1. You might be a false teacher if your website is not blocked by the Chinese government.
2. You might be a false teacher if you think choosing the base model demonstrates modesty and good stewardship every time you purchase a private jet.
3. You might be a false teacher if your last name is also a monetary currency.
4. You might be a false teacher if you think having a Bible Mantra is an alternative to reading it.
5. You might be a false teacher if Oprah invites you onto her show.
6. You are a false teacher if you appear on Oprah's show and she never objects to anything you say.
7. You might be a false teacher if you don't know what an elephant looks like.
8. You might be a false teacher if Brian McLaren endorsed your book.
9. You might be a false teacher if you think you are the one who has finally figured out what the Apostle Paul was on about.
10. You might be a false teacher if you think tithing puts Satan in a cage.
11. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt not criticize" is the 11th Commandment.
12. You might be a false teacher if you think "Thou shalt tithe" is the 12th Commandment.
13. You might be a false teacher if you think that when Jesus said, "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets," He was referring to the 11th and 12th Commandments.
14. You might be a false teacher if Barack Obama finds your spiritual advice to be helpful.
15. You might be a false teacher if you think firing an elder is a form of church discipline.
16. You might be a false teacher if you believe it is the sheep's job to protect the shepherd.
17. You might be a false teacher if you wear a suit when you're in the White House and an Hawaiian shirt when you're in the Lord's House.
18. You might be a false teacher if you agree with Rob Bell about anything.
19. You might be a false teacher if you use the Council of Trent to defend your theological position.
20. You might be a false
teacher if you think that Herman Newtix is the guy who keeps telling John
MacArthur to be mean to Charismatics.
21. You might be a false
teacher if you think that "The Message" is a Bible translation.
22. You might be a false
teacher if you think the Bible is subject to your editorial process.
23. You might be a false
teacher if you think that the Reformation was a speed bump on the highway of
church history.
24. You might be a false
teacher if you think church history refers to the different phases of your
building project.
25. You
might be a false teacher if the promise of the forgiveness of sins found in
Jesus Christ underwhelms you.
We live in a church era where the common mantra is "you have your interpretation and I have my interpretation and no one can know for sure so lets just all take our bats and go home". It has become our own version of "pleading the fifth". Statements like this (and I have heard many "church leaders" say words to this effect) make their own doctrinal allegiance to the authority of Scripture as useless and meaningless. Such claims amount to nothing less than a denial of the inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture itself.
The Apostle Paul wrote that “God is not the author of
confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33a) and this would certainly be consistent with
Him giving fallen men a written revelation of Himself. It becomes one of the
many ways that a Holy and Righteous God stoops down to sinful and fallen men. Professor Matt Waymeyer of "The Master's Seminary" writes:
Because the Bible was given to reveal truth rather than
conceal it, the interpreter must assume the overall clarity of God’s Word.
Often referred to as the perspicuity of Scripture, this means that the divine
intention of the Bible was/is basically clear and comprehensible to its
original author, its original audience, and its contemporary readers. This is
not to say that all parts of Scripture are equally clear or that there are no
difficult passages to interpret (2 Pet 3:16), and this does not deny that later
revelation provides a fuller picture of the subject addressed in earlier
prophecy. But it does mean that the basic meaning of biblical prophecy was
intelligible and could be understood when it was originally revealed.
This perspicuity of God’s Holy Word became increasingly
undermined as can be seen even in the later stages of the New Testament with
the rise of Gnosticism and appeals to “secret knowledge” belonging to spiritual
elitists. We see this issue clearly raised in Jude’s Epistle when he unmasks
the modus operandi of these wolves that were infiltrating the body of Christ as
early as the first century AD:
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the
flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones. (Jude 8ESV emphasis mine)
Even in Jude’s time we see false teachers who are making
claims of dreams that give them deeper knowledge. We see this today in the
Charismatic movement and especially within the Word Faith factions of that
movement. What is implied by this Gnostic knowledge? That the plain surface
meaning is not enough. They are saying that deeper, hidden knowledge is where true
spirituality is really at. And it continues into the present day unabated:
Joyce Meyer goes on to tell her hearers soon after this that they should not go looking in the Bible for this teaching on the atonement because they won't find it there. Joyce tells them that this special knowledge only comes through "personal revelation". Aside from the biblical fact that Joyce Meyer is unqualified (as a woman, see 1 Timothy 2-3) to stand in a pulpit, such ridiculous claims do not even warrant further debate.
The various factors of false teaching, refutation of false
teaching, theological agendas, and the need to harmonize difficult Scriptural
passages all impacted on the practice of hermeneutics in the early church era.
During the Patristic Period (A.D. 100-590) the early church fathers placed
great emphasis on allegorizing biblical passages. This was the “search for
hidden or secret meaning that underlies the actual words of a given text – a
meaning that is unrelated to the more obvious meaning of the text.” The
early church fathers also began to place greater value and emphasis on the
traditional interpretation of a passage being the correct one rather than
evaluating a traditional interpretation in the light of what the Scripture
says.
The Medieval Period (A.D. 590-1500) saw these ideas develop
further and really set the scene for what Roman Catholicism holds to in its
present form. Biblical students focused more on studying what the church
fathers had to say about any given portion of the biblical text and placed
almost no importance on exegeting the text itself. The Bible was no longer the
ultimate authority because that was now trumped by how church tradition
interpreted that Bible. And this tradition was primarily driven by
allegorization as church tradition continually found deeper (and more self serving)
meaning from texts that spoke plainly and differently to these “allegorical
innovations”.
