosophies into his so-called religious practice. Wilber is becoming popular as a thought leader among an ever-widening circle of Evangelical and Reformed churches and seminaries. McLaren says the definition of “emergence” is based on Wilbur’s evolutionary concept of the “Great Nest of Being” which consists of, as McLaren puts it, “these realities”

1. Space and Time: the primal creation in which everything emerges.

2. Inanimate Matter: the domain of physics and chemistry in space and time.

3. Microbiotic and Plant Life: the domain of microbiology and botany, which embraces domains 1 and 2 and adds life.

4. Animal Life: the domain of zoology, which comprises domains 1 through 3 and adds increasing levels of sentience and intelligence.

5. Human Life: the domain of anthropology and psychology and art and ethics, which comprises domains 1 through 4 and adds increasing levels of consciousness and culture.

6. Spiritual Life: the domain of awareness of God, accessed through theology and spirituality and mysticism, which encompasses domains 1 through 5, and adds the experience of the sacred and conscious relationship with God.9

This kind of thinking marries Eastern mysticism and New Age thought with classical Darwinism. Everything emerges from something else, says McLaren. He then gives his first example of how he says Christians need to practice “emergent” thinking: “In whatever ways Protestants feel they emerged from Catholicism…they can’t despise their roots or reject their past.”10 As we shall see, what McLaren has in mind is a redefinition of Protestantism as the prelude to an unconditional surrender to Roman Catholicism.

Say “So Long” to the Solas How does the Emergent Church’s “new Reformation” compare with the one that freed Biblical Christianity from the shroud of Romanism? What of the five solas, the rallying cries of that Reformation? What of sola Scriptura, the Reformers’ declaration that the Christian’s authority is Scripture alone? What of sola gratia, salvation by grace alone? What of solus Christus, the truth that salvation is through Christ alone? What of sola fide, justification by faith alone? And do Emergents believe in soli Deo gloria, that the glory belongs to God alone?

Emergents dismiss adherence to such fundamentals, says spokesman Barry Taylor, as “a constant reminder that religion can be a source of chaos and confusion.”11 But who is really living in the realm of chaos and confusion – those whom the Emergents deride as “fundamentalists,” or Emergents who have exalted themselves against the knowledge of God? How do the theological currents flowing through the Emergent Church compare with the Reformation’s great and fundamental statements of the Biblical faith “once for all delivered to the saints”? We shall allow Emergent Church spokesmen to answer for themselves, to their own condemnation.

Deconstructing the Word of God

We begin with sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Christian’s sole authority is Scripture alone. Emergent Church leaders will tell you they are uncertain of most things. They wear ambiguity like a badge of honor. But they are certain of one thing: The Bible is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, uniquely authoritative Word of God.

What do Emergent Church leaders say is the nature of the Bible? Emergent guru McLaren says that the Bible is “an inspired gift from God – a unique collection of literary artifacts.”12 Emergent leader Doug Pagitt agrees with McLaren, hinting at what they mean by “inspired.” The “history of the Christian faith,” Pagitt says, is that “the Scriptures come from and inform the church.”13 In other words, they do not come from God in the sense of verbal, plenary, authoritative inspiration spoken of in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

McLaren is even more explicit. He says that “the purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works.”14 McLaren and other Emergents repeat this statement frequently in their writings, almost as a mantra. But there is never a word about Scripture’s telling mankind how to become one of God’s people, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Throughout their writings, Emergents assume that everybody is already one of “God’s people.” You just have to get busy doing “good works,” as they define them.

But after stating that “the purpose of Scripture is to equip God’s people for good works,” McLaren follows immediately with this: “Shouldn’t a simple statement like this be far more important than statements with words foreign to the Bible’s vocabulary about itself (inerrant, authoritative, literal, revelatory, objective, absolute, propositional, etc.)?”15

Just how “foreign” does McLaren think these words are to Scripture? He does not hesitate to tell us, in a book with one of the most ironic titles ever: Adventures in Missing the Point, co-authored by McLaren and so-called “Evangelical left” spokesman Tony Campolo. McLaren’s and Campolo’s title reflects their fatuous belief that the Bible-believing Christian church has “missed the point” on just about everything. (Of course, Emergents have “gotten the point.”) “The Bible is an inspired gift from God – a unique collection of literary artifacts,” McLaren says. But it is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, propositional, revelatory, absolute, objective, Word of God. What’s more, McLaren asserts, “not even one hundredth of one percent of the Bible” presents “objective information about God.”16

Those are some pretty absolute statements from a man who claims that little, if anything, is certain. But McLaren is just getting warmed up. The Christian church, says McLaren, has misrepresented the Bible as something containing “universal laws.” “We claimed that the Bible was easy to understand,” he laments. “We presented the Bible as a repository of sacred propositions.” All of that was wrong, he says. And, echoing the true position of the Roman Catholic Church-State, McLaren laments that “we mass produced the Bible” and gave Christians the impression that they could interpret it for themselves.17

Orthoparadoxy and Paradoxology

How, according to Emergents, are we to approach this “inspired” but humanly-originated, non-inerrant, non-infallible, non-authoritative Bible? Emergent spokesman Dwight J. Friesen, a professor of practical theology at Mars Hill Graduate School (Seattle) and a member of the Faith and Order Commission of the ultra-liberal National Council of Churches, says that Christ was not interested inorthodoxy but in “a full and flourishing human life.”18 What must develop, says Friesen, is not orthodoxy – correct teaching – but a piece of Emergent doubletalk called orthoparadoxy or “correct paradox.” Friesen writes:

Orthoparaxody represents a conversational theological method that seeks to graciously embrace difference while bringing the fullness of a differentiated social-self to the other. Through the methodology of orthoparadoxy, competing ideas, practices, and hermeneutics are seen as an invitation to conversational engagement rather than as something to refute, reform, or revise.19

Current theological methods that often stress agreement/disagreement, win/loss, good/bad, orthodox/heresy, and the like set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to their way of believing….20

Orthoparadox theology is less concerned with creating “once for all” doctrinal statements or dogmatic claims and is more interested in holding competing truth claims in right tension…. Orthoparadox theology requires a dynamic understanding of the Holy Spirit.21

…see conversation starters where you once saw theological disagreement.22

Emergent Church spokeswoman Nanette Sawyer has added another term to the Emergent lexicon of confusion and doubt: paradoxology. Sawyer is an ordained Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) minister with degrees from both Harvard and McCormick divinity schools. Sawyer, like most of her fellow Emergents, takes refuge from the light of truth in the caverns of paradox. Those who believe the Bible’s categorical, propositional truth claims are arrogant and superficial, she says. They have not ascended to the lofty realms of higher knowledge that can only be attained by embracing paradox:

There is a beauty in paradox when it comes to talking about things of ultimate concern. Paradox works against our tendency to stay superficial in our faith, or to rest on easy answers or categorical thinking. It breaks apart our categories by showing the inadequacy of them and by pointing to a reality larger than us, the reality of gloria, of light, of beyond-the beyond. I like to call it paradoxology – the glory of paradox, paradox-doxology – which takes us somewhere we wouldn’t be capable of going if we thought we had everything all wrapped up, if we thought we had attained full comprehension. The commitment to embracing the paradox and resisting the impulse to categorize people (ourselves included) is one of the ways we follow Jesus into that larger mysterious reality of light and love.23

The Gnostics, who sought to destroy the Biblical faith of the early church by leading it to a “higher” mystical knowledge beyond Scripture, would be proud of Nanette Sawyer. So would the Church of Rome, whether 16th– or 21st–century. This is how we must approach the Bible, according to Brian McLaren:

Drop any affair you may have with Certainty, Proof, Argument…. The ultimate Bible study or sermon in recent decades yielded clarity. That clarity, unfortunately, was often boring – and probably not that accurate, either, since reality is seldom clear, but usually fuzzy and mysterious….24

Find things to do with the Bible other than read and study it [and McLaren then suggests several that are forms of medieval, mystical meditation commended by the Roman Catholic church].25

In the recent past we generally began our apologetic by arguing for the Bible’s authority, then used the Bible to prove our other points. In the future we’ll present the Bible less like evidence in a court case and more like works of art in an art gallery.26

In the recent past we talked a lot about absolute truth, attempting to prove abstract propositions about God (for instance, proving the sovereignty of God).27

That approach, McLaren asserts, is passé in the postmodern world. Protestants have gotten it all wrong about the Bible, by using concepts of truth and error to “lay low” their Catholic “brethren” -

Protestants have paid more attention to the Bible than any other group, but sadly, much of their Bible study has been undertaken to fuel their efforts to prove themselves right and others wrong (and therefore worthy of protest)…the Bible does not yield its best resources to people who approach it seeking ammunition with which to lay their [Catholic] brethren low…. How many Protestants can’t pick up their Bibles without hearing arguments play in their heads on every page, echoes of the polemical preachers they have heard since childhood? How much Bible study is, therefore, an adventure in missing the point?28

Stone Soup Theology

Emergent theology must embrace mystery and paradox, and discard propositional truth, because of.its rush to include all ideas and perspectives in the pursuit of “higher knowledge.” Emergents often refer to their approach as “conversational theology.” In the Emergent view, too many cooks don’t spoil the soup. They enrich it and spice it up.

But the dish simmering in the Emergent kitchen is actually stone soup. The recipe reads thus: Start not with God’s Word but with an empty pot. Fill it not with Living Water but with the dank and putrefying fluid of broken cisterns. Throw in any old stone just as long as it is not Christ the Rock of Offense. Then let everyone who comes along throw in any heresy he (or she) wishes, whether it’s fresh from the fertile fields of postmodernism, or stinking and moldy from the dark cells of the Middle Ages. Stir the soup constantly and mix thoroughly. You can serve this fetid dish at any stage in the cooking process. Serve hot, cold, or lukewarm. It doesn’t matter, because your fellow Emergents (and their camp followers in academia and the religious media) will say it’s delicious no matter what.

For Bible believers whose spiritual taste buds have not been seared with a hot iron, the true taste of this theological soup is bitter irony: While Emergent theology claims to be generously inclusive, it is fatally exclusive of anything that really matters. While it welcomes any and every idea the sinful mind of man can imagine, it rejects anything from the mind of God. Certain ideas are forbidden – or if they are introduced into the conversation, they will be ridiculed and quickly rejected. Those ideas are the Bible’s propositional truths.

The results are predictable. The Emergent “God” is not the God of the Bible, but whatever Emergents make him/her/it out to be – and you will find Emergents referring to “God” as any of the three.

The Bible is not the inspired, infallible, inerrant, uniquely authoritative Word of God, but a collection of literary artifacts. Its value and usefulness are determined not by any objective standard, but by Emergents’ subjective agendas.

“Grace” is not the gift of God that brings about salvation from sin and Hell, but Emergents’ gift of inclusiveness to anyone of any religion, or no religion at all, as long as all can agree on a left-wing social economic-environmentalist agenda.

Jesus Christ may be many things, but He is not the God of the Bible. He may be a moral example, a social revolutionary, a religious iconoclast, or a radical environmentalist. As we shall see, in the Emergents’ twisted theology He may even be an insane sexual pervert. Emergents’ blasphemy of Christ knows no limits.

The Gospel: An Insult to Emergents’ Intelligence

The writings of Emergent Church spokesmen contain many recurring themes, but one is especially prominent: The Biblical Gospel of personal salvation from sin and wrath by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone, is an insult to their intelligence. Nanette Sawyer, whose love of “paradoxology” we mentioned earlier, is among the insulted. Her story is typical:

My explicit rejection of Christianity happened when our family minister implicitly rejected me. When I was a preteen, he visited our house, spoke with my parents, then pulled me aside, the eldest, for a chat of our own. He asked me if I was a Christian. This is a very interesting question to ask a child who has been raised in a Christian household. Being asked such a question I was, in essence, being told that I might not be a Christian. I responded that I didn’t know. The conversation went downhill from there and ended with my saying that I guessed I wasn’t a Christian. He told me that I had to believe [on Jesus Christ as Savior] to be a Christian and I didn’t believe it.

After that, I spent a good fifteen years defining myself as not Christian. Some of the things that I had been taught in Christian contexts, both explicitly and implicitly, were unacceptable to me. I was taught, for example, that there are good people and bad people, Christian people and non-Christian people, saved people and damned people, and we know who they are.

…I was taught that I was inherently bad, and that I would be judged for that. I was told that the only way out of the judgment was to admit how bad I was….

Thinking back on that pivotal interaction with my childhood minister, I believe the whole conversation missed the mark in a big way. He was defining Christian identity as assent to a list of certain beliefs, and he was defining Christian community as those people who concur with those beliefs…. In asking me if I was a Christian, and accepting [my] answer, he essentially told me that I wasn’t part of the community. I wasn’t in; I was out.29

Affronted by this, Sawyer says that she later became a “Christian” through Hindu meditation and the medieval, mystical Roman Catholic practice of “centering prayer” – all while a student at Harvard, taking a master’s degree in comparative world religions. She then tells of her experience while attending the services of a liberal Presbyterian church in Boston:

The minister there invited me into the community by serving me communion without asking if I was a Christian…. He didn’t ask, “Are you one of us?” He didn’t say, “Do you believe?” He simply said, “Nanette, the Body of Christ, given for you.”30

On this basis, Sawyer says, she became a “Christian” and was subsequently ordained as a minister in the apostate PCUSA.

With all this background, you may understand the reason my statement of faith, my personal credo, written in seminary and required for ordination in the Presbyterian Church [USA], included the line: “I believe that all people are children of God, created and loved by God, and that God’s compassionate grace is available to us at all times.”

Imagine my surprise when a particular pastor challenged me on this point. He suggested that “children of God” is a biblical phrase, and that I was using it unbiblically. He believed that not all people are children of God, only Christians….31

Imagine a pastor having the nerve to say that to be a “child of God” is a doctrinal term with a specific Biblical meaning. How thoroughly un-postmodern can you get? Sawyer recounts her shocked reaction to this intellectual baboon: “I focused on not letting my jaw hit the floor.” She continues:

So what about the Bible on this question of the children of God? Is it unbiblical to call all people the children of God? It is true that there are many places in the New Testament that talk about the children of God as the followers of Jesus. But it is not true that this must lead us to the kind of arrogance that asserts that non-Christians are not children of God….

Even if we could answer the question of who is and isn’t a child of God, it wouldn’t help us be better followers of Jesus; it would only help divide people into more categories.32

Rather than submitting to the Gospel teaching that only those who believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior have the authority to be called the children of God (John 1:12), Sawyer goes on to misread three New Testament passages to support her contention that even the Bible itself is “undermining such an exclusionary claim.”33

Like Nanette Sawyer, Brian McLaren also takes umbrage at the Bible’s doctrine of salvation:

…I used to believe that Jesus’ primary focus was on saving me as an individual…. For that reason I often spoke of Jesus as my “personal Savior” and urged others to believe in Jesus in the same way….34

Through the years…I became less and less comfortable with being restricted to the “personal Savior” gospel.35

McLaren says that his rejection of the Biblical Gospel is rooted in his rejection of the Bible’s teaching of eternal punishment in Hell for those who do not receive Christ as Savior. He says that “radical rethinking” of the doctrine of Hell is needed.36 Since McLaren can’t stand Jesus’ own words on the subject (He spoke of Hell far more than of Heaven), he dares to put these words in Christ’s mouth:

“I am here to save you…not by telling you to…focus on salvation from Hell after this life (as some people are going to do in My name) – but by giving you permission to start your participation in God’s mission right now, right where you are, even as oppressed people. The opportunity to start living in this new and better way is available to you right now: The kingdom of God is at hand.”37

The audacity of Emergents in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18) seemingly knows no bounds.

Given these and other statements by Emergent Church leaders, it seems almost ludicrous to compare their mind-set with the salvation solas of the Reformation, but we shall do so, because it further reveals the depths of their darkness.

Deconstructing Grace

What of sola gratia, salvation by God’s grace alone? The term “grace” does not appear often in Emergent writings, and the reason is simple: Since everyone is a “child of God,” no one needs the kind of grace of which the Bible speaks. When Emergents do speak of “grace” at all, it is not as the basis of salvation from sin through Christ. In the Emergent lexicon, grace means inclusiveness. And that is the basis on which, they claim, God is saving society and the environment through the moral example of Christ.

