The Dangers of "Hip" Christianity

We've all witnessed the piranhas in the tank pushing the church to be "cool" and "hip" and "trendy." Maybe it's time for a rethink on that issue.

Take it from this 27-year-old who writes for the WSJ. He thinks churches had best get back to biblical truth. Being markety and trendy will do nothing in the long run but push young people out the door. The new crop can see right through it.

Emergent Update

Now and then someone forwards me an email with a new website or blog to add to my list of things to check out. Today, I received this 2008 article on the Emergent Church written by Eric Barger.

The article is archived on the website of a ministry called Sharing Biblical Truth. While I haven't had time to go through the whole site, it looks interesting and worthy of bookmarking. I certainly share the concerns about the Emergent Church movement, which some are saying is crumbling. I don't think it's really crumbling at all, it's just morphing into another form. The same errors will be there and will be until Jesus returns for His own.

McLaren Strikes Again

This is posted by permission from Lighthouse Trails Publishing.

by John Lanagan
(free-lance writer and researcher)

In Brian McLaren’s latest book, A New Kind of Christianity, the reader is cordially invited to join the author in a heretical assault upon God and the Bible. Indeed, as McLaren enthusiastically demonstrates, it is not possible to attack one without attacking the other.

Acknowledging the work of fellow emergent travelers such as Phyllis Tickle, Tony Jones, and Doug Pagitt, McLaren tells us “something is trying to be born among those of us who follow Jesus Christ.” (pg.13) In fact, writes McLaren, “what is trying to be born today echoes the Great Reformation in many ways.” (pg.257)

But does McLaren’s paradigm vision really echo the Great Reformation? From the Reformation came the freedom of Sola Scriptura—the Word of God alone. The chains of a false religion were cast off. From the Reformation came men and women who were willing to die for the right to believe and proclaim Truth.

What does McLaren’s “reformation” offer? An errant eschatology. A New Age “christ.” The ascent of homospirituality into the temple. (2 Kings 23: 7) All made possible, of course, through creative misinterpretation of God’s Word. The author has brought us his Great Deformation, a theology that plays to the flesh even while being portrayed as a spiritual journey.

One of the major themes in A New Kind of Christianity, homosexuality, cleverly defines Christians who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle as suffering from “fundasexuality.” (Pg.174-5) However, you are only a “fundasexualist” if you speak out loudly against this sin.

McLaren decrees, “The term does not apply to the quiet, pious, respectful fundamentalism of straightforward, sincere people, but rather to the organizing, angry, dominating fundamentalism that declares war on those who differ.” (pg. 174-5)

In other words, when it comes to homosexuality, a good Christian is a silent Christian.

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” (Isaiah 5:20)

As my wife and I have both repented of this particular sin, it is difficult to comprehend Brian McLaren’s smiley-faced rebellion. But make no mistake: McLaren and others are being used to facilitate homospirituality, which may even assume an elevated, even sacred, status.

Ridiculous? Simply look to the Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians. This is just the beginning. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)

Like Doug Pagitt, Brian McLaren believes Christians are trapped in a “Greco-Roman” understanding of the faith. “Now the god of this Greco-Roman version of the biblical story bears a strange similarity in many ways to Zeus,” he tells us, which “is a far different deity from the Jewish Elohim of Genesis 1…” (pg. 42)

Yet, no matter what name his god is given, you will not find this redesigned deity in the Old or New Testament. The only way to promote the existence of this “god” is to radically change biblical interpretation—which is exactly what the author spends much time and many pages seeking to accomplish. “There will be no new kind of Christian faith without a new approach to the Bible,” he opines, “because we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess with the Bible.” (Pg. 67-68)

In his chapter, ‘What is the Overarching Storyline of the Bible?’ McLaren notes he and others have “dared to tweak” the content of the Word of God. “We might question conventional theories of atonement or the nature and population of hell or whether concepts like original sin or total depravity might need to be modified.” (pg. 35)

McLaren does indeed “modify.” He modifies with a vengeance. Thus this emergent “Jesus” was never sent by the Father to die in our place for our sins. There is no substitutionary atonement. There is no original sin.