The Reformation Period (1500-1650) was a revolution in the
handling of Scripture. With a renewed emphasis on the supreme authority of
Scripture (Sola Scriptura was their battle cry), the Reformers trashed Rome’s
“creative accounting” in favor of a plain reading of the biblical text in its
original languages. This was a pivotal moment in church history. Martin Luther
was the man who ignited the Reformation with his brazen defiance of Popes and
Roman religiosity. Luther maintained that Scripture was its own best
interpreter and that interpretation should be driven by this concept.
The period following the Reformation (1650-1800) saw the
rise of Pietism, and with it, an approach to interpretation focused on careful
grammatical-historical analysis of the Scriptures in their original languages.
They could see that the God of the Bible did not have a problem explaining
Himself and a natural reading of the text, in context, could yield
comprehensible results to the recipient when read in this natural way.
Rationalism was also on the rise at this time and elevated the human intellect
to the point where the Rationalists thought that Scripture needed to conform to
their reasoning, and the parts that refused were simply ignored or rejected.
During the Modern Period (1800-Present), rationalism gave
birth to what would become theological liberalism. The Higher-Critical Method
was brazen intellectual snobbery. These people cared nothing for the authority
of Scripture. Their interpretive focus avoided the pursuit of discovering what
God was saying through His Word, and instead focused on delusional attempts at
trying to explain the “editorial process” that caused Scripture to appear in
the form that they found it in.
The 20th Century gave rise to the Reader-Response
Method where the author of the text was not allowed into the discussion on what
the text was saying. These people considered it far more important to decide
what the text was saying to them. What fun can be had by reinterpreting
Reader-Response conclusions in even more fanciful and self serving ways at the
expense of their own self importance.
D.A. Carson wrote as far back as 1984 on this important
shift in the mode of attack on conservative evangelicalism when he said there
had been a change in the theological climate over the preceding four decades.
He wrote:
At the risk of oversimplification, one could argue that the generation of conservative Christians before the present one faced opponents who argued in effect that the Bible is not trustworthy, and only the ignorant or blind could claim it is. In the present generation, there are of course many voices that say the same thing; but there are new voices that loudly insist our real problem is hermeneutical and exegetical. (D.A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies p18)
This sounds ominously like the “emergent church” which would
begin to appear more than a decade after Carson penned those words. The enemy
within is far more dangerous than the enemy without. A Richard Dawkins who
rails on God, Christianity, and the Bible is an obvious enemy that we can see
coming well in advance. A Brian MacLaren, on the other hand, is a far more
dangerous threat because he masquerades as one of us and claims to uphold the
authority of Scripture all the while being hell-bent on redefining so much of
what it plainly says.
If we want to understand a book in the best possible way
then we need to ask the author exactly what he was saying. So too with
Scripture, we need to know the authorial intent if we are to interpret it
rightly. And Scripture is unique in that it has what we call Dual Authorship. If
I was to hand write you a letter with my finest Shepherd’s Conference fountain
pen, would you say that the letter was written by my fountain pen? Likewise,
throughout history, God has used special men as writing tools in His hand to
bring about His written revelation. Some of the distinctive qualities of these
human fountain pens are evident, but they are transcended by the divine voice
that speaks through them. Though this analogy is not a watertight analogy it can be somewhat helpful.
Throughout the Bible we see that its text regularly
presented as both the words of God and the words of man (2 Samuel 23:2, 1 Kings
14:18, 16:12, 16:34, 2 Kings 9:36, 14:25, 1 Chronicles 17:3, Jeremiah 1:9,
37:2, Zechariah 7:7,12, Luke 1:70, Acts 1:16, 2:16-17, 3:18,21, 4:25, 28:25,
Romans 1:1-2, 1 Corinthians 9:8-10, 14:37, Galatians 1:11-12, 1 Thessalonians
2:13, 4:8, 4:15, Hebrews 1:1, 1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 3:2, Rev 1:1-3). This
fact is most clearly nailed down in Paul’s second letter to Timothy and in
Peter’s second Epistle:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is
profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17 KJV)
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is
of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the
will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2
Peter 1:20-21 KJV)
The fact of Dual Authorship has major implications for the
right practice of sound hermeneutics. Waymeyer explains this when he says that:
The dual authorship of Scripture ultimately forms the
foundation of Bible interpretation, for upon it rest five aspects of Scripture,
which, in turn, lead to specific principles for interpreting God’s Word. These
five aspects are the overall unity of Scripture, the overall clarity of
Scripture, the single meaning of Scripture, the contextual nature of Scripture,
and the human language of Scripture.
For this reason the Grammatical-Historical method of Bible
interpretation, with its emphasis on examining the context and interpreting the
content of the passage, has maintained a healthy following through the recent
centuries of hermeneutical turbulence. It is the “no brainer” approach to
interpreting the Bible because the God of the Bible has never had a problem
explaining Himself.
The emergent movement still seems to think that there is plenty more life left in that rotting carcass. The movement may live on in the form of the heresies they propagated that have now infiltrated modern evangelical churches. But old liberalism continues to die the death of a thousand attempts at repackaging.
In the words of the "organizers":
The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.