Emergent spokesman Samir Selmanovic, who grew up as a Muslim, became a Seventh Day Adventist pastor, and now serves on the Faith and Order Commission of the National Council of Churches, writes a chapter in The Emergent Manifesto of Hope called “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness.” His theme is that everyone, “Christian” and non-Christian, is going to be “saved” by the grace of inclusiveness:

For the last two thousand years, Christianity has granted itself a special status among religions. An emerging generation of Christians is simply saying, “No more special treatment. In the Scripture God has established a criteria [sic] of truth, and it has to do with the fruits of a gracious life” (see Matthew 7:15-23; John 15:5-8; 17:6-26). This is unnerving for many of us who have based our identity on a notion of possessing the truth in an abstract form. But God’s table is welcoming to all who seek, and if any religion is to win, may it be the one that produces people who are the most loving, the most humble, the most Christ-like. Whatever the meaning of “salvation” and “judgment,” we Christians are going to be saved by grace, like everyone else, and judged by our works, like everyone else.38

By using such twisted definitions of “grace” Brian McLaren is able to assert that:

The average Roman Catholic today (at least, among those I meet) is increasingly clear about God’s grace being a free gift, not something that can be earned or merited. It’s hard to keep protesting against [such] people….39

On the basis of such an inclusive “grace,” McLaren says that we need to redefine – actually deconstruct – what it means to be a Protestant, and come together in an all-embracing Christendom:

What if we were to redefine protest as “protestifying,” pro meaning “for” and testify meaning “telling our story”?…Both Catholics and Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox too, can come together as pro-testifiers or post-Protestants now, because together we are reaching a point where we acknowledge…we have a lot to learn from the very people we’ve been protesting…[and] can come together searching for what we are for….40

It is not only other nominal “Christians” with whom Emergents seek to come together. Their redefinition of grace as inclusiveness embraces “our Muslim sisters and brothers” as well. McLaren writes:

Ramadan is the Muslim holy month of fasting for spiritual renewal and purification. It commemorates the month during which Muslims believe Mohammed received the Quran through divine revelation, and it calls Muslims to self control, sacrificial generosity and solidarity with the poor, diligent reading of the Quran, and intensified prayer.

This year [2009], I, along with a few Christian friends (and perhaps others currently unknown to us will want to join in) will be joining Muslim friends in the fast which begins August 21. We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21ff, Mark 7:24ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.41

Thus McLaren embraced Islam and endorsed its celebration of the Quran, the corrupt book Muslims place in authority over the Bible, while twisting Scripture to accuse Jesus Christ of “religious prejudice.” Following this blasphemous outburst, “committed Christian” McLaren began his observance of Islam’s Ramadan with this published prayer:

God, Creator of all people, in this month when a billion people will observe Ramadan with fasting and prayer, with devotional reading and with kindness to the needy, may your Spirit be at work in the hearts of Muslims, Christians, and Jews (who together make up over half the world’s population) as well as people of other faiths and no stated faith.

May your gentle voice call us to move beyond our tribal visions of a deity who loves “us” but hates “them.” Help us to see you more truly as you are, a God who is pure light, rich in mercy, whose mercy triumphs over judgment, who knows us each by name, and who graciously considers us beloved, wherever we are from, whatever our background, whatever labels we apply to ourselves or others apply to us.

May your voice of truth call us to question the prejudices and misconceptions about you and about one another that we learned from well-meaning but misinformed authority figures, even when they thought they were speaking in your name.42

The number one “misinformed authority figure” McLaren rejects is the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Christ-rejection is the true basis of Emergents’ inclusive “grace.”

Deconstructing Faith At this point it may seem even more absurd to ask about Emergents’ attitude toward sola fide, salvation by faith alone, apart from works. But we press on, if only to demonstrate that Emergents’ notions of “Biblical faith” are just as astonishingly un-Biblical as their notions of “grace” and their view of the Gospel as an insult.

We shall cite just one example. Emergent leader Randy Woodley, one of the contributors to An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, is a Cherokee Indian who works for an organization called First Nations Ministries. As a discerning Christian reads Woodley’s chapter titled “Restoring Honor in the Land” it becomes obvious that his theology is rooted in the animism of the American Indian.

Woodley says “the American church” has “a stolen continent as its foundation.”43 He quotes liberal theologian Walter Brueggemann as saying that “land is central, if not the central theme of Biblical faith”. The Scripture-driven Christian may ask, “Really? And how is such a ‘Biblical faith’ to be worked out?” Woodley tells us: Through the “salvation” of Indian lands “stolen” by white Europeans – that is, the return of the entire North American continent to its “rightful owners” -

As a Native American, I view the land given to my people through covenant with the Creator as sacred. We have developed ceremonies, stories, and traditions [all steeped in pagan animism, we must note] that aid us in living a sacred life on the land. Living this life is one that is reminiscent of the original covenant with human beings in the garden. It can be characterized as a “shalom sense of place.” Because our land was stolen, the non indigene must find it difficult to feel the same congruity with the land. Yet the apparent sense of loss and incongruity felt by non indigenes cannot be avoided until the issue of stolen land and missing relationship with America’s host people is worked through.

The solutions will not come easily. There will be more pain and loss to be sure, and it will likely span several generations. Yet God’s shalom kingdom demands that the issue of land be addressed. The issue must be addressed if Native Americans are ever to come back from marginality and into wholeness. It must be addressed if non indigenous peoples ever hope to recover the missing sense of place that God has always intended for all human beings to experience to gain integrity, congruence, and wholeness in their lives. Seeking out and establishing relationships between the emerging church and indigenous people is paramount to finding shalom and providing a secure future for the next seven generations.44

So much for sola fide, Biblical faith in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ to save individuals from sin and eternal condemnation, apart from works. Authentic Christian faith focuses not on fixing up this dying world, but looks forward to “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwells righteousness” (2 Peter 3:13). Authentic Christians seek to win souls for that kingdom, not to rearrange the kingdoms of man on Earth.

Deconstructing Christ

What of solus Christus, salvation through Jesus Christ alone? In their published statements about Jesus Christ, Emergent spokesmen seem to be engaged in a competition to see who can be the most blasphemous.

Brian McLaren devotes several chapters in his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, to the subject of Jesus Christ. They are in a section deceptively titled “Why I am a Christian” in which McLaren brazenly demonstrates that he is no Christian at all.

Chapter one is titled “Seven Jesuses I Have Known”45 and chapter two is titled “Jesus and God.”46 You may have already guessed from the title of the second chapter that McLaren teaches a distinction between Jesus and God. The undiscerning reader might miss this, at least in the beginning. McLaren uses a lot of Bible words and even Bible quotations to describe Christ. Jesus is the “Son of God” – “the image of God” – “the radiance of God’s glory” – “the image of the invisible God.” But McLaren’s definitions of these terms are not the Bible’s.

McLaren refuses ever to say that Jesus is God. He spends several pages explaining why he stops short of this: “God is not a male” (italics his).47 He goes on to say:

The masculine biblical imagery of “Father” and “Son” also contributes to the patriarchialism or chauvinism that has too often characterized Christianity….

There is so much more that could be said, but for now, let’s conclude: “Son of God” is not intended to reduce or masculinize God….48

When McLaren comes to his fourth chapter, “Jesus: Savior of What?”, he says that Christians have “demoted” Jesus by claiming that He died on the cross to save individuals’ souls from eternal damnation:

I believe we’ve also misconstrued, reduced, twisted, and torqued the whole meaning of what words like savior, save, and salvation are supposed to mean for generously orthodox Christians.49

…it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you “know” about what it means to call Jesus “Savior” and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention.

Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means “rescue” or “heal.” It emphatically does not automatically mean “save from hell” or “give eternal life after death” as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon.50

Elsewhere in the same chapter, McLaren denies the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for sinners, and places Jesus in the category of a moral example pointing the way in man’s quest to improve society and the environment.

To say that Jesus is Savior is to say that in Jesus, God is intervening as Savior in all of these ways, judging (naming as evil), forgiving (breaking the vicious cycle of cause and effect, making reconciliation possible), and teaching (showing how to set chain reactions of good in motion).

Jesus comes then not to condemn (to bring the consequences we deserve) but to save by shining the light on our evil, by naming our evil as evil so we can repent and escape the chain of bad actions and bad consequences through forgiveness, and so we can learn from Jesus the master-teacher to live more wisely in the future….51

“This,” McLaren concludes, “is a window into the meaning of the cross.”

Elsewhere in A Generous Orthodoxy McLaren makes it clear that when he uses Biblical terms such as “reconciliation” – “evil” – “repent” – and “forgiveness” he has nothing like the Bible’s definitions in mind.

By “reconciliation” he means the reconciliation of oppressed social classes and their oppressors, and the reconciliation of those who differ theologically under the umbrella of inclusivism – not the reconciliation of sinful men to the holy God through the Blood of Christ.

“Our evil” is “the oppression of the poor and disadvantaged” – not the sin nature and the eternal death sentence passed on to the entire race through the Fall of Adam.

The “consequences we deserve” are societal and environmental consequences here on Earth – not eternity in Hell.

“Repent” means making society and the physical world a better place – not turning from sin to faith in Christ, or ongoing repentance through the operation of the indwelling Holy Spirit.

“Forgiveness” means forgiving each other of our injustices – not being forgiven by God, the One offended in all offenses, based on propitiation of His wrath by the Blood of Christ.

These things, not what the Bible actually teaches, are what McLaren and his fellow Emergents claim the Bible means by “words like savior, save, and salvation.”

So much for solus Christus, salvation from eternal damnation through God the Son alone. In the Emergent mind, Jesus Christ is emphatically not the only Savior from sin and Hell.

But that is only the beginning. “Jesus” may be other, darker things. Emergent spokeswoman Heather Kirk-Davidoff writes a chapter in The Emergent Manifesto of Hope called “Meeting Jesus at the Bar: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Evangelism.” She begins thus:

I first began to understand “relational evangelism” the night that a woman in a bar told me that she had seen Jesus dressed as a homeless cross-dressing man in an elf costume.

I had gone to the bar after attending a workshop on GenX ministry.

Striking up a conversation with a fellow bar patron over their drinks, Kirk-Davidoff then engaged in an Emergent version of telling someone about “Jesus” –

We talked about her work, her boyfriend, the music we liked, and eventually about the musical Rent, which she loved. We talked about her favorite character, Angel, a drum-playing homeless gay man who spends most of the show dressed as a drag queen Santa Claus. Partway through the show Angel dies from AIDS, surrounded by an eclectic group of friends. “What’s amazing to me,” the woman said, “is how much power Angel’s love has in the lives of the other characters in the play. And his love doesn’t stop affecting them even after he dies. It’s like…it’s like it’s made more perfect in his death.

To which Kirk-Davidoff says she responded: “You know, some people say Angel is a Christ figure…What do you think?”52

The Emergent “Jesus” can be just about anything, even an insane sexual pervert, so long as he is not God – the Christ of the Bible who is seated at the right hand of the Father in power and glory, and is coming again to judge the world.

The Audacity of Heresy: What Attracts Evangelicals?

The Emergent Church movement’s “new Reformation” embodies an incredible array of past heresies, while adding new ones of its own. Emergents begin with the denial of the inspiration, infallibility, and sole authority of the Scriptures. From there it is a short journey to the embrace of mystery – not in the Biblical sense of truth once hidden and subsequently revealed, but of inscrutable ambiguities open only to higher intellects; and the embrace of paradox – the god of “yes-and-no” instead of the God of “Yes, and Amen” (2 Corinthians 1:19-20).

From there it is but a small step to deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. And from there the headlong plunge into the abyss accelerates with the teaching of the false doctrine of a moral-example “atonement” by Christ on the cross, the social gospel of the mainline liberals, salvation (whatever that may mean) by moral effort, ecumenical inclusivism and syncretism, the lie of universalism, and even pagan animism and sexual perversion.

How is it, then, that so many in Evangelical and reputedly conservative Reformed churches are embracing the Emergent Church movement, or expressing their appreciation for its “positives” while perhaps (but not always) also weakly expressing their “concerns”? There are no positives about a movement that stands against everything the Bible stands for. And “concern” is a woefully insufficient response from people who are supposed to be engaged in spiritual warfare against the forces of darkness that are behind evils like the Emergent Church movement (Ephesians 6:10-12).

Students of church history will recognize much of Emergent Church thinking on the Bible as the warmed-over 20th-century Neo-orthodoxy that destroyed most mainline Protestant churches as well as many conservative ones. Emergents are following in the insolent footsteps of Karl Barth, Rudolph Bultmann, Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich and others. These in turn were influenced by early 19th-century philosopher Søren Kierkegaard, whose great gift to theology was to assert that there is no such thing as objective truth.

The main reasons the Emergent Church movement is finding such acceptance is that few among Evangelicals and the Reformed today are thoughtful students of church history, nor are they truly students of systematic theology. Those who assiduously study the genuine article immediately recognize the lessons of history and the system of doctrine contained in Scripture, and reject the worthless as counterfeit. The undiscerning, on the other hand, are condemned to repeat the deadly mistakes of the past by embracing a theology of nonsense that leads souls to Hell.

The Emergent Church movement is spreading a new wave of spiritual poison through religious academia. The fact that Emergents are welcomed on the faculties and in the classrooms of openly liberal seminaries is no surprise. But today Emergents also find a friendly response in the majority of reputedly more conservative Bible colleges and seminaries. It ranges from favorable classroom exposure to outright advocacy by professors and administrators. Reputedly conservative schools that have fallen into the Emergent web include Biblical Theological Seminary, Biola University, Covenant Theological Seminary, Dallas Theological Seminary, Erskine College and Seminary, Houghton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, Taylor Seminary, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, and most Southern Baptist schools.

It only takes a few years of exposure to false teaching for young minds to become the generation that will carry the poison out of the seminaries and colleges, into the pulpits, and into the pews.

There is another reason why so many in the Evangelical and Reformed camps are accommodating and even embracing the Emergent Church movement. That reason is intellectual pride. The Emergent Church movement is all about the pride and glory of man, not the glory of God.

We have seen this pride and glorification of man in place of God in the Emergents’ essential approach to what they falsely call “Christianity.” The central focus of the Emergent religion is not the Christ of the Bible, but an all-inclusive assembly of people from all sorts of “faith traditions.” We have also seen the same pride in the reaction of Emergents who are insulted by the doctrine of salvation from sin and Hell by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in Jesus Christ alone. They reject such a doctrine because it means that true Christianity is an exclusive rather than an inclusive faith.

We have also seen that the Emergent Church movement is all about prideful man’s embrace of mystery and paradox as the keys to “higher knowledge.” The Emergent focus is not on Biblical orthodoxy, but on “a generous orthodoxy” – “orthoparadoxy.” Emergent leader Rob Bell boasts, “This is not just the same old message with new methods. We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion….”53

Too Busy Having Conversations to Listen to God

At this point it may seem absurd to round out this discussion by asking a final question about Emergent views of the solas, but we shall press on: What is the Emergent view of soli Deo gloria, the doctrine that the glory for man’s salvation – indeed for all things – belongs to God alone? The answer is that Emergents are all about “conversation.” Emergent cohorts (discussion groups) meet regularly around the country to have, as their website emergentvillage.org puts it, conversations about what they think is important. There is no touch-stone, no authoritative body of propositional truth. Truth is what they make it, and they make it up as they go.

Emergents are far too pridefully busy talking endlessly about being “generative” and “missional” (their two favorite words) to simply shut up, sit down at Jesus’ feet, and listen submissively to the One who made all things, sustains all things, will judge all things, and will make all things new by His glorious power.

Emergents reject the Bible as the only authoritative, propositional truth because it reins in their prideful ambitions. The Emergent Church movement is, in their own phrases, all about “our community” – “building our tradition” – “telling our story.” Emergents see themselves as carrying out “God’s agenda to remake and restore all of creation.” And that, they say, is the “good news.”

Emergent spokesman Mark Scandrette is a self-styled “spiritual teacher” and executive director of ReIMAGINE, an organization in San Francisco that among other things sponsors a program called “The Jesus Dojo.” Dojo is a Japanese term meaning “place of the way” and embodies meditational concepts found in Shintoism and Zen Buddhism. In a chapter called “Growing Pains: The Messy and Fertile Process of Becoming” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Scandrette summarizes the Emergent agenda:

* significant interest in “community,” communal living, and renewed monastic practices

* an open-source [inclusive] approach to community, theology, and leadership that encourages flatter structures, networks, and more personal and collective participation

* revitalized interest in the social dimensions of the gospel of Jesus, including community development, earth-keeping, global justice, and advocacy – with a particular emphasis on a relationally engaged approach to these issues

* renewed interest in contemplative and bodily spiritual formation disciplines that have, historically, been important Christian practices [e.g., Medieval Catholic meditative practices such as "centering prayer"]

* a renewed emphasis on creation theology that celebrates earth, humanity, cultures, and the sensuous and esthetic as good gifts of the Creator to be enjoyed in their proper contexts

* cultivation and appreciation of the arts, creativity, artful living, and provocative storytelling

* re-examination of vocation, livelihood, and sustainable economics.54 That, not salvation from Hell, is the “good news” according to Scandrette and his cohorts.

