Please know that my first responsibility is to my seminary studies; at the same time, please also pray that what I share with you here would be a fruit of and an overflow from the countless hours I spend reading the Scriptures and books on theology.

Emerging Missional Fallacies

On that note, I am excited to write to you concerning the Emerging Church and postmodern theology! In this opening half of the year, I will share with you how I came into contact with Emerging theology and the things that have led me to confront evangelical accommodation in today’s postmodern culture. Although I was very eager to write to you about the beliefs of Emerging churches, I found it necessary to write appealing to Emerging pastors to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.

For there are certain pastors who have crept unnoticed into the church that are reading their own personal desired interpretation and ideas into the Bible’s text, ideas that are not necessarily extra-biblical but rather extra-textual to the passage preached on. These usually result from careless exegetical fallacies that remove the text from its original context¹. More specifically, I am concerned about ordained ministers of God’s Word are eisegeting an Emerging missional ecclesiology into the New Testament – where as 2000 years of biblical scholarship have found no explicit “missional” meanings in such passages whatsoever.

Since such exegetical fallacies are being performed by postmodern pastor-communicators who have been trained at evangelical seminaries and ordained by evangelical denominations, I am thus very disappointed at the failure of these teachers to rightly handle God’s Word. I am very fearful that our seminaries and denominational entities are neglecting their duty to train and discipline ministers who are not rightly handling the word of truth.

While I am only a first-year seminarian, I fear I may be stepping on the toes of spiritual giants who are much more well-read than me. However, as a man “of sincerity, as commissioned by God, in the sight of God”—I must speak in Christ (2 Cor 2:17). While such pastor-communicators may disregard doctrine as unimportant to the regular Christian as long as he just believes in Jesus Christ, I am not ashamed to say that I believe that doctrine is very, very, very important. For only through the Word of God can “the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3:17). Therefore, it is of utmost importance that ministers of God’s Word keep a close watch on themselves and their teaching (1 Tim 4:16). If we are not careful but sloppy in our handling of God’s Word, the blood of the sheep will be on our hands.

Called to be Missional?

The example of an emerging missional fallacy I am responding to is in a postmodern exegesis of Ephesians 4, and to be exact verse 1:

1 I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Ephesians 4:1-7, ESV

Without providing the historical context nor the occasion for which Paul writes these letters, I recently heard one Emerging pastor describe the “calling” that we are “called” to actually has two meanings, namely a “double calling” of sorts. The pastor said that we are called to be Christians, and additionally, to do something. The calling to which Paul referred to, in which we must walk, and that very something we are are “to do” had thus been exegeted as “a calling to be missional”. ‘The consequence of being missional (whatever this means) is being an incarnational community’ (whatever this means), the speaker said (my paraphrase).

What is wrong with this deconstructive exegesis?

Firstly, I am not saying that the concept of being a missional Christian or an incarnational community is absent from Ephesians. From a careful study of the text in its literary context, it can certainly be an implication, and maybe even an important significance of the letter².

Secondly, I am not against the concept of missional living –- when it is described biblically as being a missionary of the Gospel of Jesus Christ wherever we are, whatever we are doing. After all, I am very supportive of The Resurgence missional initiative, as well as the missional/church-planting work of Pastors Mark Driscoll and Timothy Keller. However, I am saying that a careful grammatical-historical exegesis of such passages like Ephesians 4:1 can not possibly result in a “double calling”. When Paul wrote “calling”, he meant one thing – that is, one calling that the Ephesians have been called to. Therefore, to say explicitly in a sermon (or “conversation”) that the word “calling / called” that Paul used is simply to employ a blatant word fallacy³. Such is at the least misleading, if not a complete misreading of the text.

A Small but Important Distinction

While one may argue that missional living and incarnational community could possibly be a point of this text, it is more likely that such is an application from and subsequent result of being a “called” person of God. And while I do not want this article to be entirely exegetical, we must us take a brief look at the underlying Greek text of Eph 4:1.

παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ ὁ δέσμιος ἐν κυρίῳ ἀξίως περιπατῆσαι (peripatesai – Aorist Active Infinitive: to walk up and down, to walk about) τῆς κλήσεως (kleseos – Genitive Singular Feminine: a calling, call) ἧς ἐκλήθητε (eklethete – 2nd Person Plural, Aorist Passive Indicative: to call, summon).

All that is to say that the Ephesians should live in a manner that is worthy of the calling which they have already received. For since God’s love is so great, since his salvation is so powerful, and because God has already granted such reconciliation, we then should live accordingly. We should value God’s love enough that our lives be shaped by it.

The question inevitably is then, what is this “calling” (κλήσεως) with which we have been “called” (ἐκλήθητε)? What have the Ephesians been called to? What does the text actually say?

O’Brien appropriately notes that this admonition “arises out of the gracious, saving purposes of God (cf. 2 Cor 5:20), which ahs been presented in the first three chapters” (274, PNTC). “This appeal is grounded in the ‘indicatives’ of God’s saving work in Christ.” Notice the conjunction “therefore” (οὖν) at the beginning of verse 1. Hence, the calling refers to the Holy Spirit’s prompting that caused the Christians in Ephesus to believe in the first place. The author is thus urging his readers to live a life that conforms to their saved status before God. As is evident elsewhere in Paul’s letters, the Apostle’s use of “calling” refers to God’s choosing and election of some to salvation, “God’s drawing of men and women into fellowship with his Son through the preaching of the gospel” (275, PNTC).

A Life that Conforms to their Saved Status.

This is where the idea of missional living may come in to play in the text as the manner to which we ought to live. As we read on in the chapter, Paul speaks specifically of bearing with one another in love, humility, gentleness, patience, and maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace – characteristics of those who have been called by God. I do concede that being God’s chosen, “‘dedicated ones’ and messengers of his gospel, should transform every part of life. It involves the obligation to live in a manner that is in accordance with the name of him whose they are and whom they serve (Phil 1:29)” (Foulkes, TNTC, 116). Having been called into the purity and unity of the one body of Christ, we therefore have a divinely ordained responsibility in God’s purposes for the world.

All that is to say that such is the desired result of Paul’s double emphasis on election. Believers should live according to the manner in which they have been called – because God’s love is so great, and His salvation so powerful, and that He has granted us reconciliation. For God loves us in this way – by giving us His Son and calling us to receive Him by faith (John 3:16)! We should cherish God’s love for us to the point that we are shaped by it; subjects of the love of the King ought to love those seemingly unlovable ones. Klyne Snodgrass rightly draws out an important implication: “ ‘calling’ is used of the salvation and responsibility of every Christian, not of the ‘professional ministry’ or an elite group. This one call is for all Christians to live in accord with what God has done” (NIVAC, 196).

In application of verse 2, it would be appropriate to apply this in terms of living missionally and being the hands and feet of Christ to our neighbors. However, a careful exegesis of the text cannot have that as the goal of being called. Again, O’Brien correctly notes (276, PNTC) that the imperatives of verse 1 leads to two prepositions in verse 2 (with all humility and gentleness, with patience) and followed by two participial clauses which act as imperatives (“bearing with one another in love” and “eager to main the unity”). It is more than clear that these admonitions draw us toward the goal that we must aim for – preserving the unity (verse 3). We are clearly being called to cultivate the graces of humility, gentleness and patience, all of which are seen perfectly in the life of Christ, all of which are to lead us towards unity in the body of Christ.

Concerning this unity, Chrysostom puts it nicely:

“In the body it is the living spirit that holds all members together, even when they are far apart. So it is here. The purpose for which the Spirit was given was to bring into unity all who remain separated by different ethnic and cultural divisions: young and old, rich and poor, women and men.”

(Homily on Ephesians 9.4.1-3)

Conclusion

In conclusion, I hope it is clearly evident that whenever pastor-teachers preach God’s Word, we must not neglect the careful study and exegesis of the Scriptures in its original context in order to discern the meaning of the inspired words to its original audience. The implications of that meaning will only have power to save souls and transform lives when it is explained within the literary and historical context of the biblical passage, and the implication of God’s Word will only have its desired effect when its significance is rightly related and applied to the modern reader.