In adopting the image of the Wild Goose we recognize that in the current climate of religious, social and political cynicism, embracing the creative and open nature of our faith is perhaps our greatest asset for re-building and strengthening our relationships with each other, with our enemies, with our stories, our texts, and the earth. In that spirit, in a festive setting, and in the context of meaningful, respectful, and sustained relationships, we invite you to create with us!
As a child my favorite cartoon was the "League of Justice". It was the transcendent superhero cartoon where Superman, Batman, Aquaman, Spiderman, and Wonder Woman (yes, even then PC demanded a token woman and, let's face it, her invisible jet was a tremendous innovation in cutting costs). All these superheros were able to combine their superpowers for the ultimate force against all evil in the world.
The Wild Goose Festival is just like "League of Justice" except for the fighting evil part . . . and the superhero part . . . and the enjoyable part . . . Anyway, Wild Goose festival is what you get when you combine the apostate false teaching superpowers of Tony Jones, Jim Wallis, Jay Bakker, Brian McLaren, Shane Claiborne, Tony Campolo, Lynne Hybels, Frank Schaeffer, Phyliss Tickle, Richard Rohr etc into one giant potpourri of every imaginable religious idea apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They may even try to outdo each other - maybe some new heresy might be birthed at Wild Goose.
(Sidenote: if the name Lynne Hybels (wife of Bill Hybels and "Willow Creek Advocate For Global Engagement") surprises you - don't be surprised. This woman is full of liberal kookiness so beware all you Willow Creek'ers who think that your fellowship is a safe haven. Lynne Hybels is not only seeker sensitive, she is very liberal on a lot of fronts - and very influential as well. Just check out her role as an inner circle counsellor to Barack Obama, her troubling association with radical leftist ministries like Sojourners and Red Letter Christians, and her ridiculous apologies to Islam.
The Wild Goose festival website carries the following bold prediction:
Wild Goose is going to grow into the largest, best run, most dynamic religious happening in the USA!
Here is a video highlight from the festival that lends so much credence to that bold prediction of a "dynamic", well organized, religious "happening" with teeming crowds. I would say that the word "religious" does apply to the Wild Goose festival . . . it's just that I can't quite make out what religion that would be!
Newsflash emergent gurus - whether your movement is dead or on life-support, Woodstock 2 is not the solution!
Rob Bell's brazenly heretical book "Love Wins" has caused a firestorm of controversy which started with his promotional video. Though the controversy is, by my estimation, five years late (go here and scroll down for earlier articles on Bell), there are some positives to "emerge" from all of this. One of the positive aspects to this saga is that when people become more overt in their apostasy/heresy, they make it far easier for undiscerning church goers to decide when to run full speed out the door. Another interesting illumination is found in the number of high profile people who have responded and taken a side. Thank you, thank you, thank you for removing that boggy middle ground and finally drawing up some battle lines!!! The following list of "for" and "against" may prove most helpful to you the reader in being selective about which wells we drink from . . .
FOR
It isn’t easy to develop a biblical imagination that takes in the comprehensive and eternal work of Christ…Rob Bell goes a long way in helping us acquire just such an imagination — without a trace of the soft sentimentality and without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction - Eugene Peterson (back cover endorsement)
Wow! Let's just hope that the spaceship returns soon to take Eugene home. If you were ever deluded enough to believe that "The Message" is a legitimate Bible translation, this latest comment from Peterson should seal the deal. "Without compromising an inch of evangelical conviction" - yeah right!!!
Rob Bell is NOT a Universalist (and I actually read “Love Wins”) . . . I know many readers will want my opinion on whether or not Rob is in fact a Universalist . . . I’m not sure; read the book for yourself and figure it out . . . I strongly doubt Rob would describe himself as a “Universalist.” But even if he did, I would recommend Love Wins just as enthusiastically as I already have - Greg Boyd
The gaps in Greg Boyd's self refuting statements are getting shorter all the time. It seems that Greg Boyd is open to a lot of things and not just theism!
A great book, well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and passionate about Jesus. The real hellacious fight is between generous orthodoxy and stingy orthodoxy. There are stingy people who just want to consign many others to hell and only a few to heaven and take delight in the idea. But Rob Bell allows for a lot of mystery in how Jesus reaches people - Richard Mouw
Richard Mouw is the president of the very large and influential Fuller Theological Seminary. I have been asked before for an opinion on Fuller Seminary and I'll give it right now - don't go there, don't send your kids there, don't send them any money, and the leader of the Seminary has no clue what the "bounds of orthodox Christianity" are.