The Bible tells us, “I cried with my whole heart; hear me, O Lord: I will keep thy statutes.” (Psalm 119: 145)

McLaren believes traditional understanding of the Word of God has made Christians a nasty, dominant bunch. We apparently have difficulty with religious pluralism because of this flawed understanding. On top of that, Christians “currently control most of the world’s wealth, consume most of the world’s resources, produce most of the world’s waste, and sell and use most of the world’s weapons.” (Pg.215)

As in his other books, in A New Kind of Christianity McLaren exhibits his ability and talent to write well and draw readers with his conversational tone, seemingly measured, with humorous comments sprinkled in here and there. He gives the impression of allowing much room to disagree with him. He invites us on a journey, which he portrays as part of the natural “evolution” of Christianity.

“The old paradigm falls away behind us like a point of departure, and we are won over to new possibilities, caught up in a new way of seeing, looking toward a new and wide horizon.” (Pg.30) But since the author does not comprehend the Bible (1 Corinthians 2:14), what practices does he engage in to gain wisdom and knowledge?

Interestingly, McLaren identifies himself as a “contemplative/reflexive.” (pg. 226) He writes, “In the tradition of Julian of Norwich and St. Teresa of Avila and all the other mystics, we can learn to render ourselves vulnerable to the “favors of God”—those indescribable experiences that mock our dualisms and so saturate our imagination with abundance that they transcend our ability to convey joy and wonder. In the tradition of St. John of the Cross, we can learn to survive and derive benefits from the soul’s dark night.” (pg. 227) Like most leading figures in the emergent movement, McLaren advocates contemplative spirituality.

A New Kind of Christianity will serve as a lure for Bible-illiterate Christians. For believers who know the Word of God, McLaren’s heresy will sadden and astound. His book is aimed at the young, and at people who have perhaps grown up in households with little or no faith. It is aimed at the unsaved and the uncertain. It is for the disappointed and disenchanted, and for people who simply know no better. If you have a gripe against God or His people, this book will lick your wounds. But what this book will not do is provide any measure of godly hope and biblical virtue.

My View of the Emergent Church

When taking up a subject such as the Emergent Church (EC) movement, great care is needed. By now, most reasonably informed Christians have heard of the EC phenomenon within evangelicalism. It's been written about and discussed widely, and some even think it's on the wane. I personally think it will just morph into a new form, but that's another subject.

Few subjects in recent years have excited as much controversy, or dare I say, conversation. I personally have some key theological, biblical and doctrinal concerns about this movement that dislikes being called a movement. Other Christian leaders and theologians have expressed concerns both in print and the blogosphere. I hope to reinforce concerns that have been expressed, as well as make it clear to the proponents of EC (on the extreme end) that these concerns are not going to go away despite a concerted effort to squelch criticism.

To their credit, some EC supporters, pastors and authors have appeared to take the concerns raised very seriously and have called their followers not to abandon biblical doctrine in a well-intentioned effort to reach postmoderns for Christ. Sadly, others have been disdainfully dismissive of any criticism. Some ignore it outright while others respond in answering questions in a purposefully vague, imprecise fashion. To the committed postmodern, this is the standard MO.

The first thing I want to do is highlight some "givens." The EC is NOT monolithic. They do not all agree on every plank given in related authors' books, church programs etc. There are those that lean toward the conservative end of theology, while others such as Brian McLaren are on the other end. In fact, some theologians I respect highly have called McLaren an outright heretic. Frequently, those in the EC often rightly identify problems within evangelicalism that need to be addressed, then proceed to take the wrong approach to deal with these problems. While much of their language is couched in "niceness" - if you read between the lines, the things they say about evangelicalism and evangelicals are little short of a kick in the groin. One example..the call to "authentic" worship. Am I to assume from this that my worship, and that of other evangelicals, is NOT authentic? Some EC authors confuse the issue of "proof texting." This is a common tactic cults such as the Jehovah's Witnesses use, taking Bible verses out of context to "prove" one of their doctrinal aberrations. This is a FAR cry from citing biblical authority on core doctrine and orthopraxis. I remember reading somewhere that some EC authors/pastors say they get nauseated when someone quotes the Bible to them. Hmmm. I imagine Satan got a little queasy when Jesus kept saying "It is written" to Ol' Slewfoot's temptations. Think about it.