God’s Word is neutered of its power when a preacher falsely asserts that a biblical author meant two things in one word, when a proper grammatical-historical exegesis certainly proves otherwise. Once the semantics, cultural distance, context and genre of the Scriptures are studied carefully through proper exegesis, the resulting theological interpretation may then show itself to thoroughly grounded in the Bible and thus the core meaning of the text can be unleashed from the Scriptures. If today’s postmodern communicators can grasp the import of such methods of biblical studies –- and apply it -– I am sure we can arrive at a post-Emerging hermeneutic where the meaning of Scripture in its original context is applicable to all post-whatever communities.

1. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996
2. Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. pp. 37-46
3. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, pp.27-64

Thus, I find it necessary to post the following quote concerning spirituality and sexuality, from Doug Pagitt in Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, Chapter 4: The Emerging Church and Embodied Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), page 140:

“The question of humanity is inexorably linked to sexuality and gender. Issues of sexuality can be among the most complex and convoluted we need to deal with. It seems to me that the theology of our history does not deal sufficiently with the issues of our day. I do not mean this as critique of past times, but as an acknowledgment that our times are different. I do not mean that we are a more or less sexual culture, but one that knows more about the genetic, social, and cultural issues surrounding sexuality and gender than any previous culture.

Christianity will be impotent to lead a conversation on sexuality and gender if we do not boldly integrate our current understanding of humanity with our theology. This will require us to not only draw new conclusions about sexuality, but will force us to consider new ways of being sexual. For sexuality is not separate from our spirituality. If we have a theology formed in a worldview that sees sexuality as sin, our means, intentions, and explanations of sexuality will be affected. We must engage our entire humanity in our spirituality; this includes our sexuality.”

Mark Driscoll (Pastor of Mars Hill Church - Seattle, WA), concerning the underlined quote responds at the SEBTS Convergent Conference with this stark but direct comment:

“I don’t know about you, I’ve been in ministry a while, I think we’ve tried all of it! I don’t think there’s anything new. I don’t know about your counseling load, I can’t possibly conceive of another way to have sex that someone hasn’t already tried!“

Ahhh! Amen, Pastor Mark, so very true! Further, it is appears that Pagitt actually misunderstands the Bible’s theology about the kind of sexuality that’s formed by a Christian worldview. Scripture does not see all sexuality as sin, but simply any sexuality that is outside of God’s ordained use — for biblically, it is only within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman that any sexual behavior is biblically acceptable. Let us be clear where God’s Word has been clear: all homosexual sexual behavior is sin; all heterosexual sexual behavior outside of marriage is sin; all sexual lust is sin (Genesis 18-19; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Matthew 5:28,15:19-20; Mark 7:20-23; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10; Hebrews 13:4).

My heart breaks as Emergent cult leaders, like Doug Pagitt and friends, make Scripture out to be unclear and non-authoritative, when the Bible is explicitly and authoritatively clear about those ways of being sexual that are acceptable to God. Any new questions that may arise out of today’s postmodern contexts must find their answers in Scripture and nowhere else. We certainly need a theology that can not only answer questions produced in this world, but one that that is equipped to generate proper questions — a Christian theology, not a man-centered sex-crazed pagan theology.

And the questions generated by our Christian theology should not ever be, “Has God really said..?”

Shortly after our discussion, I felt it would be timely and appropriate to post this quote which contains a theology that is oh so popular and attractive to today’s post-everything generation. Much can be said about the quote below, but I’ll try to share it as is without much commentary so that the message that is preached about embodied theology could be as clear as mud.

I have posted the quote in its entirety, including the paragraphs prior to and after the sentence that Mark Driscoll recently quoted at the Convergent Conference at SEBTS.

Driscoll contends, “If you read Romans 1, this is by definition paganism and idolatry…”

When we come to grips with the idea that the world is not made of little hard pieces of substance behaving in determined ways, and that the light exists as both wave and particle, and that it is impossible not to affect the world by living in it, we should be encouraged in our theology.