Rob has come to see that the biblical story is bigger and better than a narrative about how souls get sorted out into two bins at the end of time . . . A courageous minority will become more courageous because of Rob's courage in this book . . . to seize this opportunity, displaying the courage to differ graciously . . . and speak up for Rob whenever the opportunity presents itself - Brian McLaren
AGAINST
It is unspeakably sad when those called to be ministers of the Word distort the gospel and deceive the people of God with false doctrine - Justin Taylor
Farewell Rob Bell - John Piper
The Emerging Church movement is known for its slick and sophisticated presentation. It wears irony and condescension as normal attire. Regardless of how Rob Bell’s book turns out, its promotion is the sad equivalent of a theological striptease. The Gospel is too precious and important to be commodified in this manner. The questions he asks are too important to leave so tantalizingly unanswered. Universalism is a heresy, not a lure to use in order to sell books. This much we know, almost a month before the book is to be released - Al Mohler
...there are dozens of problems with Love Wins. The theology is heterodox. The history is inaccurate. The impact on souls is devastating. And the use of Scripture is indefensible. Worst of all, Love Wins demeans the cross and misrepresents God’s character - Kevin DeYoung
Repent of it, Rob: repent because there’s no shame in turning away from even decades of wrong teaching to turning over a new leaf and teaching that Jesus saves sinner from their own sins and from God’s displeasure if they repent and believe. That is actually the message of the NT, and it ought to be your message if you’re really concerned with the real people you meet every day - Frank Turk
Bell's latest heresy neither surprises nor interests me. What does intrigue me is the tragic drift of popular, mainstream evangelicalism. Here we see clearly why the evangelical movement is in grave trouble: The passions of today's self-styled evangelicals are easily aroused in defense of someone who makes a career dabbling around the edges of truth. Rob Bell likes to play with damnable heresies as if they were Lego bricks, and yet anyone who points out the glaring errors in Bell's teaching will be met with a wall of angry resistance from young, self-styled Christians who grew up in the evangelical mainstream. Where is that much passion ever employed these days in defense of the truth? - Phil Johnson
Bell is an inveterate syncretist who loves to blend “progressive” and politically correct dogmas with eastern mysticism, humanistic jargon, and Christian terminology. His teaching is full of barren ideas borrowed directly from old liberalism, sometimes rephrased in postmodern jargon but still reeking of stale Socinianism. What Bell is peddling is nothing like New Testament Christianity. It is a man-centered religion totally devoid of both clarity and biblical authority. - John Macarthur
One critique of your book says this, there are dozens of problems with love wins. the history is inaccurate, the use of scripture indefensible. that’s true, isn’t it . . . you’ve indicated one of the problems with the book, you’re creating a Christian message that’s warm, kind, and popular, for contemporary culture but it’s, frankly, according to this critic, un-biblical and historically unreliable. that’s true, isn’t it . . . you’re amending the gospel so that it’s palatable to contemporary people who find, for example the idea of hell and heaven very difficult to stomach. so here comes Rob Bell, he’s made a Christian gospel for you and it’s perfectly palatable, it’s easy to swallow - Martin Bashir (interviewing Rob Bell)
Rob Bell is an enemy of the true biblical Gospel and if that is not apparent in this video then may I recommend a book called Romans written by a guy called Paul.
But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? I speak in a human way. By no means! For then how could God judge the world? (Romans 3:5-6)
And it might help if Bell took the time to read all the verses in John chapter three and not just verse sixteen.
Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. (John 3:3 and for the record the word "cannot" is actually translated "no chance" in the original Greek)
For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:17-18)
So the note concerning Ghandi, while perhaps inappropriate, is not based upon some guy who wants to assert his omniscience Rob! It's based upon an elementary understanding of the clear teaching of the Bible. You know - the Bible - that big old book that you spend most of your time perverting and confusing it's plain meaning! Ghandi, as a professing Hindu, is almost certainly in hell. This is not because I think so but because the Bible tells me so (the "almost certainly" disclaimer is in the genuine hope that Ghandi repented of his sin and put his trust in Jesus Christ prior to his death, in which case God would have saved him). And Rob, are you biblically incompetent or deliberately deceiving people? Which one is it? What do you do with verses like Romans 5:9 which directly refute what you assert in this video:
Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. (Romans 9:5)
When we deny an attribute of God, such as His wrath, we are breaking the second commandment (idolatry) by making a god in our own image. In this video, Bell just cannot conceal his utter disdain for the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, and for those who defend it. I certainly didn't feel the love from "Mr Love Wins" in this video. Can you feel the love tonight?
This is the video that was the cause of the entire internet melting down a couple of weeks ago (in case you didn't notice). Partly because Bell is becoming more and more overt in his long established heretical views, and also in part because of John Piper's legendary tweet in response to this video which simply said "farewell Rob Bell". It is quite right that John Piper and the Gospel Coalition have put Bell outside of the camp, but I still have to ask the question why did it take so long? The contrast between the Gospel Piper preaches and the gospel Bell invented could not be more stark. Piper says "God is the Gospel" whereas Bell says that "you are the gospel". More than five years ago Bell wrote these words in his book Velvet Elvis in a sneaky affirmation of his universalism:
So this reality, this forgiveness, this reconciliation, is true for everybody. Paul insisted that when Jesus died on the cross he was reconciling ‘all things, in heaven and on earth, to God. This reality then isn’t something we make true about ourselves by doing something. It is already true. Our choice is to live in this new reality or cling to a reality of our own making.” (Velvet Elvis p146)
What is staggering is how much of a sacred cow Rob Bell has become, and the number of professing Christians (and also unbelievers - which is telling) who are willing to relentlessly defend Bell (hence melting down the entire internet in their flurry of protest). Guys, how hard is this? I know that in his latest video (shown above) Bell does his usual schtick of asking provocative questions and never answering them. I also know that Bell has made an art form out of pretending to be a Christian for many years now. He trades on the evangelical world's willingness to always give the benefit of the doubt to vague, obscure, and foggy theology. But Bell's obvious disdain and resentment for the historic orthodox Christian faith, coupled with his continual propensity to cloud crystal clear doctrines of first importance is despicable to say the least.