The following are eight key areas where I think the extremes of the EC have problems, protest though they may. I wish to commend my colleague and fellow Evangelical Free Church member Rev. Joe Whitchurch for reminding me of the eighth area after I had come up with my original list of seven. Phil Johnson of Grace to You has done excellent work in evaluating this subject, and I have drawn from his material along with my own thoughts. Anyway, here are the problematic areas:

1. A Low View of Epistemology

2. A Low View of Scripture and Scriptural authority

3. A Low View of the Reformation

4. A Low View of the Doctrines of Grace

5. A Low View of Eschatology

6. A Low or Distorted View of Apologetics

7. A Low View of the Biblical Gospel

8. A Low View of Biblical Ecclesiology

One note of caution. I do not accept the insistence of some in the EC that one must follow Matthew 18 in dealing with them, especially with those whose writings and electronic communications are widely disseminated. They seem to think that one must visit each EC service, talk to each EC author ad infinitum (and ad nauseum) before you dare comment on the subject. Ridiculous, of course. If they can't defend their writings and public teachings to criticism, then they had best not publish. Public error must be corrected publicly, as the Apostle Paul did with the Apostle Peter. Matthew 18 does not apply in this situation as we are not dealing with personal offenses or sins. It's doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!

Biblical Theology, Debate and Balance

As is the case in any generation of Christians, there are issues that arise and trigger significant debate. In recent years, we've seen the Emergent Church/postmodernism debate, the Open Theism debate, a renewed "Battle for the Bible" to quote the late Dr. Harold Lindsell, the debate over the seeker-sensitive church model, and the list goes on. While we are not quite at the stage where a modern day Martin Luther is being hauled off to the Wartburg to escape Duke George and Pope Leo, the battle over theology is again getting quite intense.

It should be no surprise that this would happen. Scripture is replete with warnings about the last days and deception. The Lord Jesus Himself asked the question, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8). The picture painted by the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy is severe, marking out especially for condemnation those who "have a form of godliness, but deny its power." I think it is safe to say that, while Revelation speaks of a multitude that no man can number, this number - as vast as it apparently will be - is but a remnant of those who could have been saved. I believe Scripture also makes it clear that the Lord expects those who name Him as Savior to be faithful to His Word. "If you love Me, keep my commandments."

As of yet, I haven't said a whole lot about the debate in the Evangelical Free Church about our doctrinal statement, especially in reference to eschatology. But what little I have said has been pretty stark. In essence, I would have preferred it to be left as it was. I am thankful that the most recent change left premillennialism in there, but as has been pointed out, the argument isn't over. Both sides are keeping their powder dry for a future revisiting of the issue.

The EFCA has historically been a premillennial, largely dispensational fellowship. A change was made back in the 1970s to reflect other understandings of the word "imminence" in a historic premillennial sense. The changes that some wanted to introduce appeared to me to allow for amillennialism and other eschatological ideas. All of this rather confirms a long-standing belief of mine. I seldom see doctrinal statements strengthened by changes. Almost always, they get watered down. The EFCA was formed to stand for something. There are numerous other fellowships out there having amillennial views on eschatology. It's hard for me to understand or appreciate people coming in from the outside and then agitating for change. I would assume they knew of our fellowship's stance on eschatology before they became members. There are plenty of amillennial churches out there. Why cause a ruckus with us?

I know also that there are probably people who have always been E-Free, but their theological views have altered with time. I'll address that in a moment.

Lest I get chastised for it later, I should qualify the above with the following. I am not suggesting that one's stance on eschatology should be a test of fellowship unless the physical return of Jesus to earth is denied. I have friends who are amillennial whom I respect very much and their core theology is solid, despite my disagreement on that particular matter. What I AM suggesting is that we ought not try to force a fellowship to abandon its doctrinal statement or distinctives because we might happen to hold a different view. If it gets that bad, it's better to find a fellowship more in line with what you think. And most certainly, a pastor should not obtain or maintain credentials under false conditions. I am sorry to say that I have seen that happen in the past within my own circle of acquaintance (thankfully in another denomination, not the E-Free).

And that leads me to comment briefly on that issue, because it's bothered me for a long time. In many denominations, a pastor must reaffirm the doctrinal position of his denomination to remain in good standing with his credentials. I have seen it on more than one occasion that the pastor actually no longer holds to some of the doctrinal distinctives of his fellowship, but when it's renewal time, "nudge nudge..wink wink..say no more, say no more." This is dishonest and lacking in integrity. If you can't sign on to your fellowship's doctrinal statement, it's time to move on. But no, it seems some would rather engage in what amounts to a surreptitious campaign to change the doctrine of the fellowship in question while supposedly pledging to uphold it. Scripture says "let your yes be yes and your no be no."

In other cases, I think we've all seen rather high profile "pastors" (Bishop Spong anyone?) who plainly deny core orthodoxy, yet their fellowships do nothing to discipline or defrock them. I've seen in the past where Robert Schuller was questioned over some of the ridiculous statements he's made in his books, but all he'd do would be to wave a Reformed Church doctrinal statement at the interviewer or the camera and insist that's what he believed. He never would answer the questions.