The idea that, at the smallest level, all matter is made of energy packets and not “little hard balls of matter” is a fascinating notion that requires not only different theological conclusions but different assumptions. The idea that there is a necessary distinction of matter from spirit, or creation from creator, is being reconsidered. This notion that the difference in waves and particles is not what we assumed allows us to understand the engagement of God in the world and the interrelationality of Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and creation in new and more helpful ways. We are allowed and encouraged to have an understanding that includes creation in the kingdom of God.

I contend there to be no better religious understanding of this world than Christianity. Christianity is ideally suited for our understanding. The presuppositions of Christianity and these discoveries of the “quantum” world will well inform one another.”

Doug Pagitt. Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches, Chapter 4: The Emerging Church and Embodied Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007), 142.

You recently preached a sermon called “God wants to save Christians from hell.” I was discussing the message with a guy who after hearing this message was a bit disturbed and somehow came to the conclusion that you didn’t believe in a literal hell. Let me ask you, do you believe in a literal hell that is defined simply as eternal separation from God?

Well, there are people now who are seriously separated from God. So I would assume that God will leave room for people to say “no I don’t want any part of this”. My question would be, does grace win or is the human heart stronger than God’s love or grace. Who wins, does darkness and sin and hardness of heart win or does God’s love and grace win?

I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that.

Especially when so many fail to recognize the hell that many people are experiencing today and do little about it.

Yeah, I would think it would be your duty as a Christian to hope and long and pray for somehow everybody to be reconciled to God. If you are really serious about evangelism, as I’m sure you friend would claim, and you wanted to save people from hell, then wouldn’t your hope be that everybody reconciles with God? Why would you hope for anything else? It would be your duty to long for that. I would actually ask questions about his salvation.

It is very disheartening to hear a supposed “pastor” to say this.

(HT: seeing clearly/Dave Marriott)

Just because a book is labeled as “Christian” and sold in a Christian bookstore does not ever mean it fully bears the marks of true, Christianity — the historic, Christian orthodoxy kind.

In Soul Cravings, McManus has thrown out the doctrine of original sin, human depravity, and completely missed the mark at trying to share the Gospel with non-Christians through this bok — a half-Gospel masquerading as the whole Gospel that has become a complete un-Gospel (along the lines of J.I. Packer’s vernacular).

Jonathan Leeman, director of communications for 9Marks and PhD student at Southern Seminary writes an open letter to McManus in review of “Soul Cravings” — calling the cultural architect to write a book for non-Christians that gets the gospel right.

In other words, beholding God’s grand expression of love on the cross should change us as it shows us how loving God really is. Well, that’s true to a point. But you still haven’t told the non-believer what exactly he’s beholding on the cross. He is, in fact, beholding the Son of God taking upon himself the wrath of God for the sins of all who repent and believe. That picture is amazing. But it’s more. It’s actually doing something, like paying for sin.

Are you beginning to see why I was surprised to find an affirmation of the 2000 Baptist Faith & Message? It affirms original sin, God’s holiness and wrath, penal substitution, and a strong conception of repentance in conversion. I trust that you affirm those things. But I fear that your practice, at least in this book, rests on an altogether different theology. By calling me to look for God in my heart’s longings for intimacy, destiny, and meaning, you’re calling me back to all the old idols of my college years. You’re calling me back to a worldview embedded in today’s secular culture. You’re calling me, in the language of Feuerbach, to project my own subjective essence into the world outside myself and to objectify it as God (cf. Is. 44:13-17; Ps. 115:4-8).

In so far as I can tell, our dear Pastor of Mosaic is a disgrace to be affiliated with the SBC — pretending to uphold the Baptist Faith & Message when certainly Soul Cravings proves that what he teaches does not. I cannot recommend his work to Christians who lack solid discernment, let alone non-Christians who cannot tell the difference between a sheep and a wolf.

With that said, I must refute the premise of that entire article/book chapter: people are not worth dying for. This may be off topic and out of context from the chapter’s main point, but I must lovingly contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to His saints.