The Biblical Response

Above all, Scripture-driven Christians must recognize the true nature of the Emergent Church and its leaders, in contrast to the true nature of the believer. The ultimate test is the attitude of each toward Jesus Christ, who said that He himself is the truth:

Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, “Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame.” Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, “The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,” and “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense.”

They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy (1 Peter 2:6-10).

In the early 1960s, Martyn Lloyd-Jones was one of the few in Britain who spoke out against Evangelicals’ embrace of the Ecumenical Movement. His words also serve as a Biblical warning to Christians who claim to be true to God’s Word but are merely “concerned” about the Emergent movement, or think it may have “positives” to contribute:

To regard a church, or a council of churches, as a forum in which fundamental matters can be debated and discussed, or as an opportunity for witness-bearing, is sheer confusion and muddled thinking. There is to be no discussion about “the foundation,” as we have seen. If men do not accept that, they are not brethren and we can have no dialogue with them. We are to preach to such and to evangelize them. Discussion takes place only among brethren who share the same life and subscribe to the same essential truth. It is right and good that brethren should discuss together matters which are not essential to salvation and about which there is, and always has been, and probably always will be, legitimate difference of opinion….

Before there can be any real discussion and dialogue and exchange there must be agreement concerning primary and fundamental matters. Without the acceptance of certain axioms and propositions in geometry, for example, it is idle to attempt to solve any problem. If certain people refuse to accept the axioms, and are constantly querying and disputing them, clearly there is no point of contact between them and those who do accept them. It is precisely the same in the realm of the church. Those who question and query, let alone deny, the great cardinal truths that have been accepted through-out the centuries do not belong to the church, and to regard them as brethren is to betray the truth. As we have already reminded ourselves, the apostle Paul tells us clearly what our attitude to them should be: “A man that is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). They are to be regarded as unbelievers who need to be called to repentance and acceptance of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus. To give the impression that they are Christians with whom other Christians disagree about certain matters is to confuse the genuine seeker and enquirer who is outside [and also, we would add, to confuse those within the church]. But such is the position prevailing today. It is based upon a failure to understand the nature of the New Testament church which is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). In the same way it is a sheer waste of time to discuss or debate the implications of Christianity with people who are not agreed as to what Christianity is. Failure to realize this constitutes the very essence of the modern confusion.55

Christian, do not be confused or deceived. Christ’s true Church has no place for the Emergent Church’s “generous orthodoxy.”

Thus says the Lord of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; they speak a vision of their own heart, not from the mouth of the Lord. They continually say to those who despise Me, ‘The Lord has said, “You shall have peace”‘; and to everyone who walks according to the dictates of his own heart, they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’… I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran. I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in My counsel, and had caused My people to hear My words, then they would have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings.” (Jeremiah 23:16- 17, 21-22)

—-Paul M. Elliott, Ph.D., is President of Teaching The Word Ministries and principal speaker on The Scripture-Driven Church radio broadcast. An ordained minister with a doctorate in Biblical exegesis, he is the author of four books, including Christianity and Neo-Liberalism: The Spiritual Crisis in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and Beyond (Trinity Foundation, 2004). The Trinity Forum’s Email is: tjtrinityfound@aol.com Website: www.trinityfoundation.org Telephone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

——————————————————

1 Some in the movement once used the name “Emerging Church,” but more recently its leaders, and the quasi-official website emergentvillage.org, have standardized on the term “Emergent.”

2 From the banner of the movement’s flagship website, www.em ergentvillage.com.

3 We use the term “guru” advisedly; McLaren and other Emergent Church leaders position themselves as spiritual advisers imparting transcendental, higher knowledge – higher than the Word of God.

4 Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional- Evangelical- Post- Protestant- Liberal/ Conservative- Mystical/Poetic-Biblical-Charismatic /Contemplative-Fundamentalist/Calvinist-Anabaptist/ Anglican-Methodist-Catholic-Green-Incarnational-Depressed-Yet-Hopeful-Emergent-Unfinished Christian (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004).

5 Her website, phyllistickle.org, describes her extensive liberal media connections. She was the “founding editor of the Religion Department of Publishers Weekly, the international journal of the book industry, is frequently quoted in print sources like USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times as well as in electronic media like PBS, NPR, The Hallmark Channel, and innumerable blogs and web sites. Tickle is an authority on religion in America and a much sought after lecturer on the subject….Tickle is a founding member of The Canterbury Roundtable, and serves now, as she has in the past, on a number of advisory and corporate boards.”

6 A Generous Orthodoxy, 11-12.

7 Josiah Royce, The Problem of Christianity, 1913, republished in 2001 by Catholic University of America Press, 43 and 340.

8. A Generous Orthodoxy, 316.

9 A Generous Orthodoxy, 317-318.

10 A Generous Orthodoxy, 317.

11 Barry Taylor, “Converting Christianity” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope: Key Leaders Offer an Inside Look, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, editors (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007), 165.

12 Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 75.

13 An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 171.

14 A Generous Orthodoxy, 183

15 A Generous Orthodoxy, 183.

16 Adventures in Missing the Point, 262.

17 Adventures in Missing the Point, 76-77.

18 Dwight J. Friesen, “Orthoparadoxy: Emerging Hope for Embracing Difference” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 204.

19 Friesen, 207.

20 Friesen, 208.

21 Friesen, 209.

22 Friesen, 212.

23 Nanette Sawyer, “What Would Huckleberry Do? A Relational Ethic as the Jesus Way,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 48.

24 Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 84.

25 Adventures in Missing the Point, 85.

26 Adventures in Missing the Point, 101.

27 Adventures in Missing the Point, 102.

28 A Generous Orthodoxy, 138.

29 Nanette Sawyer, “What Would Huckleberry Do?”, 43-44. Italics are in the original.

30 Sawyer, 44.

31 Sawyer, 45.

32 Sawyer, 46-47. Italics are in the original.

33 Sawyer, 47.

34 A Generous Orthodoxy, 107. Italics are in the original.

35 A Generous Orthodoxy, 108-109.

36 A Generous Orthodoxy, 109.

37 Adventures in Missing the Point, 25.

38 Samir Selmanivoc, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 195.

39 A Generous Orthodoxy, 139.

40 A Generous Orthodoxy, 140.

41 Brian McLaren, “Ramadan 2009: Part 1- What’s Going On?” posted on August 13, 2009 at his website, www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/ ramadan-2009-part-1- whats-going.html.

42 Brian McLaren, “Ramadan 2009: Day 1″ posted on A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 at t h i s w e b s i t e , www.brianmclaren.net/archives/b log/ramadan-2009-day- 1.html.

43 Randy Woodley, “Restoring Honor in the Land: Why the Emerging Church Can’t Dodge the Issue” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 299.

44 Woodley, 301.

45 A Generous Orthodoxy, 49-76.

46 A Generous Orthodoxy, 77-86

47 A Generous Orthodoxy, 82. salvation.”

48 A Generous Orthodoxy, 83-84. 49 A Generous Orthodoxy, 99. Italics are in the original.

50 A Generous Orthodoxy, 101. Italics are in the original.

51 A Generous Orthodoxy, 104-105. Parentheses are in the original.

52 Heather Kirk-Davidoff, “Meeting Jesus at the Bar: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Evangelism” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 34-35.

53 Rob Bell, as quoted in “The Emergent Mystique” by Andy Crouch, Christianity Today, November 1, 2004, as viewed at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/November/12. 36.html in April 2009.

54 Mark Scandrette, “Growing Pains: The Messy and Fertile Process of Becoming” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, 34. The “messy and fertile” reference comes from Scandrette ’s comment elsewhere in the book (22): “The emerging church is like junior high students and sex – a lot of people are talking about it, but not a lot of people are actually doing it – and those that are doing it are messy – and fertile as hell.”

55 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, “The Basis of Christian Unity,” in Knowing the Times: Addresses Delivered on Various Occasions 1942-1977 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989), 162-163.

Pragmatic Methodology versus Practical Theology
a comment on “Finding Your Spiritual Gifts” by C. Peter Wagner
Journey Into Wholeness or Journey Into Worldliness? – Part 2
by Sandy Simpson, 1/18/10

In this second article on the “Spiritual Formation” ideas being taught under the name of “40 Days of Reflection & Growth” at Trevecca Nazarene University, I am going to start out by talking about pragmatism versus Biblical practical theology. The Emerging Church (EC) and New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) have many things in common, which has been proved again and again by the cooperation and even mentorship across the lines of EC and NAR. These types of “Ladies Home Journal” surveys that are supposed to teach you something about yourself are used by both groups and very much from the same model set forth by modern psychology. When dealing with worldly issues and even those of emotional and mental development, surveys can sometimes be of some help, though more often they are not really much help at all. This is because surveys do not really help people spiritually. The Bible provides the highest and best help for all areas of life. But this reliance on human therapeutic methodology is very evident in both the spiritual formation materials at Trevecca and in materials flowing forth from the C. Peter Wagner NAR. For the purposes of anonymity I am not going to name names but I have firsthand knowledge of the C. Peter Wagner survey put out under the name of “Finding Your Spiritual Gifts” by C. Peter Wagner. This survey was used in a recent ACSI teacher’s conference. Teachers signed up for extra curricular classes which would provide them credit in their teaching credentials. The name of the class where this survey was presented was called “Creativity: It All Begins With An Idea”. The teachers, thinking they would be presented with ideas on creativity in the classroom, ended up having to take the above survey if they wanted to get credit for the course. What the survey had to do with the subject is beyond me. To me it was very disingenuous to ride in on one horse, switch horses in the middle of the stream, and end up leaving people drowning in Third Wave/Latter Rain false ideas. Be that as it may, this was only a small part of the problem.

The first question I had was this: how can a survey help you “find your spiritual gifts”? The answer: it cannot. All the questions were framed in such as way that they were almost all focused on self. Before we get too far into this analysis I need to give you the correct Biblical way to find your spiritual gifts so you can compare the positive picture with the negative.

It is clear that spiritual gifts are given to serve OTHERS. We are to eagerly desire spiritual gifts (1 Cor. 14:1 & 12) but the Holy Spirit distributes gifts according to the will of God (Heb. 2:4). To find out how God wants to use you, you need to get busy (1) witnessing the Gospel (2) discipling others (3) helping others with physical needs (4) and working hard in the context of the Church, desiring to bless others and encourage them. When you do this, without spending your time focusing on what your spiritual gifts might be, God will show you what He wants you to do and empower you to do it. It may have NOTHING to do with your natural gifts, in fact in my experience it often does not, contrary to what Rick Warren teaches in his “Purpose Driven” books. Out of your service to Him and obedience to His Word and the Holy Spirit, your teacher, the Lord can and will do miraculous things, many times in ways you did not expect. He may give you a lifelong gift. He may give you temporary gifts. The point, though, is not to go around bragging about your gift but to use it to serve others. When you go around telling people what your gift(s) are, in my opinion, you lose any reward you might have coming. Paul was a true foundational apostle, but he was also clear that he was a fellow servant (Eph. 3:7, Tit. 1:1) and a simple humble man who could do nothing in his own strength (2 Cor. 12:9). Paul was also given the gift of foundational apostleship by the Lord Himself. He did not take a survey to find out he had the gift of apostleship.

So to focus people who call themselves followers of Christ on themselves like some Reader’s Digest poll, is actually counterproductive to finding how God wants to use you and empower you. This survey was also given largely to women, yet one of the gifts you could find out you had according to their scoring system, was being an apostle. There were no female apostles in the Bible.

Probably the most egregious part of the survey is that, when you grade it, you can come up with the answer that you are an apostle. Not just any apostle, but one who is foundational to the Church.

Z. Apostle. The gift of apostle is the special ability that God gives to certain members of the Body of Christ to assume and to exercise divinely imparted authority in order to establish the foundational government of an assigned sphere of ministry within the Church. An apostle hears from the Holy Spirit and sets things in order accordingly for the Church’s health, growth, maturity and outreach. (Note: “Church” refers to the believers who gather weekly and also to the believers scattered in the workplace.)
Anyone with any Biblical knowledge will already see problems with this statement. When Wagner states that his type of “apostle” has “imparted authority” he means literally an impartation received by himself or one of his “apostles” to make a person an apostle or prophet.
Wagner Leadership Institute (WLI) trains and equips men and women for leadership positions in local churches, translocal ministries, and the workplace. WLI’s goal is to equip leaders in necessary skills for effective ministry. As a WLI affiliate, the Issachar School offers a unique approach to ministry training. Our goal is that you gain revelation of God’s purposes and a prophetic sensitivity to His timing, along with the impartation of effective ministry skills. (The Issachar School, New Student Handbook, 12/16/09, http://www.gloryofzion.org/issachar/Student_Handbook_2009.doc)
The prophetic spirit is transferable and can be imparted. (National School Of The Prophets – Mobilizing The Prophetic Office, John Eckhardt, Friday, 5/12/00, 7:00 p.m. – Session 12)

There is no such thing in the Bible. God Himself is the one who makes true apostle and prophets, so the type of apostles Wagner is making are false ones, just as he is a false one. Read “False Apostles!”. When he states that they “establish the foundational government” he is talking about foundational apostles today.
Apostles and prophets the foundation of the Church and, um, I identify as James an apostle as my function as a horizontal apostle to bring together the people of the body of Christ not only can I do it, I love to do it. Yesterday I was the apostle with a group of about 15-20 prophets we met all day long, and these prophets many of whom are going to be speakers in this conference come under my guidance, coordination and leadership as an apostle. They each have apostles in their own networks but I mean they are under spiritually. But I’m the one that brings them together and when I bring them together things happen. (C. Peter Wagner, National School of the Prophets – Mobilizing the Prophetic Office, Colorado Springs, CO, May 11, 2002, Tape #1)
In the brochure that I received, advertising C. Peter Wagner’s conference in Brisbane, the following was written: “The New Apostolic Reformation is an extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit that is changing the shape of Christianity globally. It is truly a new day! The Church is changing. New names! New methods! New worship expressions! The Lord is establishing the foundations of the Church for the new millennium. This foundation is built upon apostles and prophets. Apostles execute and establish God’s plan on the earth. The time to convene a conference of the different apostolic prophetic streams across this nation is now! This conference will cause the Body to understand God’s ‘new’ order for this coming era. We look forward to having you with us in Brisbane in Feb 2000.” It was signed by Peter Wagner and Ben Gray. (Brochure For Brisbane 2000, as cited in Jumping On The Bandwagon – Australian Christian Churches Seduced by the Beat of a Different Drummer?, Hughie Seaborn, 1999, http://members.ozemail.com.au/~rseaborn/bandwagon.html)

The Government of God’s kingdom will be established through the apostolic and prophetic authorities in cities and nations. (At the World Congress Of Prophets, C. Peter Wagner Presiding, Prophetic Gathering Share In Ministry Together Concerning 2000, by Jim W. Goll, http://www.theremnant.com/news.html)

“We have to understand that the church has a God-designed government. The church has a God-designed government. We now live, this is 2004, we now live in the second apostolic age. The second apostolic age began in the year 2001, ok? And in this whole first chapter in this book I argue my point, I think rather… I hope it’s convincingly, that 2001 marks, is the year that marks the second apostolic age, which means for years the government of the church had not been in place since about, you know, the first century or so. It doesn’t mean weren’t apostles and prophets, because the government of the… the foundation of the church according to Ephesians 2:20 is apostles and prophets, Jesus being the chief cornerstone. It doesn’t mean there weren’t apostles and prophets, it means the body of Christ hadn’t recognized them and released them for the office that they had so that they’d function as apostles and prophets in the foundation of the church. But we now have that, I believe we’ve reached our critical mass in the year 2001.” (C. Peter Wagner, Arise Prophetic Conference, Gateway Church, San Jose, CA, 10-10-2004)

The Biblical criteria to be a foundational apostle proves that there are no longer ANY foundational apostles alive today. The gift of foundational Apostleship is no longer our concern as no one today fits the criteria to be a foundational apostle. The teachings of the foundational Apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20) are what the Church is built upon, Christ being the chief Cornerstone and Foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-11). The Apostles were those who saw the Lord while He was on earth before he ascended into heaven (1 Cor. 9:1) and the Lord did true signs, wonders and miracles through them to authenticate their ministries (2 Cor. 12:12). They wrote Scriptures (Matthew, John, Peter, Paul, etc.). They were persecuted and all but one (John) were martyred for the Faith (1 Cor. 4:9 and the Pre Nicene Fathers writings). Finally, Paul said that he was the last, in sequence, of the original foundational Apostles (1 Cor. 15:7-8). We are to use the Word of God, through Jesus Christ, taught to us by the Apostles and prophets, as the basis for our Christian life (2 Peter 3:2, Jude 17). There is no one today who can meet the biblical criteria to be a foundational Apostle. There are “apostles” in the Church today, “sent out” ones, messengers, mainly church planting missionaries, but they are not foundational to the Church. So this survey and Latter Rain false teaching is completely erroneous and not the Biblical criteria for the Lord to call and appoint a true apostle.
When he states that this type of apostle “hears from the Holy Spirit” he is not talking about the Holy Spirit using the written Word to speak but primarily of direct audible messages from God and prophecies of his “prophets”.