Until recently, we have been spared (at least to my knowledge) battles over serious doctrinal error in the E-Free, that is until the Emergent Church nonsense began having an impact on us. As time marches on to its denouement, the struggle over fealty to the Lord and to Scripture will only grow more pronounced. I would like to see us throw out all the best sellers we're buying with the latest pop theology, and get back to the time tested, proven Word of God. A biblical theology is a balanced theology, and is the best guarantee for the church having the impact on the culture.

The Emergent Church and Scripture

Sola’s note: This article was written in 2006, but has been updated and revised for today’s post.

The Emergent/Postmodern movement has impacted many churches and denominations across the United States. The Evangelical Free Church has not been immune, with congregations impacted, and even split, over this “new kind of Christianity.” In the best sense (if there is one), the idea is to reach a postmodern generation with the Gospel in ways they can understand. In the worst sense, the churches themselves adopt a postmodern mindset and philosophy toward truth.

I have little use for postmodernism, and even less use for the Emergent Church philosophy. My concerns are many, but I’ll only discuss one here today — mainly the low view of Scripture that many adherents of the EC seem to have. I say "seem" to have because one is never really certain of what they really think. Certainty is, after all, anathema to a postmodern. (Okay, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek).

I had mulled over several approaches to this until EC leader Brian McLaren lobbed a water balloon filled with limberger cheese into the blogosphere - his suggestion a few years ago at the Leadership Journal blog that Christian pastors, leaders, theologians etc. put a five year moratorium on making comments about homosexuality until we can figure out what we think about it. McLaren’s blog entry, of course, unleashed a firestorm. When I read his initial statement, I was aghast. Then, when I read his response to those who have rightly taken him to the woodshed, I was even more aghast. But for my purposes at least, it couldn't have come at a better time as it illustrated beautifully the point I wanted to make about the EC and God's Word.

The worst of the EC and those who embrace the postmodern mindset love to throw all sorts of ambiguity and doubt into any crystal clear, unambiguous assertion one might make. While Brian and others in the EC might not know what to think about this issue, God's Word leaves no such doubts as to what God Himself thinks. Deuteronomy 18:22 sets God's view bluntly. "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination (tow 'ebah or to 'ebah in the Hebrew). Abomination is defined as a "disgusting thing" in a ritual sense as well as in an ethical sense. Far from this merely being an Old Testament/Torah prohibition, strictures against this type of behavior are also found in Romans chapter 1 and other New Testament locations.

Only in the postmodern mind can these Scriptures somehow be interpreted other than their plain meaning. Wishful thinking, maybe. You really have to either redefine them or reject them outright. But we are not to look at God's Word through a postmodern prism. Scripture makes it very clear that God will not grade on the curve when it comes to His Word. People can blind themselves through their own stubbornness and rebellion. Having done so, they will not be excused for their blindness and stubbornness.

We need to understand the ramifications of this as it goes beyond the issue of homosexuality. To not believe God's Word is to not believe God Himself. What is the opposite of "Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?" If Abraham had not believed God, it would have been reckoned to him as unrighteousness. What does Scripture tell us of those who do not believe? It tells us they are condemned already. If we can't believe what God said about human sexuality, how can we believe what He said about how one is made right before Him? How can we believe the Gospel, by which we are saved (1 Corinthians 15)?

We had best stop playing eeny meeny miney moe with the Bible. And before someone attempts to throw it at me (Brian tried this argument in his response post), don't bother telling me that we don't stone people to death any more for violations of Mosaic law. I learned in Sunday school class as a child the differences between the Old Covenant and New Covenant, as well as the differences between ceremonial and moral law. When the EC or other liberal theologians try this, understand that it is merely a smokescreen designed to throw people into a thousand bunny trails away from the key issue being discussed. If a pastor is uninformed about the differences between the Law of Moses and the New Covenant, then he has no business wearing his clerical collar and Birkenstocks. Unless his obfuscation is intentional, which makes it all the more repugnant.

I am thankful to Professor D.A. Carson, Dr. David Hesselgrave, Rev. Kevin S. Johnson and others for their labors in raising concerns about the Emergent Church. I am deeply troubled that EFCA congregations — some of them fairly large churches — are so enthralled with it. I have some ideas on the underlying reasons churches fall into fads and traps such as these. I’ll talk about those reasons in my next post.