This has been the MO within the emergent movement from the very beginning. Have leaders like Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones grown more and more heretical over the last decade or has it been a planned gradual release of false teaching to an evangelical landscape as it gradually grows more tolerant. These guys are all non-Christian theological liberals who have held their views for a long time but had a vested interest in concealing much of their heresy until the modern evangelical climate was deemed ready to receive each incremental attack on the historic Christian faith. Tony Jones obviously didn't get that memo because by 2008 he had already run out of things to deny.
And now Bell is spending more and more time without his sheep suit on. If you meet Rob Bell, please share the Gospel with him. Like Ghandi, he also needs to repent of his sins and trust in Jesus Christ to save him from the wrath to come.
After the events that transpired in my previous post I eventually received some feedback from one of the camp leaders. I am posting some of this correspondence today because I believe it may be helpful in recognizing the winds of pragmatism, popular psychology, and self esteem philosophy that are blowing hard in opposition to straightforward biblical theology. This is a pervasive problem and the following correspondence is in no way meant to be a shot at the individual who wrote the mail. His approach is merely a product of these prevailing winds in modern evangelicalism, and perhaps even more so, within the emergent movement. The correspondence in question contains some personal discussion which is unnecessary in this forum and as such, I am posting small portions in italics followed by my responses in bold and my quotations in bold italics. There is also some additional commentary in CAPITALS.
I am a fan of Ray Comfort whom you also quote on your webpage, so in many ways I personally agree on your teaching but there are also something that I do not agree on. I do like that you are firm and direct in your preaching but when you are speaking such a strong message to young people then I would say that you have to talk a lot more grace as well.
I spoke more about God's grace than any other speaker I heard at the camp. Also remember that the first message (though it did focus on the cross) plowed the soil for the second message which was about the meaning of the cross (my favorite subject). What is grace? It is God's undeserved favor. Why don't we deserve it? Because we are people who have sinned wickedly against a good God and we deserve his fierce wrath. God doesn't love people for who they are, He loves them inspite of who they are. Anyone who claims to preach the grace of God without preaching the wrath of God is a liar or deceived. Grace has no meaning without the context of God's wrath. That is why Paul Washer and Ray Comfort are some of the strongest grace preachers I have ever heard.
Martin Luther said in his Galatian commentaries that:
Satan the god of all dissension stirs up daily new sects. And last of all which of all others I should never have foreseen or once suspected, he has raised up a sect such as teach that men should not be terrified by the law, but gently exhorted by the preaching of the grace of Christ.
The grace of God is one of the most precious subjects I love to talk about. The more sin hardened a culture is the more their hearts need to be plowed with the law of God before they can ever see His grace. Try asking someone if they think that it would be fair and reasonable for a good God to damn them to hell? Try asking most church-goers. Few in Denmark say yes to this and that is exactly the problem. If you can't see the problem how can you ever see the solution of God's grace. Furthermore how will it ever become meaningful? The grace of God is clearly seen in the Christ's substitutionary death on the cross in which he bore the sin of the sinner so that the sinner can bare the righteousness of Christ. How can that ever have any value to a person who cannot see their own unrighteousness.
One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner." And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "Say it, Teacher."
"A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?" Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt." And he said to him, "You have judged rightly." Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little." (Luke 7:37-47)
Many of our teenagers are not brought up in Christian families and do not automatically know what the Love of God means or Gods grace just by a preacher saying Jesus died for you, because he loves you. When that sentence is comming right after 40 min. of hell fire brimstone then it is difficult to be encouraged to come to the cross with your sins.
I would also contend that it was not 40 minutes of hellfire preaching. Hell was one of many subjects I discussed. The reason many notice it is because they almost never hear about it.
I want them to acknowledge that sin is wrong and is having the consequence of seperating us from God
Hell is not separation from God. Those in hell are tormented in the presence of Christ:
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Revelation 14:9-11)
I also want to preach a thousand times that Jesus is the friend of sinners and that His Love is never failing and is never ending. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. That is what the Bible teaches and that is what I experience.
The kindness of God that leads to repentance is actually a part of a verse in Romans 2. The context is that God's kindness is defined in His patience and forbearance - that He delays His wrath giving us time to repent. That is exactly what I was preaching. Furthermore, Paul goes onto tell the Corinthians that godly sorrow (sorry because I sinned against God) leads to repentance but worldly sorrow (sorry because of the consequences) leads to death. If we want to see true repentance we need to cultivate godly sorrow and that is done by starting with preaching the Holiness of God, the sinfulness of man, and the coming judgment which is the sequence Paul follows in his letter to the Romans.
Luther himself said that:
The first duty of the Gospel preacher is to declare God's moral law and to show the nature of sin.
Actually I think that you could have an even stronger message by diving into the individual sins and how they are changing our chraracter and in that way isolating us from both God and people. Really specify the nature of sin and then use a lot of time on how we as the body of Christ can help each other instead with discipleship to walk to the cross, confess our sin and turn away from it.
Thank you for this critique. It is difficult with the limited time to delve into some of these issues. But I made a conscious decision to address our personal responsibility to cry out to God in brokenness and desperate need. We can certainly help other believers in their war against sin. But those who have not been regenerated by the Holy Spirit need that before any human being can provide any Spiritual help. Until we are regenerated the Scripture pronounces us dead in trespasses and sin and in need of a resurrection. And there were clearly people there in the meeting who were not Christians.