While in a trance on the afternoon of July 26, 2008, Bob heard the audible voice of God say … There is a coming forth of the NEW BREED! They are not old and they are not young. They will come forth in the Spirit of Holiness. … The Spirit of Holiness coming forth is the divine nature of Christ. … The new breed shall be of the divine nature and will be a friend with God. … The Spirit of holiness coming forth will have resurrection power in it and this power will bring the obedience of what Christ called us to. … Most of the people Bob saw were between the ages of 25 and 40. They will be the first of the new breed which others will immediately begin to follow and they will not fall back. (Bob Jones: Two Encounters: “God Bless America” and “The New Breed Coming Forth”, The ElijahList, August 28, 2008)
“Let me tell you something. The Holy Spirit has already told me He is about to show up. And you know, oh, I gotta tell you this quickly, just before we go. I had a word of prophecy from Ruth Heflin, you know who Ruth Heflin is? Ruth prophesied over me back in the seventies and everything she said has happened. She just sent me a word through my wife and said the Lord spoke to her audibly and said that He is going to appear physically in one of our crusades in the next few months. Yeah, she – I’m telling ya – she said, the Lord spoke to her audibly and said, ‘Tell Benny I’m going to appear physically on the platform in his meetings’. Lord, do it in Phoenix Arizona in the name of Jesus! And in Kenya too, Lord, please, Lord, in fact, do it in every crusade. In Jesus’ name.” (Benny Hinn, March 29th, 2000)
Mike Bickle himself heard an audible voice speak to him, while on a trip in Cairo, Egypt. The voice told him, “I am inviting you to raise up a work that will touch the ends of the earth. I have invited many people to do this thing and many people have said yes, but very few have done my will. (Audio Tape, “The Prophetic History of Grace Ministries”, Mike Bickle, 9/82)
Mike Bickle is one of the main prophets of the NAR under Wagner and part of the International Coalition of Apostles.
That he distinguishes believers who meet together from believers “scattered in the workplace” shows he is basically saying there are those who have forsaken meeting together and yet they are all part of the “Church”.

Heb 10:25 Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
Sounds like Wagner includes those who do not want to meet with other believers as part of his plan to bring unity to all the churches.
Sampler of questions from the survey

Some of the questions on Wagner’s survey indicate that he is promoting another form of “Christianity” that really has no basis in the Biblical model for the Church.

“I have spoken directly to evil spirits, and they have obeyed me.”
Is deliverance from evil spirits dependent on a Christian speaking to demons or his/her relationship to Jesus Christ? Reference the seven sons of Sceva (Acts 19:14-16)
“I can “see” the Spirit of God resting on certain people from time to time.”
This is not a Biblical practice but one wrested from the occult and New Age. Pagan religions often see auras around people, etc. But then so do some so-called Christians these days.
Stevens taught that the Holy Spirit would direct us through various physical sensations in our bodies. He often experienced these sorts of signs himself. For instance, a headache meant spiritual assault or witchcraft was coming against you. Stevens also taught how to interpret the color of people’s aura’s in order to discern their spirit. Red in a person’s aura meant they were rebellious, for instance. (The Church of the Living Word, also known as ‘the Walk’, lead by John Robert Stevens which morphed into the Vineyard under John Wimber)
Wagner, after quoting Rom 10:14, qualifies Paul’s theology with his own: “There are exceptions, however, even today. Those of us who try to keep track of what God is doing in the world agree with each other that never before have we seen or even heard of so many conversions through divine intervention…particularly among Muslims.” The author further explains that Jesus or an angel has appeared to others, and some have experienced God through auras of light, voices, dreams, or daytime visions. Bibles have supernaturally appeared in mosques or Muslim homes. On one occasion, a Muslim was physically transported by supernatural power from her home to a church where she received Christ (C. Peter Wagner, Confronting the Powers (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 1996, p. 186).

A number of the questions in this survey were very self-serving.
“I have prayed for others and instantaneous physical healing has often occurred.”
“Other people have been instantly delivered from demonic oppression when I prayed.”
Again the point is not what you can do but what God can do. Putting the emphasis on “I have prayed” is not the proper emphasis and would never lead a person to find out about a true Divine spiritual gifts. We are to humble ourselves before the Lord (1 Pet. 3:8) and recognize that when we are weak and unable He is strong and able (2 Cor. 12:10). It is God Who does miracles and He who distributes gifts (Heb. 2:4).
“Others have told me that I am a person of unusual vision, and I agree.”
This is exactly the methodology of Wagner and associates in the NAR/Prophetic Movement. They puff people up but telling them how great their are in order to suck them into the movement. I once had a “prophet” tell me I would raise people from the dead physically in Micronesia. I knew right away that it was a false prophecy because God would not need to tell me that in advance. But Satan can use that kind of information to bring out the sin of the pride of life. Why would any true believer repeat something like the above unless they were puffed up with pride over it?
“When I pray, God frequently speaks to me, and I recognize His voice.”
This is talking about an audible voice, not the Holy Spirit using the written Word to teach people or to speak to His Church. The problem with the false prophets of the NAR is that they have mistaken what they think is the voice of God and is actually either their own inner voice or that of demons. They would know this if they would test the spirits (1 John 4:1). But they ignore the clear teaching of the Word and when false prophecies come forth they still think they are “hearing” God’s voice. They believe their “prophets” can be wrong a good percentage of the time and still be true prophets. But the Bible is clear that a prophet who lies in the name of the Lord is to be avoided and we are not to fear what they have predicted (De. 18:22). False prophets, who are actually spiritists being driven by another spirit (2 Cor. 11:4), were to be taken out and stoned in the Old Testament (Le. 20:27). Therefore under the New Covenant we are to mark and avoid them (Rom. 16:17).
It is interesting to me that C. Peter Wagner and his associates are trying to lead others to some form “discernment” when they ought to be asking themselves the questions they ask others.

“I can tell whether a person speaking in tongues is genuine.”
“During worship, I can often tell if there is a spiritual force attempting to hinder our connection with God.”
“I can recognize whether a person’s teaching or actions are form God, from Satan, or of human origin.”
I have seen Latter Rain/Third Wave/NAR meetings and 99.99% of the “tongues” being spoken are taught and learned babble. In their meetings people are being “slain in the spirit” and lay on the ground writhing, laughing, groaning, acting like animals, being “drunk” and other things that have nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. One deacon in a meeting I attended was clearly demonized but when I asked about it the leaders of the counterfeit revival said “Oh, the Holy Spirit is all over that person”. You can hear that refrain all over the place in NAR churches, yet this deacon ended up drowning a couple of weeks later. He could not swim but he went out in the ocean and died, having been driven there by another spirit. I have many other accounts I could give you, but suffice it to say that those in the NAR don’t have one clue as to the difference between what is of God, man or the devil. They have just kneaded it all together into one big leavened loaf with zero discernment. The last question is the question they need to ask themselves. I am sure the Holy Spirit has tried to tell them that the myriad of false teachings and false prophecies they are promoting around the world are wrong, but they close their ears to the written Word and to the Holy Spirit.
Pragmatism married to the Catholic Church

The next chapter in the “spiritual formation” course at Trevecca is called “A 40 Day Journey through Lent” (http://sitemason.trevecca.edu/files/hTKkSY/40day_08spring_full.pdf) What is “Lent”? It is a Roman Catholic (RCC) calendar holiday. Why is a Protestant university telling their youth to celebrate this with the RCC? Because these same people who are teaching EC ideas are also locked together with the RCC in “ministry” and ideas such as contemplative prayer. Read this excerpt from many articles on the pagan origins of Lent.

Why We Do Not Celebrate Lent
Later in this message, we will take a look at the Bible passages dealing with what is called Palm Sunday. But, before I do that, I want to shed some light on why we do not celebrate Lent. While the basic answer is simple – there is no reference to Lent in the Bible, I will share with you some more specific reasons.

The Pagan History of Lent

The word lent comes from the Anglo-Saxon word lencten which means spring, which was derived from the Anglo-Saxon word lenctentid (pronounced LENG-ten-teed), which means the time of lengthening and flowering. The entire spring season was called Lenctentid. The ancient Anglo-Saxons (and other pagans) celebrated the return of spring with rioteous fertility festivals commemorating their goddess of fertility and of springtime, Eastre. In fact, the word Easter is derived from the Scandinavian Ostara and the Teutonic Ostern or Eastre, both pagan goddesses. The complete month of April was called Eostur-monath with the entire month was dedicated to Eostre. The pagan religion taught that Eostre was one responsible for changing a bird into a rabbit, this then is how the rabbit became an Easter symbol. Rabbits symbolize the fertility of springtime. It should be noted that the rabbit’s capacity of abundant production of young is especially great at this time of year. I should also tell you that most ancient races, including the Anglo-Saxons, included spring festivals to celebrate the rebirth life, using the Egg was a symbol of fertility, life and re-birth. This is old Latin proverb catches this idea — Omne vivum ex ovo. This means “all life comes from an egg”.

One final note, the Lenten season’s length has varied throughout history, however 40 days, not including Sunday, were finally settled upon and established by Roman Catholic Canon Law said to commemorate the 40 days Jesus Christ was tempted by Satan in the wilderness.

So, how did such pagan things as Lent and Easter (I am not referring to the blessed Resurrection of Jesus Christ) come into the church? Alexander Hislop gives us the answer — “To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity—now far sunk in idolatry—in this as in so many other things, to shake hands” (The Two Babylons). (Lent & Palm Sunday, Pastor David L. Brown, Ph.D., Sermon Delivered 04/04/04, http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Holidays/palm_sunday.htm)

Let’s look at this new fascination with “Lent” by non Catholics.
If you grew up, as I did, thinking of Lent as the Time of the Frozen Fish Sticks, you can’t help but be surprised by the expanding enthusiasm for the pre-Easter season of penitence and fasting. Lent, it seems, isn’t just for Catholics anymore. Over the last few years, more Protestant churches have begun daubing ashes on the foreheads of the faithful on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent in Western Christianity (March 1 this year). Fasting, long familiar to Catholics as a Lenten fact of life, is increasingly popular with evangelical Christians striving for spiritual awakening. A few mainline Protestant churches even conduct foot-washing services on Maundy Thursday—the traditional commemoration of Jesus’ washing the feet of his disciples—that takes place on the Thursday before Easter. Which seems like a sign that Protestants may be starting to beat Catholics at their own game.
The showy practices typical of Lent—fasting and vigils, ashes and incense—once helped define the split of the Reformation. When they broke away in the 16th and 17th centuries, most Protestant churches left behind anything that smacked of Catholic practice. (Though a few “high-church” denominations—Episcopalians, for example—remained partial to ashes and other staples of Catholic ritual.) So, what’s at work when Protestants and Catholics find common cause in fasting and foot-washing? While no one’s ready to declare an end to 500 years of ecumenical disagreement, the widening appeal of Lent reflects the interest among believers of all kinds in traditional ways of worship. (Get Lent, Protestants do the sober season, by Andrew Santella for SLATE, Posted Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2006, at 12:22 PM ET, http://www.slate.com/id/2137092/)

Now EC adherents are going back to semi pagan practices of the RCC in order to “strive for spiritual awakening”. How does a person get spiritually awakened by putting ashes on their foreheads? The correct Biblical definition of “spiritual awakening” would be when a person is born again. At that point they begin to grow as the Holy Spirit teaches them using the written Word. They cannot go through another “spiritual awakening” and even if these RCC practices could do something they cannot cause a person to be born again or to grow to maturity in Christ. To be born again a person must hear the Gospel and believe it (Eph. 1:13). You also cannot be spiritually “formed” by going back to the RCC practice of Lent. Fasting and foot washing are fine, though not ordinances of the Church like baptism and communion, but they are not what forms Christians spiritually. That is done through the reading and hearing of the written Word done in context exegetically used by the Holy Spirit. Fasting is good for the body and can get rid of distractions so that we can focus on the Lord. But we are not supposed to be going into a trance but rather be in prayer and in Bible study while doing so. Foot washing is fine but it is a symbol of what God does for us everyday, that is that He cleanses us from sin when we repent of it. We then help others to come to the Lord for the dirt they get on their feet from the world, the flesh and the devil. But this is not something that can make a person born again, in fact Jesus made that distinction for Peter.
John 13:5-10 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped round him. He came to Simon Peter, who said to him, “Lord, are you going to wash my feet?” Jesus replied, “You do not realise now what I am doing, but later you will understand.” “No,” said Peter, “you shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered, “Unless I wash you, you have no part with me.” “Then, Lord,” Simon Peter replied, “not just my feet but my hands and my head as well!” Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
We cannot do the real spiritual work of helping people avoid and confess sin by doing foot washing. The principles for carrying out this duty in the Church are given in the Word. The sign of foot washing is a reminder of what we need to be doing, not the thing itself. Water baptism is a testimony of what has already happened in the spiritual, the baptism of the Spirit. But water baptism does not save. So to state that you can be spiritually formed by practicing Lent is not only incorrect, it is a dangerous liaison with an apostate RCC.

The Early Church on Creation – Answers in Genesis

Posted using ShareThis

{{desc}}

via Evangelicals and Catholics Together – Part 3.

{{desc}}

via Evangelicals and Catholics Together – Part 2.

{{desc}}

via Evangelicals and Catholics Together – Part 1.

Great new article by my friend and brother in the Lord Sandy Simpson.
Journey Into Wholeness or Journey Into Worldliness?
A comment on “40 Days of Reflection & Growth” (Spiritual Formation) being taught at Trevecca Nazarene University
by Sandy Simpson, 12/15/09

The teachings of “spiritual formation”, another term for the Emerging/Emergent/Emergence Church (EC) movement, are defined by Ray Yungen and others published by Lighthouse Trails as follows:

Spiritual Formation: A movement that has provided a platform and a channel through which contemplative prayer is entering the church. Find spiritual formation being used, and in nearly every case you will find contemplative spirituality. In fact, contemplative spirituality is the heartbeat of the spiritual formation movement. (Lighthouse Trails, Spiritual Formation? Another name for Contemplative Spirituality, 2009, http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/spiritualformation.htm)
Those who promote these teachings in the EC go back to Richard Foster who brought the practices of Catholic mystics and New Age into the churches back in the mid 1970s. Please get the new free “The Emerging Church” DVD where I talk about what Foster was up to then in a personal testimony.

http://www.concernednazarenes.org/page12.php

Foster apparently thinks that what he helped start in the EC is and “answer to the cry of multiplied thousands for spiritual direction”.