Our theology of love, death, sacrifice and giving becomes awfully skewed when we think that we are worthy of Christ’s sufferings and sacrifice, when we consider ourselves worthy for somebody to risk their lives to save us from a falling/burning building, when we feel we deserve somebody to get something from somebody. Our understanding of God becomes twisted towards apostasy and heresy when we think we are worthy of the Lord submitting to the Father’s wrath in our place.

We don’t deserve God crushing His one and only begotten son, our Lord Jesus Christ. We do not deserve to have our sins to taken off our shoulders and onto Jesus. We are completely and utterly unworthy of God’s atoning sacrifice (or anybody else’s for that matter). Whenever somebody comes along and tells you that you are worth dying for, run and hide and shut your ears from hearing the man-centered gospel of human merit.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. 11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Romans 5:6-11

I have nothing personal against Rob Bell, but here, I am personally offended by his comments that I am worthy of God (or you) dying for me. Because I am not worthy; I have no value that would make such an investment profitable. Mark Driscoll at the 2006 DG National Conference mentioned this skewed analogy that he heard on Christian radio… a radio evangelist saying that the Gospel is like investment banking: God investing in us, taking a risk, in hopes of having a great Return on Investment in the end.

However, when we carefully consider the logic of this analogy, we’ll find that it is incorrect and severely flawed–because we are the worst investment that God could ever make (if he were to make such an investment), for there will not be any ROI from us. We are sinners who will more than likely continue to sin, without any shadow of a doubt. A sacrifice is a sacrifice because you would never, ever get anything in return–a giving without receiving. “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” (1 John 4:10) The essence of agape is sacrificicial giving, for the receiver is indeed radically unworthy of the gift of love.

We will never be made right with God, righteous in His eyes, by our own trying to be godly. For by ourselves and apart from the Spirit, we are ungodly and unrighteous. We cannot be justified by striving to become a worthy person; we can only be justified by faith in Christ’s atoning blood.

“I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?”
1 Corinthians 4:6-7

That’s the truth, and that’s the Gospel–the good news of Jesus Christ. We have NOTHING that we did not receive, and we should not be boasting as if we earned it by our own efforts. Everything that we do have is by grace; all things in life that we possess, including life itself, is an unmerited gift from God given freely to us. What more is that in our hearts there are sinful tendencies, desires, and dispositions with which we are all born into (”original sin”), and consequently, morally ruined characters which we inherited. Like fools who say there is no God, we are–in and of ourselves–corrupt and abominable in our deeds. Just as the Psalmist said, “there is none who does good“ ( Psalm 14:1).

When we zoom out and take a long, hard at our lives, that is the very the doctrine of sin that is directly connected with the doctrine of salvation and sactification. For Adam’s sins are credited to us and thus we are deserving of the same punishment that was due for his sins; we are guilty of his rebellion as well. Without us sinning ourselves, this “imputed sin” still ruins of our standing before God. Together with original sin, it places us under the holy and righteous judgment of God: sinners in the hands of an angry God–not worthy to be loved, but worthy of His furious wrath, eternal separation from God and everlasting torment in a lake of fire.

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Romans 5:12-14

But praise be to God for being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which HE loved us. Even when we were dead in our trespasses, deserving of nothing but everlasting death, He made us alive together with Christ, and thus by grace we have been saved. In our unworthiness, He gave us what we did not deserve (=grace) and withheld that which we did (=mercy), hence imputing to us the hope of glory–an assurance that one day, we will stand before the Judge of all and have Him smile at us as His holy and faithful ones.

I suppose this is why I strive to preach the Gospel to myself everyday, because I know I am totally unworthy of His loving kindness and forbearance. When friends come to me with their sorrows and sadness seeking spiritual guidance from me, the only thing I know how to do is to retell the Gospel story. I pray for them, and tell them that even with their inherent value as the image of God, inherent also is our sinful nature and thus the subsequent need for redemption in Christ by faith in His grace. That is all I know. I often think I know my life is from Divine accomplishment and not human achievement… but honestly, if I truly embraced Sovereign grace then Satan wouldn’t be able to drag me down in self-pity.

And so, it is the only thing I can do to keep me afloat every day–to count myself as dead to sin and alive to Christ. Because more than often, Satan’s schemes causes me to forget.