As I mentioned, I am encouraged that you have planted your own church, but there is also a part of me that is concerned when a Christian brother like you won't attend and strengthen existing churches.
You don't know the full story here so I will inform you about what has taken place and why we planted a church. Since moving to Denmark my family and I have attended and visited a lot of different "churches". The local Pentecostal pastor did not want me talking to anyone about sin and refused to even discuss it over the Scriptures. The local Baptist church did not even believe that the Bible is God's inspired Word. The Methodist pastor turned out to be a universalist (everyone goes to heaven). The Inner Mission Lutherans taught my daughter that it was baptism that would save her. And the Lutheran priest supported homosexual marriage. I am a reasonable man but these are not small issues. I can work with people, I can submit to authority, I can lay down my agenda for the sake of unity. But truth must never be sacrificed at the altar of unity.
Ultimately, this is about the Gospel. In all my travels to many different churches for over 3 years in Denmark I have only ever heard three faithful Gospel proclamations - two were by visiting preachers and the third guy was never allowed to preach again. I don't say this lightly - this is a disaster! There is no more pressing matter in Denmark right now that Gospel purity and Gospel proclamation. According to Luther and the reformers, any church that does not preach the Gospel and faithfully teach the Bible is not a church. For the sake of being a godly husband and father, for the sake of obeying God's command to integrate into a community of believers - it was necessary to plant a church. I would love for you to prove me wrong and send me audios of faithful gospel preaching around Denmark. If you do this I will gladly promote these churches and do everything I can to work together with them. (AS USUAL THIS CHALLENGE WAS NEVER TAKEN UP)
I know that Christians will never agree 100% on doctrine and teaching but we are still called to unity with one another. We also need unity to get a revival to our nation.
I attend a Reformed Baptist church but I never used a moment during the camp to argue my position on baptism with Lutherans. Why - for the sake of unity. But when it comes to the Gospel there can be no compromise. Not preaching the Gospel, or changing it, is a sure way to avoid revival. I long for revival which is why I poured my heart out at the camp.
(AT THIS POINT THE WRITER CHOOSES NOT TO BIBLICALLY CRITIQUE BUT RATHER, TO CRITIQUE ONE OF MY FRIENDS CALLED RENE. A FRIEND WHOM I HAD NEVER MENTIONED AND COULD ONLY HAVE BEEN KNOWN THROUGH HIS OWN INVESTIGATION)
I have often read articles from Rene and felt very sad and frustrated afterwards. There are roughly no righteous christians on the planet besides him. Where is the UNITY in Christ ?????
I don't mind you criticizing my friend Rene but you should not do this unless you are willing to back up what you are saying about him. You need to give me some examples of what Rene has said that was wrong or untrue. I promise you, if you can show me something Rene said that was false or unbiblical then I will speak with him and get him to remove it from his blog and get him to make a public apology (I have already spoken with Rene and he has agreed to this challenge). And also, please show me where Rene has proclaimed himself as someone more righteous than anyone else.
(OBVIOUSLY, TAKING A SHOT AT RENE WAS EASIER THAN BACKING IT UP - AGAIN HE REFUSED TO RESPOND AND GIVE EVEN ONE EXAMPLE ON WHICH TO BASE HIS ACCUSATION)
You also asked "Where is the UNITY in Christ". To that I would have to say that my experience of Rene is that he is someone who fights for unity in the way Paul commanded in Romans 16:17:
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
Paul here is saying that we should "mark" or point out false teachers because it is they who cause division (ie destroy Christian unity) by teaching doctrine contrary to Scripture. Take Brian McLaren for example who was being heavily promoted at your camp. Rene is pointing him out as a false teacher because he denies the atonement, denies that Jesus is the only way, denies a literal Hell, and denies the authority of Scripture. These are teachings that cause division among true Christians and are particularly harmful to our impressionable youth. I would ask your fellow leaders about their concern for Christian unity when they promote books by authors who preach a different gospel to the true Gospel found in Scripture. When Rene is one of the few people willing to point out heretics like McLaren (all the while comparing it to the true Gospel), he becomes one of the few people fighting for true Christian unity.
Furthermore, I even heard some leaders at the camp have an open discussion with the youth where they answered questions. Where Scripture had a clear cut answer I heard one of them give his own opinion instead which was directly translated "there are no right or wrong answers to this question". This sort of talk does not promote unity - it is postmodern anarchy.
We do what is possible and God what is impossible
Actually, Jesus said "without me you can do nothing" (John 15:5).
The camp discussed in my previous post was a surreal experience in many ways. It was a Lutheran camp but the leaders knew virtually nothing of what Luther wrote and taught. The camp was run by an arm of the Danish Lutheran movement that is heavily immersed in the teachings of prominent emergent leaders like Brian McLaren - and they invited a bare knuckle reformed preacher like myself to come and minister to them. Not only that, but I was asked to deliver three messages! I don't live under a rock and am well aware that I lived on a different theological planet to these people, and as such, the likelihood of sermons number two and three ever seeing the light of day after sermon one landed on their postmodern table was as likely as Rick Warren getting invited to speak at John Piper's conference . . . hey what's that! Is it a bird? is it a plane? No it's a . . .