“By now enough water has gone under the Christian Spiritual Formation bridge that we can give some assessment of where we have come and what yet needs to be done. When I first began writing in the field in the late 70s and early 80s the term “Spiritual Formation” was hardly known, except for highly specialized references in relation to the Catholic orders. Today it is a rare person who has not heard the term. Seminary courses in Spiritual Formation proliferate like baby rabbits. Huge numbers are seeking to become certified as Spiritual Directors to answer the cry of multiplied thousands for spiritual direction. And more.” (Spiritual Formation, A Pastoral Letter by Richard Foster, 2009, cited in http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/spiritualformation.htm)
Foster’s boast, though completely erroneous with regard to actual “spiritual direction” is correct as you will see on the following lists of organizations that have bought into this stuff.
“From time to time God has raised up a parachurch movement to reemphasize a neglected purpose of the church… The Discipleship. Spiritual Formation Movement. A reemphasis on developing believers to full maturity has been the focus … authors such as … Richard Foster and Dallas Willard have underscored the importance of building up Christians and establishing personal spiritual disciplines…. [this] movement has a valid message for the church…[it] has given the body a wake-up call. (Rick Warren, Purpose Driven Church, p. 126.)
The clams of benefits from “spiritual formation” and the use of “spiritual disciplines”, as you will see, have nothing to do with spirituality at all but rather the soul and the flesh and paranormal formation. Though Dallas Willard gives lip service to the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer, he then launches into completely unbiblical territory.
“Sometimes we think of spiritual formation as formation by the Holy Spirit. Once again. That’s essential. We can’t evade it–formation by the Holy Spirit. But now I have to say something that may be challenging for you to think about: Spiritual formation is not all by the Holy Spirit. None without the Holy Spirit. But there’s always more involved. And here again we run into the problems of passivity over against activity. Here lies the deepest challenge to the very idea obedience to Christ in our times. We have to recognize that spiritual formation in us is something that is also done to us by those around us, by ourselves, and by activities which we voluntarily undertake …There has to be method.” (Spiritual Formation, What is it and How is it Done? by Dallas Willard)
The simple use of common sense, before we even go to the Bible for what God uses to form us spiritually, tells us that if these pragmatic methods pulled from psychology and the New Age work for Christians without the Holy Spirit, then they should also work for unbelievers. That means that unbelievers can be built up spiritually by employing them and get closer to God. This is exactly the claim of every Eastern mystic and many false religions out there. But the fact is that we cannot be “formed” spiritually as Christians apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, our teacher, through the final revelation of the written Word of God. That leaves unbelievers out of the picture of real spiritual formation. If a Christian thinks they can use worldly methods to be molded into what God wants them to be, then it will not be too long before they return to the useless lump of clay they were before they claimed to have been born again. Furthermore, any true believer who has the Spirit of Truth living in him/her will not use worldly methods like mantras, contemplative prayer, labyrinth, trances, visualization or any of the many New Age methods employed by false religions for the simple reason that they are false. We are to pray without ceasing (1 Thes. 5:17) but that does not involve a disconnect of the mind (1 Cor. 14:15). We are to meditate (Ps. 119:11) but not on our belly buttons or on nothingness but on the written Word. God “forms” us by (1) giving us the indwelling Holy Spirit at the new birth who is then our Counselor and Teacher (1 Jn. 2:27) and (2) God does this through the study of His Word (2 Tim. 2:15), which contains the very voice of God through His prophets and Apostles, not to mention His Son! We are to study to show ourselves approved, not employ human methodology and zeal to run after things that have been imported into the churches from the New Age. The fact that so many Christian organizations have been taken in by the false teachers of the EC is amazing to me. Have they not used the brains the Lord gave them to see that none of these pragmatic tools help a person spiritually in the least?
This is a partial list of ministries that are now promoting Spiritual Formation.

Alpha Course, Bible.org, Focus on the Family, Awana Clubs, Tyndale Seminary (Canada), CMA (Christian Management Association), InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Reformed Church in America, Biola University, Bethel Seminary, Salvation Army, Dallas Theological Seminary, Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, Dallas Willard, Renovare, Redeemer Presbyterian of New York City (Tim Keller), Saddleback Church and Purpose Driven, Vanguard Church, Presbyterian Church USA, Upper Room Ministries, Zondervan Publishers, Simpson University (Redding, CA), Kairos School of Spiritual Formation, Intervarsity Press, Willow Creek, Youth Specialties, Abilene Christian University, Mennonite USA, George Fox University, Tervecca Nazarene University, Nazarene Theological Seminary … (http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/spiritualformationlist.htm)
For a more complete list of christian colleges that now promote EC/Spiritual Formation, go here:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/Colleges.htm

For a list of Christian publishers promoting EC/Spiritual Formation, go here:

http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/publishers.htm

For a list of EC/Spiritual Formation organizations by Richard Foster, go here:

http://www.renovare.org/

This “Journey Into Wholeness” course is taken from EC materials, clearly promoting “spiritual formation”. It is also using the 40-day motif of Rick Warren’s “purpose” books. The fact is when you look closely at what is being taught it has little to do with the spirit and more to do with body and mind. If we are to become mature in Christ, the Bible tells us that we must be formed into the image of Christ,
Ga 4:19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you,
The only way to be molded into the image of Christ is to allow the indwelling Holy Spirit, Who is our teacher, to teach us about God and about what He expects from us through the written Word.
1Jo 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Following, in blue color, are the first set of teachings from this course.
JOURNEY INTO WHOLENESS
40 Days of Reflection & Growth
(http://www.trevecca.edu/spiritualformation/40days.Fall09)
Week 1: Introduction

WHOLENESS: Rather than our life being made up of a separate silo for our physical life, emotional life, intellectual life, relational life, and spiritual life—so that each area is separate from the others—we are whole people. One aspect of our life is integrally related to the other. Rather than our spiritual life being the center of a wheel and everything else being the spokes—so that if we just get our spiritual life together, then everything else will come along—our walk with God is the entire wheel. Our walk with God IS our physical bodies, our emotions, our intellect, and our relationships! As we continue to make a journey together over the next 40 days, we will reflect in an honest and open way on our physical bodies, our emotions, our intellect, and our relationships. We will explore aspects in each of these areas where we can grow and develop. We will face our weaknesses and impediments in each of these areas honestly and openly. We will dream and imagine of ways to “move on” beyond these weaknesses so that we can be whole, healthy, and growing people. We will celebrate what it means for us to be made in God’s image in our entirety—body, emotions, intellect, and relationships.

It is noteworthy to notice that they start out talking about the spirit then jump into emphasis on the body, emotions, intellect and relationships. All those aspects of humanity are encompassed by the body and soul. They have left the spirit behind and are focusing the rest of the discussion on those two aspects without dealing with the spirit. This is because they are coming from a perspective that there is only body and soul as opposed to what the Scripture teaches about humans: that they are tripartite beings (1 Thes. 5:23) created in the image of their Creator Who is a Triune being.
As to moving on beyond the weaknesses of human body and soul, you cannot do that by dreaming and imagining. You can only do that when you realize that God is strong and you are weak, as Paul did.

2Co 12:9 But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me.
But this is not what they are talking about. This course is a way to somehow imagine your way to strength. That is utter human folly.
Just to begin the thought processes…
Can you think of a time or two in your journey, where one aspect of your life (your physical life, your emotions, your relationships, your intellect) began to affect other aspects of your life? Right now in your journey, which aspect of your life do you believe is the healthiest? Which aspect do you believe is the weakest? Who is holding you accountable to make healthy choices in each aspect of your life? How have you seen God working in the various aspects of your life?

Week 2: Mind

This week we reflect on the role that our mind has in our life and how we are nourishing our minds… Can you think of a time in your journey when you had one of those mental “a-ha” moments and came across a totally new way of thinking or even new information that you had not known before? How did you respond? When it comes to using your mind, how do you perceive yourself? Where did this self-perception of your mind come from? How does this self perception affect your ability to think and to learn? What occupies your mind and thought processes during most of the day? In a typical learning setting, do you tend to engage your mind or do you tend to put it more into “neutral”? Why? What do you consider to be the top two or three sources in your life for giving you ways to think? When you are seeking information, where do you tend to go first? When you are introduced to new thoughts or concepts, how do you tend to react? Are you receptive to new ideas? How do you evaluate and analyze those thoughts and concepts? In exercising your mind, what are the two greatest struggles you face? What are two strengths? How do you see the interrelationship between your mind and your physical life? Your emotions? Your relationships? How does your walk with God affect your mind and thought processes? How does your mind and thought processes affect your walk with God?

What is entirely missing in this section dealing with the mind is the most important thing Christians must do to “nourish” their minds: the study of God’s word.
Ps 119:11 I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you.
If you are not filling your mind with the written Word then you will not be able to discern truth from error, which is the Biblical mark of a mature Christian.
Ro 12:2 Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
Heb 5:14 But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Simply exploring the questions above will not yield results that will help the mind. It is simply an intellectual exercise that would tend to make a person self-absorbed rather deny oneself and become more aware of God.
Lu 9:23 Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
In fact all this focus on self will cause a person to do the opposite of what God requires in following Him. To know how God affects your mind and thought process you need to know about God and about His will for your life, and you will not find that out by doing mental and emotional exercises. It is a crying shame that they are teaching this stuff to “young minds full of mush” at Nazarene schools instead of what the Bible teaches. This is more in line with psychology than Christian teaching.
Week 3: Body
This week we reflect on the role that our physical body has in our life and how we are caring for our bodies…In taking care of your body, what are the two greatest struggles you face? What are two strengths? What does your daily diet look like? Are you aware of your calorie and fat intake? Do you attempt to eat foods that will provide healthy nourishment to your body? Why do you eat the way that you do? During a typical week, what type of exercise does your body get? What most often prohibits you from exercise and what can you do to overcome what prohibits you? On a regular basis, are you getting between 7-9 hours of sleep each night? Can you think of examples where lack of sleep affected your mind, relationships, and emotions? What most often prohibits you from getting the sleep that your body needs in order to remain healthy? How do you handle stress? Do you have someone with whom you can talk to when you are dealing with significant stress? Do you spend at least 30 minutes a day engaging in something relaxing to your body and mind? Are there other practices in your life that affect your physical life in negative ways that you might begin to deal with? Do you monitor the health of your body by regular physical check-ups with a physician? How do you see the interrelationship between your physical body and your mind? Your emotions? Your relationships? How does your walk with God affect the way in which you care for your body? How does the health of your body affect your walk with God?

All good questions. But how does the health of your body improve your walk with God, as opposed to your being sick, for instance? God allowed Paul to be sick in order to remind Him often that Paul was only strong in the Lord, not because of physical health. If we rely on our physical health it may cause us to be caught up in the pride of life instead of fully relying on the Lord.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
We are to be in the world but not of the world. The pride of life is of the world. Our boast must be in the Lord, not in our physical well or ill being.
Ga 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which {Or whom} the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Jer 9:23-24 This is what the LORD says: “Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” declares the LORD.
It was because of an illness that God left Paul with the Galatians for a longer time in order that Paul would be able to effectively preach the Gospel to them.
Ga 4:13 As you know, it was because of an illness that I first preached the gospel to you.
It is a good thing to take care of the body God created for us. But we must always remember that there are more important things, like serving the Lord in sickness and in health, ultimately laying up treasure in heaven. If I lack physical strength and wellness, will I not even more heavily rely on the Lord for my strength?
Week 4: Relationships
This week we reflect on the role that our relationships have on our life and how we are caring for those relationships…In taking care of your relationships, what are the two greatest struggles you face? What are two areas of relational strength? Are there relationships that need to be initiated, reconciled, or renewed? How do you know if your relationships are healthy? How healthy are your relationships with your family, friends, boyfriend/girlfriend, roommates, etc.? During a typical week, how much time are you investing in others? What ways are you investing in others? What most often prohibits you from being fully available to others? Are there any relationships in which you have become judgmental, exclusive or proud? What steps can you take towards resolving those issues? Do you have a relationship in which you are held accountable to the way you live your life? Are you able to be truly vulnerable and authentic with this person? In what ways do you practice hospitality towards others? How approachable are you by those that know you? How approachable are you by those who don’t know you? What qualities do you expect in a good friend? Do you possess these qualities? How do you see the interrelationship between your relationships and your mind? Your emotions? Your body? How does your walk with God affect the way in which you care for others? How does the health of your relationships affect your walk with God?

All these questions are good ones and would help a person think about being less self-centered and more in tune with others. However, in asking these questions the person is led to turn inward for the answers instead of asking the Holy Spirit for the answers in God’s Word. A person can spend so much time psychoanalyzing themselves that they become inward focused and even if they have a desire to interact with others they are now spending all their time trying to figure out why they are not interacting with others, and it becomes a viscous cycle. Better to ask God Who He wants you to witness to and disciple and then go do it. That is the Biblical way, circumventing all this need for psycho babble.
Also, the main emphasis in this “relationships” section is on human relationships and God is left out of the picture. Should we not focus our lives on walking with God first, then loving our brother?

Lu 10:27 He answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; {Deut. 6:5} and, ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’” {Lev. 19:18}
If we look to ourselves first for the answers instead of to God, then we have it all backwards. It is only from God through His Word that we can then learn to deny ourselves and effectively reach others for Christ. You will notice that witness of the Gospel is completely left out of this course, which should be our first obligation.
Mr 16:15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
Any “spiritual formation” that leaves out the Gospel will form nothing of eternal value.
Week 5: Walk with God

We also recognize that the intentional time we spend with God both personally and corporately is the “glue” which holds all of the various aspects of our life together. The disciplines that we practice become pathways in which God’s grace flows into our lives enabling us to become more and more Christ-like. This week we reflect on the role that spiritual disciplines have on our life and how we are nurturing our relationship with God.. How is your relationship with God? What are you basing this perception on. During a typical week, how much time are you intentionally investing into your relationship with God? What most often prohibits you from being fully available to God? What spiritual disciplines (i.e. prayer, reading scripture, corporate worship, etc.) are you currently practicing? What are the fruit of these disciplines? Are there disciplines that you are not currently practicing that you want to start incorporating into your life? How can you begin to do that? Are there disciplines which you are not attracted to (i.e. fasting, silence, solitude, etc.), but might need in your life? Are you open to putting these into practice? How? What kind of accountability will you need in order to hold to these disciplines? Is there a person or a group that could provide this for you? Are you holding others accountable? How do you see the interrelationship between your walk with God and your mind? Your emotions? Your body? How does your walk with God affect the way you live? How does the way you live affect your walk with God?
Now they finally get to something about relationship with God. This should have come before anything else, yet is it relegated to point 5. There is an obvious push to accept and practice what they are calling “spiritual disciplines”, lumping them together with true spiritual activities such as prayer, Bible study, worship, etc. The new ones they want the student to add are things like “fasting, silence and solitude”. Fasting is something Christians can do but is it not a command of Scripture nor is it on a par Biblically with prayer, Bible study and corporate worship. Silence and solitude are not even mentioned as spiritual disciplines in the Bible. Jesus went to the wilderness in solitude but He did so to pray. We can “be still” (Ps. 46:10) and know the He is God in order to listen to Him and see His mighty works if we are silencing the Lord by our words and activities, but this does not mean we are to empty our minds. Again we see no mention of the spirit here but only of the body and soul. The whole focus of this section is to get the student to accept that fasting, silence and solitude are something they must do in order to be spiritual formed and they are encouraged to come under accountability to do it. Is this not Pharisaical to the max? Is this not adding the same kind of spiritual requirements to have a relationship with God that the Catholic Church has done for centuries? This is no different than adding requirements such as baptismal regeneration, circumcision, prayers to Mary, sacraments, and other requirements to either be saved or grow in the Faith. This type of legalism is called and abomination by Paul.
Week 6: Emotions
This week we reflect on the role that our emotions have on our life and how we are staying emotionally healthy…How in touch are you with your emotions? Are you emotionally healthy? What are you basing this self-diagnosis on? What in your life gives you joy? What is discouraging you? When your emotions get out of control, how do you respond (e.g. suppress, express, mask with an addiction, etc.)? Are you carrying emotional baggage from your past which still hinders you from living life to the fullest? What is it? How can you begin to let it go? Are you concerned about the emotional health of others? Is there a relationship in which you are causing emotional damage? How can you begin to restore this relationship? Do you have someone with whom you can talk to when you are under emotional duress? Do you spend at least 30 minutes a day engaging in something which relaxes you? Are there other things in your life that affect your emotions in negative ways that you might begin to deal with? Do you monitor the health of your emotions through regular appointments with a counselor? How do you see the interrelationship between your emotions and your mind? Your body? Your relationships? How does your walk with God affect you emotionally? How do your emotions affect your walk with God?

What a stupid question! “How in touch are you with your emotions”? You can only be out of touch with your emotions if you are physically dead. Otherwise your emotions are part of you makeup. A better question would be “How much do you allow God to be in control of your emotions”? The language in this section clearly shows that it is taken directly out of a psychology book. If you are under emotional stress, those “30 minutes a day” should be spent in prayer and in Bible study if you want to solve that problem. Taking a vacation from stress is only a temporary solution, such as relaxation, drugs, etc. In claiming to promote a Godly solution to emotional problem, they not only use worldly methods but they are actually suggesting another temporary fix. Who says that a person needs to “monitor they health of their emotions through regular appointments with a counselor”? This sounds like an advertisement. Should our emotions effect our relationship with God? No. Why not say that if your emotions are adversely affecting your relationship with God then you need to get your heart right with Him by asking the Lord to give you wisdom through His Word? Why not tell them to read 1 & 2 Corinthians where Paul struggles with this subject?
The bottom line is that this EC type of questionnaire gets the student to look within themselves for the answer instead of to the written Word. This can only lead to more confusion and will certainly not lead to spiritual formation.

A Renewed Confidence in the Word of God.

How the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy Began

By Dr. Jay Grimstead

We see the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) Statement on Inerrancy as being a landmark church document, which was created in 1978 by the then largest, broadest, group of evangelical protestant scholars that ever came together to create a common, theological document in the 20th century. It is probably the first systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed-like statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church.

Modernism Challenges the Historic View on  Inerrancy

Just as the church’s understanding of the full deity of Christ and the Trinity awaited the Arian controversy and the Council of Nicea in 325 AD; and just as the full understanding of Justification by Faith and the Priesthood of every Believer awaited the 1500s when it was clarified by Luther and Calvin, so the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture awaited the 20th century for its full debate and delineation. Up until the 20th century, all branches of Christianity worldwide accepted the basic inerrancy view of inspiration except for the secular philosophers and the liberal theologians, so a full-scale debate was unnecessary until then.