“YOU are WORTHY to be praised, forever and a day!“

See his recommended reading list: do you see anything wrong with what’s listed?

Or…how about his view of salvation? Concerning ‘very good Buddhists’ and their destiny… and explaining Romans 2:6-10:

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that? I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.”

(From Apologetics in Action, emphasis mine)

And somebody please explain to me why he is on “a quiet quest to subvert nominal Christianity“!?!

What else? In the same September 2006 issue of Christianity Today (which is about how Calvinism/Reformed theology is making a comeback in the church)… I am very disappointed that the president of Calvin Theological Seminary has agreed with Willard that sanctification is NOT by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone:

It’s important to see that this program of renewal has nothing to do with “works righteousness” as the Reformers used that term. In the wonderful world of Willard’s theology of Christian living, justification is still entirely by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. But sanctification is another story. Mortification of the old self and vivification of the new one take not only God’s gift, but also our effort. No theologian should try to get us off the hook here. Patience, for example, is not only a fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5; it’s also our calling in Colossians 3. And nobody ever became patient without the daily exercise of self-control, especially in the left lane behind a poky driver.

This synergistic theology makes me sick–apparently God’s grace wasn’t enough to really set us free and empower us to live a life of holiness that glorifies Him… it seems Willard believes we really need to put our effort into it! That’s just apostasy.

As far as the content of what I try to present is concerned it focuses on the gospel of the kingdom of God and becoming a disciple of Jesus in the kingdom of God. SO it doesn’t merely have an emphasis on the forgiveness of sins and assurance of heaven as you are apt to find in most evangelical circles. I think that is vital but it is not the whole story. The issue is whole life, other issues are subordinate to that. After all Jesus said, “I came that you might have life to the full,” which is more than life beyond death.

I think what Willard means is that sanctification is more important than justification… that forgiveness of sin and the assurance of eternal life is subordinate to the issue of the “whole life”. ~sighs~ Anybody agree with this guy??!

For many of you reading my post here, you’re probably thinking–”what in the world are you talking about?” I’m talking about the confrontation between people within the church as we know it, and how there’s a significant shift taking place today in some segments of evangelicalism. These people within these segments of Christianity are trying to reach our postmodern culture with the the Message of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God–which is a good and Biblical mission that we should all have. However, in the process of doing so, they are accommodating (/changing/reforming) the entire message itself to suit the times and culture; they have tried to contextualize the Gospel message to be appealing to seekers but have gone so far as compromising truth itself.

My post here isn’t intended to be too in-depth, but just to tell you about the struggle I am facing as a Christian and as one who has been called on by God to “fight the good fight of the faith” and to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints“. I feel very alone in this fight here in Toronto where I live out my faith… I feel like very few people actually know what I am talking about, or even see the shift in the way church is being done; most brothers and sisters in Christ I know don’t even care about such issues (of ecclesiology, missiology, and epistemology). (As you can see, using big church words like I just did quickly puts people off! LOL)

Why do I care so much about this stuff? I don’t know exactly, but from what I can tell, it’s all the Holy Spirit’s working. Over the years from serving in church and fellowship, leading worship… I’ve developed an intensive and extensive passion for the glory of God, and how worship is the fuel for mission’s flame and the heart of its aim. I care because God cares, and He wants me to care… Christ suffered, and bled and died and gave Himself up for the church, and thus it is the most precious thing on this earth. As Christ loves the church and calls me to be an imitator of Him, so too I must love and care for it as He does.

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound…” (Isaiah 61:1, ESV)

On most days, I wake up not wanting to care about all these issues… because it is such a huge burden to think and wrestle about. To just be a regular Joe who follows Christ and to deal with this stuff day in and day out is one thing; to be called to do something about it (& help others in this) is a complete massively mind numbing thing altogether.