Well, it seems that pigs actually can fly! Warren did get invited by John Piper (more about that next week)! And I was preparing three sermons for this "emergent Lutheran" camp. Welcome to the bizarre world of 21st century evangelicalism - just last night I heard John Macarthur preach a topical sermon about making the Bible more relevant by not preaching from it while he rode his Harley onto the stage . . . . . . . but that was just a scary dream! The rest, however, was all true.
I decided the best approach for a clear conscience on my part, was to be explicitly clear about my opposition to the emergent teachers these Lutheran leaders were reading (if the words "enemies of the Gospel" qualify as explicit). I also sent transcripts of all three sermons months in advance so that they would have plenty of prior warning thinking this may deter them. But the flying pig still arrived on my doorstep with the preaching invitation in his mouth and I headed out to the camp fearful in my desire to faithfully deliver Christ's beautiful Gospel but fearless with regards to the reception that may await.
After delivering my first sermon, which can be heard on my previous post, it was readily apparent that a bomb had been dropped. I knew it was a jolt to the audience who were not used to hearing about subjects like God's wrath, judgment, our sinful nature, penal substitutionary atonement, and true repentance. And several third party sources informed me of the strong displeasure certain leaders had at the content of my sermon. But not a single leader at the camp gave me any critique or feedback. The fact that my first sermon was loaded with Scripture and quotes by Luther probably made it difficult for them to censor me. It was also a problem that I had sent a transcript of the sermon months in advance. Nevertheless, the following morning I was informed about a "sudden change of plan" where they needed to have a different speaker on the Friday night when I was to deliver my final message. It would have been nice if they had informed me of this some time prior to the day before the event. Perhaps even prior to the many hours I spent preparing that particular sermon for that particular event. I was, of course, cynical as to whether they had given me the real reason for the change of plans. If there is one thing I have learnt about the "emergent conversation" it is an almost total lack of genuine communication.
After the camp I continually tried to get some feedback as to what was really going on and if the real reason for the late changes was mainly to do with the content of my final message. A response eventually came, albeit after a long wait, which I will discuss on my next post - on Friday.
It is just after Christmas now and my Rick Warren at Desiring God series is about to launch next Monday. I recently concluded my Life in Denmark series but wanted to add three interesting appendices that didn't make it into the original 15 part series. I am posting the first of these today with a sermon I preached at an emergent camp and will follow it up on Wednesday with some interesting background information and then on Friday with some correspondence that took place after the event.
Sometimes the planets align in a bizarre way and this was certainly the case in July of this year. I was invited to speak at a large youth camp organized by a group of emergent/postmodern leaders in Denmark. In a strange turn of events certain people within this group started to get concerned with the accelerating decline into liberalism that authors like Brian McLaren were taking. There was also the growing problem of overtly sinful behavior that was getting even too much to bear for this liberal crowd. Someone connected to them recommended me as someone who knows Paul Washer and is a bit of a firey preacher. They somehow thought this might spice things up nicely and get people to tone down their rampant carnal behavior. I had a good sense of where these people were at theologically and tried to give them every reason to not invite me, including calling Brian McLaren and Rob Bell "enemies of the Gospel" and raging heretics who were poisoning their movement. I also told them what I would be preaching, if invited, and sent them postscripts in advance. Though taken aback by my un-Danish forthrightness, I was still invited. Strange I know!
I was nervous before I came, not because of preaching, but because of a heavy burden for so many false converts who need to be awakened to the pure Gospel and it's call to genuine repentance. I arrived to preach and without going into too much detail about the atmosphere and activities, I will only mention one example that paints enough of the picture - there were two openly practicing lesbians sitting in the front row unaware of what was coming.
Click here to hear the sermon, it also features a danish translator and has low volume so you'll need to crank up the sound on this one.
Brian McLaren is getting some stiff competition from NT Wright in the "Confusion of the Obvious" stakes. NT Wright denies the truth of Genesis and that Adam was a literal person, thus denying the fall and grounds for redemption in Christ. He just has a very long winded, mind numbingly boring, and Gospel illiterate way of doing it . . .
Such an attack on the authority of Scripture is worthy of total mockery. And someone has beaten me to the punch:
Tom Wright Reads Humpty Dumpty
"Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall"
Clearly the writer is telling an Israel story, and here alludes to the Temple. This echoes other lines in early 2nd Nursery Literature, such as Mother Hubbard’s cupboard (the “storehouse” of the Temple) and the bone (resurrection life) which she sought for her dog (“Gentiles”). “But when she got there, the cupboard was bare and the poor little doggie had none.” The temple had nothing to offer the Gentiles, and they thus remained in their state of Adamic sin and decay.
So here, too, one should not be surprised to discover that the Temple and its “wall” are bankrupt. The next line, then, is not a shock, but an expectation:
"Humpty Dumpty had a great fall"
Again, this is patently a forecast of the Temple’s destruction (and contra Crossan and Borg, an entirely possible historical forecasting). Doubtless this claim is intended to lead the reader to ponder the eschatological recreation of the Temple. Since Humpty stands for the Temple, he seems to be sharing in the divine identity, functioning as the locus of God’s presence, not outside of, but within creation.
Of course, this fall is an exile of sorts, the loss of God’s presence. The tension is palpable: how will humpty’s story not turn out dumpty? In other words, this line presupposes what I have called elsewhere the great metanarrative of humpty, not least the promise of resurrection.