But, at the end of the liberal-fundamentalist doctrinal battles of the 20s and 30s, large portions of the previously sound major denominations were infected with a liberal view of the Bible. The evangelicals and fundamentalists within those denominations generally pulled out and started their own new denominations, seminaries, and mission societies and stood firm on the historical view of the Bible taught by Moses, Jesus, Paul and the heros of the faith the past 2000 years. By that time, almost all the theological schools and theologians of Europe had gone liberal. America and Canada, which are usually from 25 to 100 years behind Europe in their philosophical disintegration, were just starting to “catch up” with Europe theologically.

As Francis Schaeffer stated so eloquently, courage for confrontation over matters of truth and righteousness in the hearts of Christian leaders in North America was replaced by a kind of “knee-jerk” response committed to accommodation and “peace at any price” which sadly still reigns supreme within most evangelical circles today. This is one major reason things have disintegrated so far and so fast. At the same time, the relativistic view of truth and a dichotomy worldview (that segregates the spiritual world from the material world into two separate air-tight compartments) that came from philosophers such as Hume, Kant, and Hegel had all but completely captured the university intellectuals of the entire world.

Neo-Orthodoxy infects the Evangelical Ranks

This was the kind of academic atmosphere that prevailed during the 20 years from 1947 to 1967 when many evangelical seminaries and colleges sent their bright young scholars to European universities to get their doctorates. A large percentage of these young scholars were infected with liberal and neo-orthodox views of the Bible; and then they returned to their evangelical schools to teach a neo-orthodox view of the Bible (what they sincerely believed were the “latest, most scholarly” views) to their students.

These partially “corrupted” young professors did not openly challenge their denomination’s or institution’s historic view of inspiration of the Bible. It was more subtle than that and less obvious than the open battle over the Bible of the 1920s and 1930s. Most of these young professors were infected with neo-orthodoxy; the then fashionable “reformed” liberalism of Swiss theologian Karl Barth. Neo-orthodoxy claims that the human words of the Bible are not the very words of God, but rather are a fallible human “witness” to the words of God and are therefore in a sense, the “Word” of God to man. In some cases they claim that the words of the Bible “become” the Word of God to man at a particular existential moment when that man senses God speaking to him. Others have spoken of the Bible “containing” the Word of God.

Neo-Orthodoxy Undermines the Reliability of Scripture

Since most neo-orthodox theologians attempt to honor God’s word in some sense, their presentation to their students of their existential and relativistic re-interpretation of the Bible does not appear to be, nor is it intended to be, an attack upon the Bible. But, since most neo-orthodox men accept most of the higher critical theories of theological liberalism and since they usually believe (with Kant and Barth) that human language is incapable of communicating absolute, unchanging, and inerrant truth from God to man, therefore they are essentially liberals in their view of scripture.

In addition, most neo-orthodox “evangelicals” believe they cannot count on the Bible being absolutely true in matters of time and space, science and history, or ethics and anthropology (that is, areas that are open to scientific verification or falsification), but they do comfort themselves by saying they believe the Bible may be capable of communicating undistorted truth in “spiritual” matters such as eternity and heaven, faith and salvation, or piety and theology (areas that are not open to objective empirical verification). Thus they ask us to subjectively believe the Bible in those areas of “faith and practice” that we cannot, by the nature of the case, “prove” and then expect us to understand that the Bible is not totally reliable in matters of history and science.

In a nutshell, a liberal and neo-orthodox view of Scripture considers the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible to be part true and part false and that their theological experts must help us to determine what parts of the Bible are true and what parts of it are false. That is the essence of theological liberalism under whatever name it travels even if it goes by the name of “evangelicalism.” Thus, a professor infected with a neo-orthodox view of Scripture will tend to not believe that Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch; that Isaiah wrote the whole book of Isaiah; that Daniel was written in Daniel’s time; that the flood of Noah was a universal flood covering the whole earth; that all of present mankind came from Noah’s family; etc., etc. They will also tend to teach students that neither Jesus nor the Church Fathers believed the inerrancy of view of Scripture that was taught by the Jesus, Paul, Augustine, Calvin, Wesley, Spurgeon, Hodge, Warfield, Machen, and Schaeffer. They teach that the inerrancy view is a late development in church history.

Neo-Orthodoxy Entrenches Itself in Evangelical Institutions

Since the 1960s, many evangelical seminaries and colleges, denominations and organizations have been infected by the prevailing fog of neo-orthodoxy. Many sincere evangelicals, including many pastors and professors, are neo-orthodox liberals in regard to Scripture and don’t even know there is anything wrong with their view. In light of all this, we felt we had to launch the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy in 1977.

By 1976, a neo-orthodox and liberal view of Scripture and therefore a relativistic view of doctrine and morals had permeated all levels of evangelicalism in every denomination and organization. The prevailing mood among educated people was openness to the liberalized view of scripture and a general fear of being labeled a “narrow inerrantist” who still believed the old, “unscholarly and medieval” view of Scripture. If a Christian in many evangelical circles really believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, they tended to remain “in the closet.”

Furthermore, we, who felt God wanted us to stand up for the traditional, inerrancy view of Scripture and call our churches and organizations to be consistent with the statement on scripture in that organization’s founding documents, were often attacked as troublemakers and told to be quiet or to go away. Almost no one wanted to face up to an honest, open evaluation of how far a church or organization had slid down the slippery slope towards increasing liberalization. Christian leaders then, who believed in the inerrancy of the Bible, found themselves becoming lonely warriors who were misunderstood, feared, and sometimes gently persecuted. And almost no one seemed to be willing to make it a national Christian issue and get it settled if it meant losing friends or a position in their organization.

The Battle for the Bible Explodes

In 1976, Dr. Harold Lindsell came out with his bombshell book, The Battle for the Bible, which exposed the massive infiltration of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy into nearly every denomination and seminary that considered itself evangelical. Lindsell’s book was very accurate in exposing the deterioration and it was scholarly in its presentation. As far as we can tell, none of Lindsell’s charges were ever refuted in any substantive manner by the institutions in question. The accused schools merely fumed and spoke harsh things against Dr. Lindsell. At that time, few leaders beside Dr. Lindsell, Francis Schaeffer, and Bill Gothard were attempting to make the inerrancy of the Bible an issue, though many were still faithfully teaching inerrancy.

The general response to The Battle for the Bible among the evangelical leadership of America was that it was “divisive” and that Lindsell was too “harsh” and “unloving” in exposing the factual situation within evangelical institutions. Thus, the church was not at all ready nor willing to go to battle over the watershed issue of inerrancy. Many of the inerrantists were in the “closet” and the anti-inerrantist, neo-orthodox theologians were having a field day making fun of the old-fashioned view in the various evangelical periodicals and journals. (I want to make it clear at this point that the Fundamentalists and most Pentecostals stood firmly for inerrancy during this period). It was in this context that the ICBI was born. The following is a short explanation of how several of us gave birth to the ICBI.

A Call to Unite and Plan Strategies for the Battle

In 1976, God was leading me to create a night school and training center for laymen in the San Francisco Bay Area called the Reformation Study Center. R.C. Sproul suggested to our little staff that it would be wise to launch the study center with a conference. We took Sproul’s advice and organized a conference on the Authority of Scripture at Mt. Hermon, California for February 1977. Our five speakers were to be R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, and Greg Bahnsen, each dealing with two major topics on the authority of Scripture.

In September 1976, prior to the Mt. Hermon conference, I wrote to Sproul and to Harold Lindsell suggesting somebody should attempt to organize a national theological conference to deal with this battle for the inerrancy of the Bible and to expose the fallacies of the neo-orthodox false assumptions believed by so many evangelicals at that time. What I visualized was something of a theological “army” of scholars who would take this thing into battle as a united team.

I invited the five speakers, plus Miss Weatheral Johnson (of Bible Study Fellowship), Karen Hoyt and a few others to come early to the conference so we could pray in our living room about what to do regarding the inerrancy battle in the church. We had that prayer meeting then launched the conference and our little study center that February evening in Mt. Hermon with about 300 people in attendance. During the weekend conference, I gathered the speakers, Miss Johnson, and a few others together to discuss what strategy we might use to organize a frontal attack on this problem of a Barthian/liberal view of Scripture having infiltrated most of evangelicalism in North America and beyond.

The Vision for a United “Army” Unfolds

By the end of the Mt. Hermon conference, on Sunday afternoon, we had decided that God was leading us to launch a new organization, what we would later call ICBI, to do the following three things:

1. Create together a list of world famous or nationally recognized inerrancy theologians, Bible scholars, and Christian leaders who would be asked to form a theological “army” to clarify the theological issues involved and attempt to turn the situation around so the liberal evangelicals would have to hide in the closet and the inerrantists, the world over, would be able to lift their heads high and proudly proclaim they believed in the full inerrancy of the Bible.
2. Come to agreement on a list of theological sub-topics on which our scholar team would have to write white papers dealing with all the sub-points involved in a comprehensive attack on this problem. (Philosophically there are some 14 separate debates that must be faced when dealing with the matter of inerrancy.)
3. Launch a major national conference on inerrancy for 200 to 300 biblical scholars and Christian leaders and sound forth the trumpet call that it was time to face the issue and turn the situation around. At that conference we would also work through and release a set of affirmations and denials on the inerrancy of Scripture and claim that there is no real biblical authority without biblical inerrancy and that the church was bound to deteriorate to the degree it rejected the inerrancy of the Bible.

With Jeffersonian language of dignity offered by J.I. Packer, we created a short statement of purpose for our new movement then set a date for the following month to meet at Pittsburgh airport and spend a full day making a list of fellow warriors and launching our strategy in earnest. I was asked to serve as the Executive Director and keep this process going until it was well launched. I asked Karen Hoyt to handle the details as my Executive Secretary which she did very efficiently and eventually set up our ICBI office in Oakland.

By the end of that series of meetings at Mt. Hermon, every one of the theologians and myself were positively excited about our prospects for a new inerrancy movement and we all felt a sense of release and a lifted burden of sorrow, loneliness and frustration we had carried over the theological deterioration of evangelicalism. I had felt this prophetic, Jeremiah type burden over the church the previous five years as an actual pain and heaviness within my stomach almost constantly. From that conference on it was gone. What we sensed is that, having decided together with like-minded, courageous, fellow warriors that we should indeed attack this problem together, whatever the cost, our mutual sense of loneliness (within all our various circles) and our near hopelessness over the situation was exchanged for camaraderie in battle and great optimism. It was a great breakthrough for all of us and we were grateful to be together.

The Vision Gives Birth to the ICBI

In March 1977, we met in Pittsburgh and created a list of some 50 theologians and Christian leaders to invite onto the new ICBI Council and Advisory Board. We set a date for a Council/Board meeting for September at the Chicago O’Hare airport and decided to ask James Boice to join us and function as chairman of the Council. I was asked to call most of the 50 men and explain the vision to them and recruit them onto our team. Nearly every one I called was quite enthusiastic, ready to join immediately and was grateful that we were going to form an “army” to attack this problem since they too had been frustrated and grieved to see the shift away from inerrancy in their own circles.

In September 1977, at the O’Hare Hilton, Boice and I led the meeting of enthusiastic Christian theologians and leaders and worked our game plan. We would together first create a book to answer, chapter for chapter, the neo-orthodox oriented book edited by Jack Rogers of Fuller Seminary, Biblical Authority, that gave the basic neo-orthodox arguments against inerrancy (the major point expressed was that the church could have biblical authority without an inerrant Bible). We made the chapter assignments with plans to have the book ready to be sold at our launching conference to be held October 1978 at the Hyatt Regency near O’Hare airport. We also made assignments for the scholarly white papers which were to be written and distributed to those attending the conference. These white papers formed the scholarly foundation for our work the following 10 years as well as the foundation for the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was created by the ICBI in 1978.

The initial set of ICBI white papers now appear in the ICBI book, Inerrancy, edited by Norman Geisler and published by Zondervan Press. Another ICBI book, The Foundation for Biblical Authority, edited by James Boice and also published by Zondervan, answered the Roger’s book and is an excellent survey for the pastor and academic layperson to come to a solid understanding of the debate and the historical arguments of the church for the Bible’s inerrancy. Many Christian colleges now use The Foundation for Biblical Authority along with Roger’s Biblical Authority to show the contrast within evangelicalism between the historic, orthodox inerrancy view and the neo-orthodox view (sometimes disingenuously called the “enlightened evangelical view” by liberal-oriented evangelical professors). We also made other assignments for books on hermeneutics, short booklets explaining the problem, and what came to be Gleason Archer’s monumental work, Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties.

The ICBI Launches its Theological “D-Day”

Prior to the October 1978 conference, I wrote to Billy Graham and asked him to contribute to our cause. The Billy Graham Evangelism Association then donated $10,000 to help launch the ICBI. With this start-up money Karen Hoyt and I started on salary, so we could proceed with our plans.

Just prior to Reformation Sunday in October 1978, we staged our first ICBI conference for about 300 Christian leaders, theologians and pastors at the O’Hare Hyatt Regency to launch the movement publicly. During that conference, amidst much intense discussion and several all-night editorial sessions, we created together 19 articles on Biblical Inerrancy based upon a consensus agreement on the scholarly points made in the many white papers our team had written. These 19 articles were published as the historic Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

The ICBI Wins a Decisive Victory

And it worked! The net result was that there was an immediate reversal of who was in the “closet.” Even though not many liberal evangelical scholars really changed their position theologically, they knew that under this new theological climate we had created they would not be able to be as bold about their departure from inerrancy. The week prior to our 1978 conference there were many articles in major Christian magazines belittling the inerrancy viewpoint. From that conference on, with a few exceptions, there was deathly silence from the liberal side for several years. Inerrancy was once again popular and respected as the historic, orthodox, and scholarly viewpoint.

Because of the visibility and success of the ICBI in its united and scholarly defense of inerrancy, many schools, churches, mission organizations, and some denominations began rethinking their doctrinal statements on Scripture. They realized that, because of the prevailing liberal theological “smog” most of their members had been breathing and because of the great confusion that reigned and the deliberate efforts of the liberalized evangelicals within most ranks, they had to tighten up on their official statements on Scripture and require adherence to the orthodox view by their leadership and members.

With the wealth of new scholarship that was produced by the ICBI to buttress the doctrine of inerrancy,  many evangelical colleges and seminaries were compelled to engage in intramural discussions and debates within their faculty over the issue of inerrancy. With the united front of the ICBI behind them, adherents of inerrancy came out of the “closet” and more often than not saw that they were in the majority. Thus, the tide of accommodation to neo-orthodox views of scripture, which had seemed unstoppable in the 1960s and 1970s, was turned back at many evangelical colleges and seminaries.

But the War Isn’t Over

The proponents of inerrancy have not always been victorious against the proponents of neo-orthodox. At Fuller Seminary, a primary target of Lindsell’s Battle for the Bible, the professors and scholars of the School of World Mission faculty signed the ICBI Statement enthusiastically and  then sent it across the hall and invited the Fuller School of Theology professors to sign it also. The Fuller Theology professors rejected it outright and, as far as we know, it remains unsigned by those Fuller theology professors to this day.

Alas, the battle for for the Bible is far from over. In the years since the ICBI, the neo-orthodox liberals have developed new tactics and have made new inroads into evangelical institutions. The biblical doctrine of Inerrancy remains a crucial watershed issue for the church today. May God raise up a new generation of gifted theologians and scholars to carry on the good fight.

• See more comments on the ICBI by Dr. Grimstead.
• For a short explanation of the ICBI & COR history, click here.

Marked for life: discernment ministry in light of Ezekiel 9:1-11

From my friend and brother in the Lord the ever biblically solid Gary Gilley

Emergent Books.

Great article from my friends and brothers and sisters in the Lord at Herescope

Meditation that is not founded upon the Word of God, like alabyrinth, is a maze that ultimately ends up in futility, going nowhere but endless spirals.

Those who have practiced Eastern-style meditation, with its emptying of the mind and/or visualization (imagery), often do so because they desire to acquire peace, or because they are hurting and desire their inner psycho-spiritual needs to be met. Yet they will eventually find that their needs are not met, and they are more empty than ever. Further, this type of meditation opens one’s mind to occult spirituality – even if it is done under the aura of being “Christian.”

Those who engage in the pantheon of contemplative practices need to beware that it is described as “two intentions that are the foundation of all contemplative practices: cultivating awareness and developing a stronger connection to God, the divine, or inner wisdom.”[1] See “The Tree of Contemplative Practices” posted HERE. This is a graphic representation of how the “roots of the tree encompass and transcend differences in the religious traditions from which many of the practices originated, and allow room for the inclusion of new practices that are being created in secular contexts.”[2]

Looking at this tree, it is obvious that what passes for “Christian” meditation in our modern era springs from the Gnostic roots of this occult tree. Is it any wonder that this tree then bears corresponding occult fruit? Note that this contemplative tree does not promise life, only “wisdom,” which just happens to be what the serpent promised Eve if she ate of the fruit of the tree in the Garden of Eden.