Nevertheless, the fact is, things are changing… the goal is honourable, but what’s being done to get there is, quite frankly, apostasy. We can put many labels on these people who are pushing for change in the postmodern church: postconservatives, postfundamentalists, postfoundationalists, postpropositionalists, postevangelicals, post-everythings, reformists…or the more popularily known “emerging church“. Whatever the label, they all have some common characteristics about how to re-do church and become a new kind of Christian. Christianity is being seen as more a narrative rather than doctrines/principles or propositions of truth; tradition, culture and the contemporary experience is being seen as the source of theology rather than just the Bible itself. As Justin Taylor writes, these people are “self-professed evangelicals seeking to revision theology, renew the center, and transform the worshipping community of evangelicalism, cognizant of the postmodern global context within which we live.”

The pastor of this shift in evangelicalism, Brian McLaren, is pushing for freedom from the bondage of modern categories… advocating dialogue over debate, community over individualism, and experience over proof. As can be seen in his numerous books, McLaren argues that Christianity should be focused around Jesus’ message about God’s kingdom which relates to us in our place and time–not just about whether individual souls get to heaven when they die. Hence, this Emergent leader calls for this kingdom emphasis in the community not just individuality, and all of creation not just individual souls. Furthermore, the shift is towards an spirituality-based experience of God, instead of a creed-based one; and how this spiritual formation should be done is to look to Richard Foster and Dallas Willard for methods that stem from Roman Catholicism and eastern mysticism.

What’s been happening in my little corner of Christianity was that we began to read more and more postmodern literature, as encouraged by my church & pastor. (I don’t wanna point fingers here; I’m just telling ya of how my thinkings came about). It started with my pastor being a crazy fan of Erwin McManus–which is for the most part fine, except that McManus is known to be quite emergent-esque; for a while sermons at church were laced with McManus quotations. We have also used Rob Bell’s Nooma videos for fellowship (and even Sunday Service once), the church having purchased many of them dvds, and thus supporting Bell’s ministry financially. Then we started reading McLaren’s “A Generous Orthodoxy” in the young adults small group, for the most part without directly and purposely measuring the book against Scripture. And in more recent days, I hear quotes from Dallas Willard way too often during Sunday Service and even find them on the back our bulletins. If this isn’t enough, the push in our english congregation is towards MISSIONAL. Yes, there I’ve said it… what every emerging church is these days: missional. (I’m not against being missional, I’m all for it; it’s just the emerging/Emergent flavour that I find really sour and quite detrimental to evangelicalism.) And of course, you can also throw into this mix “authentic community“, and “holistic“–2 very popular concepts in the neo-liberal emerging church (again, both of which aren’t necessarily bad… just the emerging twist of it may not be Biblical sound).

All in all, “gulity by association” can very much be said to be occuring around me. (I should also mention that we also went through a “Purpose Driven Life” phase where we did go through the book; thankfully our eldership found the Purpose Driven Church model garbage & we don’t follow it).

As of late, the contemplative spirituality thing has been infiltrating the minds of some friends and my parents too. Richard Foster and the spiritual disciplines that this famous writer promotes is really seeping into the Christian circles. I am finding that sooner or later, many of the good’ ole Christian pastors/writers we read so much of could very well be contemplative too. Like recently, finding out that a book I got for Christmas from a friend, Max Lucado’s “Cure for the Common Life”, has been found to have very contemplative messages and theologies. I won’t say too much about this, except that if God really had a way for us to really experience Him better in life–don’t you think He would have mentioned it in the Bible? If we’re seeking to hear God speak to us through experience, personal revelation, and listen for it…. …. shhhhhhh…. SILENCE–is God’s Word given to us in the Holy Bible not enough for faith and life?

In essence, 3 big things are happening too close to home in this emerging kind of Christianity. This movement/conversation in the church is fostering contempt for authority, breeding doubt about the clarity of Scripture, and sowing confusion about the mission of the church. These trends are very much widespread: God’s word is thought to be profitable but not authoritative, these people who read it deny that they can know any truth there in with any certainty/assurance/strong conviction believing rather that they are too humble to be certain about anything–‘who am I to interpret what it really means? Everything can be interpreted differently by different people.‘ Scripture isn’t clear enough for us to believe any of it with confidence, these peeps think… which then leads us to change the missional missiology found in Scripture to one that aims to adapt church to our culture, with very little if any regard for our duty as the church and as Christians to proclaim the Gospel message of Christ’s substitutionary atonement and our need for repentance and faith.