But what about the person who is truly needy? One who is experiencing a crisis of faith? Who is being persecuted? The fragile believer who feels that their faith is floundering or drying up? These struggling believers are being encouraged to run to this “contemplative tree” of eclectic spiritual practices to find refuge, solace and comfort. After all, it istrendy to run to this contemporary contemplative tree, despite its antiquated roots buried in the deep strata of occultism.

This alluring multifaceted tree promises healing, renewal, insight, rest, wisdom and access to God. But, warning! Eating its fruit results in spiritual blindness and deafness, bondage and emptiness.

The Tree of Life

There is another tree, which is found in Scripture. It is based on the Word of God. Psalm 1 describes the believer who finds his ”delight in the the law of the LORD” and says that in this law (God’s Word) ”doth he meditate day and night.” If a believer does this he is promised that he shall ”be like atree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper” (verses 2-3, emphases added). What a promise!

Meditating on the Word of God produces beautiful fruit in the lives of Christian believers. There are many other promises in Scripture for the believer who meditates upon God’s Word. These are personal promises that apply not only to daily living, but also to a wide variety of life crises, feelings, situations, hurts, pains, persecutions, trials, trouble and dangers. Here is just a brief sampling, starting at Psalm 119, which is a treasure trove of promises to those who meditate on God’s Word; i.e. His precepts, commandments, judgments, law and testimonies:

• vs. 25 - My soul cleaveth unto the dust: quicken thou me according to thy Word.
• vs. 28 - My soul melteth for heaviness: strengthenthou me according unto thy Word.
• vs. 97 - O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.
• vs. 104 - Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
• vs. 105 - Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a lightunto my path.
• vs. 130 - The entrance of thy Words giveth light; itgiveth understanding unto the simple.
• vs. 133 - Order my steps in thy Word: and let not anyiniquity have dominion over me.
• vs. 134 - Deliver me from the oppression of man: so will I keep thy precepts.
• vs. 161 - Princes have persecuted me without a cause: but my heart standeth in awe of thy Word.
• vs. 162 - I rejoice at thy Word, as one that findeth great spoil.

Proverbs 30:5 further promises that ”Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him.”

Isaiah 29 warns about idolatrous hearts (vs. 13) and says that the ”wisdom of their wise men shall perish” (vs. 14). Then Isaiah 30 speaks to those who ”despise this word, and trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon” (vs. 12), but promises that ”in returning [i.e., repentance] and rest shall ye be saved.” This same verse promises the very thing that contemplative practices claim to accomplish -rest! And it further promises that ”in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” But, sadly, the verse concludes with the tragic statement: ”and ye would not.”

God’s ways are not hidden like the obscure “wisdom” of the occult that must be meditated upon in endless ways that never satisfy. He has given us His Word openly. Twice in Isaiah God says, ”I have not spoken in secret” (Isaiah 45:19 and 48:16). God’s Word does satisfy, and we are promised in Isaiah 55:11 that: ”So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.”

The New Testament, particularly in the book of Acts, records the power of the Word of God to change human lives. The backdrop to the events in Acts is strikingly similar to our modern era with its rapidly rising idolatry and occult spirituality. God’s Word alone has the miraculous power to change lives. Paul told King Agrippa that the purpose of preaching the Gospel (i.e., God’s Word) was ”To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me” (Acts 26:18). And in Romans Paul states that the Gospel of Christ ”is the power of God unto salvation”(vs. 16).

Many today avoid God’s Word. They do not run to it as a source of strength and sustenance. They will do anything butread God’s Word! In Jeremiah 2:13 we read how readily people will substitute an inferior man-made product for The Way: ”For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

Perhaps the reason for avoidance of God’s Word is because His Word is uncomfortable – it is ”quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). The Word provokes believers to have their conscience quickened to sin in their hearts and lives, and it encourages them to ”Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matthew 3:8)!

Many Scriptures warn about hardening of the heart, which is the consequence of not obeying the Word. These are not popular verses in our era, particularly the ones that refer to hardness of heart being wicked!

• John 12:40 - ”He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.”
• Romans 2:4-5 - ”Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;”
• Proverbs 21:29 - ”A wicked man hardeneth his face: but as for the upright, he directeth his way.”
• Proverbs 28:14 - ”Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.”
• Proverbs 29:1 - ”He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.”

Hebrews 3:8 warns particularly, ”Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness,” which is followed by verse 11, ”So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” This is that true rest which can only be found in obedience to God’s Word. It cannot be obtained through the pursuing of meditative mechanisms.

Eating the fruit of “The Tree of Contemplative Practices”cannot result in either repentance nor rest, but rather in an increasing tolerance for doctrinal ambiguity, sinful living, ecumenism, and mysticism. Romans 1 describes the downhill progression that begins with being ”vain” in one’s”imaginations.” This vanity seems an apt description of all entry-level contemplative practices. It quickly degenerates into one’s ”foolish heart” becoming ”darkened.” Romans 1 indicates that this downward spiral becomes outright idolatry, vile affections, a reprobate mind, and a long list of evil practices.

Where is God’s sovereignty and majesty? Job was chastised by God for his inadequate and inferior view of Him. Couldn’t the same thing be said today to those who worship at “The Tree of Contemplative Practices”? While they pursue their various pilgrimages, meditations, chantings, journalings, sweatlodges and visionquests, God is saying to them:”Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding?” (vs. 4).

Likewise, Isaiah 66:5a cries out: ”Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word.” Does anyone tremble at His Word anymore? Jeremiah Burroughs, in his classic workGospel Fear: Developing a Tender Hart that Trembles at the Word of God (1647)[3], describes the effects of having a”fear of the Lord” which is the ”instruction of wisdom,” as stated in Proverbs 15:33, and notes that those who tremble at the Word must have a “teachable disposition.”[4]. Citing Proverbs 17:10 (“A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool”), Burroughs asks: “Do you find your heart so tender that a word works upon you? This is a sign of the wisdom of God that is in your soul.”[5]

Once again, ironically, the very thing that those who pursue after contemplative mysticism desire - wisdom - is there all along for those who immerse themselves in God’s Word! It is interesting that Proverbs 3, especially verses 13 and 18, promises wisdom, saying that it is a ”tree of life” - ”Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding… She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her.”[emphasis added]

The Truth:

“He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” (Revelation 2:7)

Endnotes:
1. “The Tree of Contemplative Practices,” the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society, http://www.contemplativemind.org/practices/tree.html
2. Ibid.
3. Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Fear: Developing a Tender Hart that Trembles at the Word of God (Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2001), www.SDGbooks.com.
4. p. 46.
5. p. 86, emphasis added.

The New [Age] Spirituality: The Folly of the Ages.

The Challenge of Pragmatism – Part 2.

The Challenge of Pragmatism – Part 1.

A very good article on discernment ministry and why and how the Word of God defends what we do.

Discernment Ministry – A Biblical Defense.

We have been accused of not reading the material that we do articles on ie Emergent Church leaders and authors etc..

Thats just not true everyone we used on our DVD does impeccable research and are all students of the Bible.

Here is a book review by Pastor Gary Gilley

Everything Must Change by Brian McLaren

Shared via AddThis

From my friends and brothers and sisters in the Lord at Lighthouse Trails

G12 Master Plan Could Expose Thousands of Nazarenes to Contemplative/Emerging Spirituality

“Training Today’s Leaders for Tomorrow’s Churches” is the motto for New Church Specialties, a Christian consulting organization that largely reaches Nazarenes. But New Church Specialties and the affiliated New Church University (where pastors and leaders are mentored and trained) are a conduit for the new spirituality, and their G12 Master’s Plan could potentially expose thousands of Nazarenes to contemplative spirituality and the emerging church.

While New Church Specialties does mentor and train leaders from various denominations, a 2008 Annual Ministry Report reveals that 62% of NCS’s 2008 income came from Nazarene churches with Salvation Army, Wesleyan, and other denominations covering the rest. The report says that NCS’s vision is “changing the way churches communicate,” and its mission is to “assist the starting and strengthening of churches worldwide.” But evidence shows that this changing and strengthening of churches is going to be done using, at least in part, contemplative/emerging authors.

New Church Specialties is offering to their followers books by New Age sympathizers Leonard Sweet, Brian McLaren, and Ken Blanchard for instruction and guidance. 1 Leonard Sweet, author of Quantum Spirituality, has worked on a number of occasions with Rick Warren to bring about what he refers to as a “new spirituality.” 2 A well-documented expose on Sweet’s beliefs can be found in Warren Smith’s new book, A “Wonderful” Deception. Smith shows that Sweet has been influenced by major New Age proponents such as Matthew Fox, David Spangler, and a number of others. One of the most, if not the most, outstanding figures for New Age spirituality, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, is said by Sweet to be “Twentieth-century Christianity’s major voice” (see p. 118, AWD). Such a misconception – de Chardin is perhaps the New Age’s “major voice” but certainly not true Christianity’s.

Ken Blanchard, also used by NCS, has been promoting and endorsing and writing forewords for New Age meditation authors for many years. From Deepak Chopra (7 Spiritual Laws of Success) to Gay Hendricks (The Corporate Mystic) to Anthony Robbins (Unlimited Power) to Jim Ballard (Mind Like Water), and others, Blanchard has been consistent in showing his affinity with New Age meditation teachers. All of these books just mentioned teach and/or promote eastern-style mysticism. In a book titled, What Would Buddha Do At Work?, Blanchard states in the foreword: “Buddha points to the path and invites us to begin our journey to enlightenment. I … invite you to begin your journey to enlightened work.” In 2007, Blanchard wrote the foreword to Jim Ballard’s book, Little Wave and Old Swell, a book in which the front cover says it is inspired by Paramahansa Yogananda, a Hindu guru (the book is kind ofA Course in Miracles for children – god in all).3

The book New Church Specialties is using by Leonard Sweet, The Church in Emerging Culture, is a compilation of five authors including emerging church/futurist/mystic proponent Erwin McManus and atonement denier/emergent leader Brian McLaren. McManus has an interesting way of viewing Christianity. He states: “My goal is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a recatalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ” and “Some people are upset with me because it sounds like I’m anti-Christian. I think they might be right” (see link above for sources). He admits that his popular book, The Barbarian Way (a book that David Jeremiah advocates) has a core of mysticism in its foundation.4

A 2008 Lighthouse Trails article, “Is General Baptist Ministries Going Toward Contemplative?,”discusses New Church Specialties and its founder Larry McKain. Sadly, that article points out that Church of the Nazarene General Superintendent Dr. Jim Diehl endorses the work at NCS. Lighthouse Trails explains that when Ray Yungen’s book A Time of Departing first was released in 2002, Jim Diehl read that book and contacted Lighthouse Trails by phone to say he wholeheartedly agreed with its message. Other endorsements of NCS include an array of denominational leaders. 5

How is New Church Specialties going to be able to impact thousands of Nazarenes and other Christians? New Church Specialties has implemented a program that can potentially serve as a catalyst to bring the spirituality of Sweet, McLaren and Blanchard to countless unsuspecting Christians. This program is best known as G12 (Government of 12). NCS refers to this as “The Master’s Plan.” In short, this is a church-growth technique adapted partly from Korean pastor David Cho and Columbian pastor Cesar Castellanos, which promises substantial church growth. The Master’s Plan proposes that true church growth can only come about through a CELL structure where a leader will vigorously train 12 people, who will train 12 people, who will train 12 people. While numbers often grow with this structure, there are disturbing testimonies of abuse and discipline if one does not follow implicitly the CELL leader over him or her. An overview of NCS’s Master Plan (written by a Nazarene pastor in Anaheim, California) lays out The Master’s Plan in more depth, acknowledging that a “disciple” will need to meet with his 11 brothers and sisters up to three times a week and remain committed to them for “life.” The Encounter Weekend Retreats provide further training to disciples, including the very problematic (occult in origin from Agnes Sanford) “inner healing.”

In view of how extremely pervasive mystical contemplative spirituality is throughout most of Christianity today (and in view of NCS’s promotion of contemplative advocates), this G12 structure could literally cause contemplative to explode in thousands of lives very rapidly.

As with most false teachings, there is an element of hiding the truth regarding NCS’s G12 implementation. In the overview, it states: “Avoid the use of the phrase ‘G12′ in your public discussions. Call it The Master’s Plan or The Discipleship Model or some other generic name. For some reason, some people get worked up over the phrase ‘G12.’” The Master’s Plan hopes to eradicate traditional programs like Sunday School from existence: “Existing ministries will either move over to The Master’s Plan or they will wither in time and die of their own natural causes” (p. 29).

New Church Specialties’ coupling of contemplative/emerging authors with the G12 Master’s Plan could have major affects on so many and could bring to fruition Leonard Sweet’s comments about the christ consciousness: “The power of small groups is in their ability to develop the discipline to get people ‘in-phase’ with the Christ consciousness and connected with one another” (p. 147, Quantum Spirituality), but this is not the Christ of the Bible, but as Paul warned is a “another gospel” and “another Jesus” (II Corinthians 11:4). Nazarenes should take note not to implement New Church Specialties into their own local churches but rather to cling to the truth of God’s Word, which rejects the panentheistic, interspiritual nature of contemplative spirituality.

For those who don’t quite understand or who may even be skeptical, consider the following: New Age author Marilyn Ferguson, who wrote the classic book The Aquarian Conspiracy, said that 31% of all people who are involved in New Age spirituality entered it through the catalyst of Christian mysticism (i.e., contemplative). This is not surprising when you hear what mystic Richard Kirby said: “The meditation of advanced occultists is identical with the prayer of advanced mystics” (see A Time of Departing). Anyone who realizes the truth of this has to be motivated to take a stand on one side or another. Neutrality in this case is not an option.

Posted on October 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm
Source URL:

New article from one of the featured speakers on the Concerned Nazarene DVD Pastor Gary Gilley.

Gary is a friend and brother in the Lord and was critical to the success of our DVD in turning people back toward Gods Word.

Here is the article-

Emergent spokesman Brian McLaren calls for the evangelical community to get over its love affair with certainty.  He writes, “Drop any affair you may have with certainty, proof, argument – and replace it with dialogue, conversation, intrigue, and search.”[1] Are we to take McLaren seriously?  If so, then the best way to get over our love affair with certainty, according to McLaren, would be to replace it with uncertainty, or more commonly, mystery.  It is definitely in vogue at this point in church history to make the rather “certain” claim that we cannot be certain about anything.  Of course, the irony of such certainty about uncertainty is obvious.  But much like impossible political promises, when statements are left unanalyzed and unchallenged they tend to be uncritically absorbed by the minds of some people, often resulting in great harm.

It is important then that we give careful thought to the recent love affair with uncertainty. What are its origins?  Is it really something new? Does it line up with the claims of Scripture?  How should the people of God respond?

Inroads of Uncertainty

There is little doubt that those espousing an “uncertain” or mystery brand of Christianity, as found in the Emergent church and similar groups, are merely lip-synching postmodern philosophy which has permeated much of the Western world.  Postmodernism,[2] which is still taking form, and simultaneously has grown tiresome, is best known for its uncertainty.  Knowable absolute and universal truth is denied, even despised, in the postmodern system.  Christian thinker Os Guinness offers the following definition of postmodernism:

Postmodernism is a movement and a mood as much as a clear set of ideas, so it often feels as if it is everywhere and nowhere.  Doubtless, this means it is blamed for too much as well as too little.  There are, of course, telltale fingerprints that postmodernism leaves on all it touches – the rejection of truth and objective standards of right and wrong, the leveling of authorities, the elevation of the autonomous self as the soul arbiter of life and reality, the equalizing of cultures,  the promotion of image over character, the glorifying of power…”[3]

As postmodernism has encroached on our society it is becoming more and more common to see its views reflected in many realms of evangelicalism.  For example, theologian Donald Bloesch writes, “Scripture is authoritative by virtue of its relation to the living Word, not by virtue of its truthfulness as such.”[4] And, “The knowledge of faith is not an empirical objectifying knowledge but a knowledge of which we are lifted above reason and sense into communion with the living God.”[5] In a rather convoluted manner

Bloesch is challenging a rationalistic approach to Scripture, which teaches that the Bible provides propositional truth and a common sense approach to the understanding of life, and replacing it with a postmodern, mystical understanding.  Others have been clearer; for example Brian McLaren believes conservatives have entirely missed the Bible’s purpose and message and therefore, “Hardly anyone in conservative churches actually encounters the Bible any more.”[6] As a result, those of a postmodern bent, we are told, “find the doctrines and principles [drawn from Scripture] as interesting as grass clippings.”[7] This is because conservatives, according to McLaren, “Have conquered the text, captured the meaning, removed all mystery, stuffed it and preserved it for posterity, like a taxidermist with a deer head.”[8] But even McLaren’s friend and cohort, Tony Campolo sees the danger of this mystical approach to the Scriptures.  In response to the thoughts of McLaren as quoted above, Campolo writes,

Most biblical scholars would contend that the apostle Paul’s theological propositions have largely defined traditional Christianity… Brian may have bought into postmodern thinking just a little too much for me.  As I see it, Jacques Derrida, the famous postmodern deconstructionist philosopher, and his followers contend that the text of Scripture has no single interpretation; instead the Bible should be read as though it was a Rorschach test.  They tell us to see in the text whatever meaning we want to impose on it.  They tell us that no single interpretation should be considered objectively valid.  The text, says these postmodernists, has a life of its own—and once it is written, the reader provides the meaning.  To me, that approach to the Bible has inherent dangers.[9]

Campolo, certainly no conservative, nevertheless is correct.  Once we decide that the Bible is primarily the means of a mystical encounter with God rather than God’s truth revealed to man which is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:16b-17), the purpose of God’s revelation changes.   Scripture can be twisted to mean anything we want it to mean; the meaning of the revelation is not important, what matters is our supposed encounter with God.  There is no question that we encounter God in the Bible, for as Jesus said, He came to “explain” God to us (John 1:18), and Hebrews 1:2 tells us that God has spoken to us “in His Son.”  My contention is that we encounter God in the truth that He reveals.  John said that his greatest joy was knowing that his “children [were] walking in the truth” (3 John 4).  The Bible offers more than truth claims and propositions, but it does not offer less.

The Product of Uncertainty

A medical physician friend of mine compares this postmodern/mystical approach to the AIDS virus.  He told me, “Postmodernism attacks true Christianity’s defense system, the truth (including God’s Word), denying it exists or at least that it can be known with any degree of certainty.  Like the AIDS virus, which leaves the body subject to all manner of infections and malignancies, postmodernism leaves Christianity with all manner of heresies if not apostasy.”[10]

This disease of uncertainty has produced a very ill patient.  A recent report entitled, “Crisis in America ’s Churches: Bible Knowledge at All-Time Low”[11] reveals a startling picture of the evangelical church.  Below are some of the findings by George Barna and other researchers as documented in this report:

• The most widely known Bible verse among adult and teen believers is “God helps those who help themselves” – which is not in the Bible.
• Less than one out of every ten believers possesses a biblical worldview as the basis for his or her decision-making or behavior.
• When given thirteen basic teachings from the Bible, only 1% of adult believers firmly embrace all thirteen as being biblical perspectives.
• Of Baptists (of all kinds) only 34% believe Satan is real, 57% believe that good works earn heaven, 45% do not believe that Jesus was sinless and 34% do not believe the Bible is totally accurate.
• Only 32% of “born-again” Christians believes in the existence of absolute moral truth.

Commenting on such beliefs Professor Gary Burge of Wheaton College believes such theological and biblical illiteracy is the result of:

• The failure of the church to transmit what it believes to the next generation.  One of the reasons for this is an overemphasis on personal experience to the exclusion of serious Christian education.
• Many churches have abandoned serious Bible exposition and theological teaching.  Exegesis is becoming a “lost art” in the pulpit.
• Today there is a tremendous influence of nonbiblical philosophies and worldviews on churchgoers.
• Christians have accepted and combined so many ideas from other worldviews and religions that they have created their own faith system.  The average born-again, baptized, churchgoing person has embraced elements of Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Unitarianism and Christian Science – without any idea he has just created his own faith.

It seems to me that those cheerleading for a Christianity devoid of propositional truth and centered around an experiential encounter with Christ should be quite pleased – they have gotten what they want.  Scripture is basically ignored by the average believer who now measures his Christian life by how he feels and what experiences he has encountered.  On the other hand, I am convinced that our Lord is not so pleased.  He designed and commissioned His church to be the “pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), but the church is rapidly becoming a place without truth.  David Wells informs us, “Theology does not fare well in the culture because it is not believed, it does not fare well in the church because it is not wanted.”[12] He goes on to warn, “A church that neither is interested in theology nor has the capacity to think theologically is a church that will be rapidly submerged beneath the wave of modernity [or swallowed up by its culture].”[13]

The roots of this weakened form of Christianity can be found long before the influence of postmodern philosophy.  In an oft’ quoted observation, Michael Saward, surveying the evangelical scene in the 1980s, could say,

This is the disturbing legacy of the 1960s and 1970s.  A generation brought up on guitars, choruses, and home group discussions.  Educated, as one of them put it to me, not to use words with precision because the image is dominant, not the word. Equipped not to handle doctrine but rather to “share.”  A compassionate, caring generation, suspicious of definition and labels, uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle with sustained didactic exposition of theology.  Excellent when it came to providing religious music, drama, and art.  Not so good when asked to preach and teach the Faith.[14]

Where to from Here?

As a result of these past and present influences, the church of Christ is facing an authority crisis.  There has been a steady erosion of confidence in Scripture for several decades cumulating in theological and/or practical elimination of the need for the Bible in our lives.  After all, in a society infatuated  with success—theological understanding, biblical knowledge and even righteous living are no match for fancy buildings, high-powered programs, the finest in entertainment and emotional experiences (no matter what the source).  Very few churches grow numerically today because of solid teaching of the Word.  That is because very few Christians today see the importance of the Word. To them the Bible is much like a musical concert, there to produce an experience, not to transform their lives.  They see no vital connection between Scripture and life.  To know God’s truth is not essential to how they want to live their lives, therefore they have no desire to study the Bible.  This leaves a vacuum that is being filled with mysticism, rituals, entertainment and fun, all in the name of Christ.  Ultimately, however, like the sinkholes in Florida a few years ago, once the faith has been sucked dry spiritually there will eventually be an implosion.  Without a timely recovery of the importance and sufficiency of the Word of God such an implosion is imminent, although it will most likely take the form of a slow degeneration rather than a sudden collapse.  I believe we are witnessing such deterioration even at this moment and yet few believers have noticed – another sign of our spiritual condition.

Our buildings are large, megachurches are prolific and multiplying, our programs are well-funded, the Christian entertainment industry is big business, and church atten dance is still respectable, at least in America .  Outward appearance would reveal a robust evangelical community filled with ministry opportunities and overflowing with life.

But beneath the surface we detect serious concerns.  Two generations of believers have, for the most part, been devoid of sound systematic teaching of the Word.  An appetite for the superficial has been cultivated and few crave solid food.  Biblical discernment is a relic of a bygone era and is viewed with disdain by a people trained to cherish relativism.  Such a situation cannot be long endured by God’s church.  Francis Schaeffer warned in the early ‘70s,

Once we begin to slip over into the other methodology—a failure to hold on to an absolute which can be known by the whole man, including what is logical and rational in him—historic Christianity is destroyed, even if it seems to keep going for a time.  We may not know it, but when this occurs, the marks of death are upon it, and it will soon be one more museum piece.[15]

The Bible Stands

One of my favorite Christian songs is “The Bible Stands.”  Although it is difficult to find in hymn books these days, its message has always encouraged my heart:

The Bible stands like a rock undaunted
‘Mid the raging storms of time;
Its pages burn with the truth eternal,
And they glow with a light sublime.

The Bible stands tho’ the hills may tumble
It will firmly stand when the earth shall crumble;
I will plant my feet on its firm foundation,
For the Bible stands.

The Bible lays out its own claim to authority and power.  Our familiarity with 2 Timothy 3:16-17 should not rob us of its force, “All Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequately equipped for every good work.”  Paul makes a radical assertion that the Scriptures are profitable to identify the true needs and issues in our lives, to correct us, to teach us how we should live and then train us in righteousness.  When the Scriptures have finished their work we will be found adequate and equipped for every good work.  It is no wonder that Paul follows up this declaration of the Bible’s power with a charge to preach the Word (4:2) and to do so while there are still people wanting to hear and respond to its message (4:3-4).  Paul speaks of a window of opportunity that, with the help of hindsight, apparently opens and closes throughout history.  We can observe an opening of the window, for example, during the times of the Reformation and the Evangelical Awakening.  Now we can observe the window of opportunity for the Word, especially in the Western world, rapidly closing.  We urgently need to proclaim God’s truth while some are still willing to listen.

I believe the Word of God has the power to transform our lives and lead us into godliness first and foremost because it makes that claim.  The typical evangelical would likely pronounce a hardy “amen” to the above statement—unless and until the claims of the Scripture run cross-grain to the patterns of his life.  When the authority of the Bible steps into the arena of his career, his personal habits, his psychological concepts, his finances, his marriage and family, his sports, his dealing with conflict, then suddenly the Holy Scripture is considered of no value and eliminated out of hand.  After all, our friend reasons, what does the Bible have to say about such things?  The answer—everything.  Our friend retorts, it is an ancient book full of nice stories and good proverbs, suitable for worship services and funerals, but it has no reasonable bearing on everyday life, does it?  The answer—the Bible, through the power of the Holy Spirit, says it can absolutely transform our lives—every aspect of our lives.

The Holy Spirit in Romans 12:2 indicates that everyone is born with a mind conformed to the world system.  As a result we naturally think and act as one would expect those lacking an understanding of God to think and act.  Upon conversion we become new creatures (2 Cor 5:17) with new capacities to think and act in ways that please God (1 Cor 2:14-16).  But such a transformation is not automatic.  We carry with us into the Christian life the residue of our unregenerate, conformed state.  It is for this reason that the New Testament calls for us to lay aside our former manner of living (Col 3:5-9) and put on the characteristics of our born-from-above nature (Col 3:10-17).  But such a transition will successfully take place only as our minds are renewed ( Col 3:10).  Paul commands us to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Rom 12:2).  Such renewal is possible only as the Word of God penetrates our minds and heart.

The Scriptures then stand ready and able to expose and correct all our former conformity to the world system and its way of interacting with life.  And by the same token they stand ready and able to teach us how to live and to train us in the right path.  When Scripture is viewed in this way it becomes the indispensable power and wisdom of God to direct us in every area of life.  The Word is not just adequate for church services, funerals and occasional pick-me-ups.  It is adequate for every area of our lives from child rearing to job selection to investments to tragedies and loss.  The Bible is every bit at home in the work place, in the hospital, and on the basketball court as it is at a church service.

This becomes obvious when we observe that, immediately following the command to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, Paul launches into application on the most practical of everyday issues.

• Serving one another (Rom 12:3-8).
• Dealing with people (Rom 12:9-13).
• Handling difficult people and conflict (Rom 12:14-21).
• Attitude and behavior in regard to government (Rom 13:1-7).
• Loving one another (Rom 13:8-10)
• Moral behavior (Rom 13:11-14).
• Relating to those who embrace different opinions from ours (Rom 14:1-15:6).

This represents just a sampling of the many areas in which the Scripture brings our thinking into conformity with God’s.  I would venture to say that the Bible speaks to every issue in our lives either directly or through principles.

The article referenced earlier dealing with biblical illiteracy ends with this sour prediction, “Experts do not expect the trend toward biblical illiteracy in churches to change.”

But the prediction is followed up with wise exhortation: “This does not alter, though, the responsibility of church leaders to do all they can do to reverse this dangerous trend…we must try.” [16]

And, by God’s grace, perhaps we will succeed.

[1] Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapid: Zondervan, 2003), p. 84.

[2] For more on postmodernism see my book “This Little Church Stayed Home,” ( Darlington, England : Evangelical Press, 2006): pp. 21-54.

[3] Os Guinness, Time for Truth ( Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), p. 52.

[4] Donald Bloesch, Essentials of Evangelical Theology ( Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2001), p. 275.

[5] Ibid., p. 268.

[6] Brian D. McLaren and Tony Campolo, Adventures in Missing the Point, p .78.

[7] Ibid., p. 77.

[8] Ibid., p. 79.

[9] Ibid., p. 89.

[10] Personal letter from Dr. James Blankenship.

[11] Michael J. Vlach, “Crisis in America ’s Churches: Bible Knowledge at All-Time Low,”http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1573625.htm.

[12] As quoted in Gary L. W. Johnson & Ronald N. Gleason, Reforming or Conforming? “Church and Community or Community and Church?” ( Wheaton: Crossway, 2008), p. 174.

[13] Ibid.

[14] As quoted in Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided ( Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust: 2000), p. 254.

[15] Francis Schaeffer, The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There (Wheaton: Crossway, 1982), p. 47.

[16] Ibid.

Many times in speaking with Emergent folk and those who are part of the great falling away they stress the importance of relationship over the stress on sound doctrine (the stress on sound doctrine is of course the biblical stance).
Here is a great article by my friend and brother in the Lord Paul Proctor.
By Paul Proctor
September 11, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

“Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.” – Luke 6:26

It seems I am receiving a little extra email these days from troubled Christians who have had to give up a church, some friends and/or certain family members in order to remain faithful to God and His Word. I can tell you without hesitation that I certainly have – and on more than one occasion.

No one can lead you down the road of temptation quicker than a close friend, family member or fellow Christian. The downgrading of today’s “Church” along with society has clearly taken its toll on the brethren and is now driving many out the sanctuary doors to preserve their faith in Jesus Christ.

I heard Authority Research founder and director, Dean Gotcher, in a recent radio interview refer to the loneliness that results from the loss of such relationships as the taking up of one’s cross for Christ. When I respond to the heartbreaking email of readers who have had to leave their local church in obedience to God’s Word, I often reply with some empathetic encouragement and a link to a short piece written by A.W. Tozer titled: The Loneliness of the Christian.

For believers new to this column, I realize that the idea of sacrificing treasured relationships, even those we worship with, is probably a stark contrast to what you regularly receive from the pulpit of your local church and the lectern of your weekly Bible study class where most everything these days revolves around establishing, protecting, sustaining and maintaining relationships of all kinds, at all costs – a dangerous notion that is just not biblical.

Advertisement

“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” – Amos 3:3

Simply put, it turns people into church worshippers who revere, embrace and obey the consensus of a congregation with a contrived unity rather than God worshippers who put His Word and Authority far and above the fellowship, opinions, theories, life experiences and personal tastes of well meaning Christians and clergy.

This Religion of Relationships has now all but taken over what is called “Christianity” and ought to be called what it really is: “Churchianity” – the worship of and faith in those who claim to be the “Body of Christ” – especially its leaders who treat their own counsel, conjecture, sermon stories and agendas as equal to or greater than the Word of God.

Those who embrace Churchianity will often respond to a rebuking scripture with: “Yeah, but…” as if to be able to trump it with some greater knowledge, wisdom, anecdote or seemingly contradicting verse from the Bible. This is the ugly arrogance of today’s humanistic spirituality and its self-serving, self-worshipping ways.

When listening to a fellow church member, teacher or preacher talk about the Christian life, how many times have you heard them cite that sacred slogan: “It’s all about relationships?”

Baloney!

It’s about repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and our loving obedience to His Word, whatever may come – a faithfulness that will cost you more relationships than it will ever garner you! Our first love and loyalty is to Him, not our fellow man. That doesn’t mean we don’t take up the towel to wash feet, serve others, sacrifice ourselves and love our neighbor – it simply means they don’t come first in our lives – Jesus Christ does. That’s why we call Him “Lord” and not the brethren.

But, when we place our hope and faith in the redeemed rather than the Redeemer and put the words of men over the Word of God, we become no better than new agers who believe that God is in everyone and in everything – worshipping the creation instead of the Creator and in doing so, make ourselves gods to be praised and exalted with reciprocating adulation and acclaim.

“They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.” – Psalm 12:2

If your Christianity isn’t costing you at least some friends and family, both inside and outside the church house, your hope and faith may have turned horizontal. If your Sunday gatherings have become flattery festivals where people are quoted and praised more than Jesus Christ, you might want to reconsider your church membership. If you have friends and family that hate God, but love you, it might be time to reexamine your witness for Christ and your commitment to Him.

“And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolks, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.” – Luke 21:16-17

Take a sober and discerning look around your church next Sunday and tell me what you see. If it’s all about relationships there, it may be time to hit the door and go find your cross.

“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.” – Matthew 10:33-39

Related articles:

1. The Loneliness of the Christian
2. Authority Research
3. Are You A Church Worshipper?

© 2009 Paul Proctor – All Rights Reserved

If you watch anything this week take the time to watch this-
This was produced by the same folks who filmed and helped produce our Concerned Nazarene DVD
Sincerely in Christ
Tim

http://www.cornerstonemultimedia.net/CCF/guests/032209/mcmahon.htm