With all that is happening, we evangelicals must fight to defend the Truth and reclaim the center of Christendom. Christ came to save sinners. If we leave out the message of salvation through Christ which includes both propitiation and expiation–we leave out the very thing that saves sinners. We can help people with getting food, shelter, a nicely run home and stable financial situation…but without the one thing that they really need (to be saved, by Jesus) they will still spend an eternity without God.

Taking a look at the Book of Jude, you can find that this is the only book in the New Testament that is strictly devoted to confronting apostasy… that is defection from true, Biblical faith. Reading through this short letter a few times and digging a bit deeper via the MacArthur Bible Commentary, I’ve found that Jude (Christ’s half-brother) wrote to condemn the apostates and to urge believers to fight for the faith against false teachers & false teachings. He called on the church for discernment and a rigorous defense of Biblical truth. Jude described the apostates in terms of their character and unconscionable activities, but he never specifically mentioned the content of the false teachings. We can, however, find that the degenerate personal lives and fruitless ministries showed that they were masquerading their teaching of error as if it were truth. What Jude emphasizes is the common theme of personal curruption within all false teachers, thus calling Christians to look beyond their false spiritual fronts of clever, subtle, deceptive, enticing methods & methodology… and to see the wicked truth of their lives that is behind the fake gospel they preach.

3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Jude 1:3-4, ESV

Reading this letter, I feel like God is speaking directly to me about what is happening in our churches today, and the spiritual warfare that is happening beyond what our human eyes can see. Jude lived in a time about 25 years before the full-blown Gnosticism that the apostle John wrote about in his epistles; Christianity in Jude’s time was under severe political attack from Rome and aggressive spiritual infiltration from apsostates and libertines who sowed lots of seed for a gigantic harvest of doctrinal error. Where Jude begged the church in this letter to fight for the truth in the midst of intense spiritual warfare, I feel the Spirit of God calling upon me to do the same, here and now, in my place and time in history. These false teachers of today–hollow men of what is known as the Ecumenical Church of Deceit–preach and live a counterfeit gospel, consequently misleading an unknowing, unsaved people, who need to hear the true gospel. Just like it was in Jude’s time before the 1st century A.D., God calls us to wage war against error in all forms and to fight strenuously for the truth, like a soldier who has been entrusted with the task of guarding a holy treasure.

This truth and message of faith & salvation that we are to defend is found in God’s Word: we must know the sound principles/doctrines within, to discern truth from error, and to confront and attack error. In our times, we must understand that the fight is being put on by so-called, self-proclaimed Christians against us who have a high view of the perspecuity, authority, and sufficiency of Scripture. (These emerging Christians aren’t waging war against those who deny Biblical truth but rather making friends with them, along with all the traditions of Christianity.) As soldiers who are dead to sin and alive to God, we have been given the responsibility to study God’s Word, to preach/share it with un/believers, and to fight for its preservation! This is what it means to contend for our faith.

And so the question remains, will we do it? Will I take up this responsibility, this massive task. The way I see it, I don’t have much of a choice; to not put up a fight is not an option. To give up and live in this garbage that is seeping into our churches is to die in the aftermath of open theism, universalism and paganism. It won’t get any better with time but only worse and worse. As Paul wrote in the chapter 3 of his 2nd letter to Timothy, this is the danger of the last days he mentions: people who have the appearance of godliness but deny its power, “always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7, ESV) The time has come when people don’t endure sound teaching, accumulating for themselves teachers to suit their own passions–because that’s what their itching ears want to hear… hence, wandering into myths and turn away from listening to the truth. Their unhealthy craving for controversy and quarelling about words produce nothing edifying to believers or glorifying to God, except godlessness. We must avoid irreverent bable, twisted and unbiblical authors and their books, flee youthful passions and instead pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace.

In this day, as in Jude and Timothy’s days… God calls us to confront evangelical accommodation, to live a humble orthodoxy. May we live a life worthy, then, of His calling.

Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy, to the only God, our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

-SDG