"But all the king’s horses and all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty together again."
So the Temple will be built again, but not by human hands. Many have undertaken to suggest that this passage runs counter to a belief in resurrection. But this atomistic reading of the text lacks imagination. Of course, it is the king himself who will put humpty together again, and this great act will complete the metanarrative.
After all, Humpty is the place where the Creator God is resident with his creation. But the human inability to recreate Humpty does not negate all human effort for creation, which should be done in light of the proleptic nature of the king’s restoration of Humpty and all creation.
Written in Durham Cathedral, dedicated to Rowan Williams’s left eyebrow.
(Courtesy of Jason Hood at the Society For The Advancement of Ecclesial Theology)
I recently had the priveledge of speaking with Phil Johnson. As we spoke, Phil reminded me that almost all of the new fads and trends that permeate modern evangelicalism are rehashed heresies from centuries ago. The emergent movement is no exception. They like to portray themselves as cutting edge "theologians" with precious new and fresh insights into how nobody has ever really understood the Bible and that they are the first ones humble enough to admit it.
Brian McLaren is at the forefront of this trend when he writes:
If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (A Generous Orthodoxy p19-20)
It is easy to see why God is not the author of confusion - Brian Mclaren is!
I have just finished Ray Comfort's book "Luther Gold" where he harvests some of the best golden nuggets from the extensive writings of Martin Luther. In one of the excerpts, Luther recounts his "conversation" with a group known as the "Sophists". As you read on you will notice that this ancient sect has an uncanny resemblance to Brian McLaren and the emergent movement.
Since we have been persuaded to the contrary by this, by that pestilent saying of the Sophists, "the Scriptures are obscure and ambiguous," we are compelled, first of all, to prove that first grand principle of ours, by which all other things are to be proved: which among the Sophists, is considered absurd and impossible to be done . . . let us proceed, and drown that pestilent saying of the Sophists, in Scriptures.
Psalm 19:8 saith: "The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes." And surely, that which enlightens the eyes is not obscure or ambiguous! Again, Psalm 119:130: "The door of they words giveth light; it giveth understanding to the simple." Here it is ascribed unto the words of God, that they are a door, and something open, which is quite plain to all and enlightens even the simple. Isaiah 8:20 sends all questions ". . . to the law and to the testimony;" and threatens that if we do not do this, the light of the east shall be denied us.
Malachi 2;7 commands, ". . . that they should seek the Law from the mouth of the priest, as being the messenger of the LORD of hosts." But a most excellent messenger indeed of the Lord of hosts he must be, who should bring forth those things, which were both so ambiguous to himself and so obscure to the people that neither he should know what he himself said, nor what they heard!
And what, throughout the Old Testament, in the 119th Psalm especially, is more frequently said in praise of the Scripture, than that, it is itself a most certain and most clear light? For Psalm 119:105 celebrates its clearness thus: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." He does not say only - thy Spirit is a lamp unto my feet; though he ascribes unto Him also His office, saying, "Thy good Spirit shall lead me into the land of uprightness" (Psalm 143:10). Thus the Scripture is called a "way" and a "path": that is from its most perfect certainty. (Luther Gold p86-87)
The entire emergent movement just got "owned" by Martin Luther!
As we saw in part 2 of this series, NT Wright says he believes in Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA). But the PSA that Wright believes in is just like the jesus that the Mormons believe in - a phony, a product of their own imaginations and not found in Scripture. But Wright's gross error on PSA and the Gospel continues to manifest itself in his understanding of the doctrine of imputation:
If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatsoever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom . . . If we leave the notion of 'righteousness' as a law-court metaphor only, as so many have done in the past, this gives the impression of a legal transaction, a cold piece of business, almost a trick of thought performed by a God who is logical and correct but hardly one we would want to worship (p98 What St Paul Really Said).
What God’s righteousness never becomes, in the Jewish background which Paul is so richly summing up, is an attribute which is passed on to, reckoned to, or imputed to, his people. Nor does Paul treat it in this way. (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm).
Hmmm
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Romans 4:3-8).
John Macarthur has this to say about the importance of getting imputation right:
The cornerstone of justification is the reckoning of righteousness to the believer's account. This is the truth that sets Christian doctrine apart from every form of false religion. We call it "imputed righteousness". Apart from it salvation is utterly impossible (p197 The Gospel According to Jesus).
But the problems don't end here. Wright confuses justification with sanctification, and salvation with eternal rewards:
Paul, in company with mainstream second-Temple Judaism, affirms that God’s final judgment will be in accordance with the entirety of a life led – in accordance, in other words, with works . . . I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. ‘What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements? (http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm)
The bottom line with all false gospels is works. Justification depends solely on Christ's finished work so that "no man can boast". There are rewards and also varying degrees of punishment dependant on our works. But the Lambs book of Life contains only names with the imputed rightoeusness of Christ. Those who entrust their personal salvation (a subject that Wright has a strong aversion to) solely to Christ's finished work. It is solely by faith as Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches so that "no man can boast". There it is! God wants ALL the glory for His gracious redemptive work in saving sinners fully deserving of eternal condemnation.
In some ways I regret delving into this subject because it should be pretty obvious that Wright is a heretic. Also, he is playing the same game as the emergents of using a term and then redefining it's meaning. Many Pastors in Denmark (where I live) read Wright's ideas indirectly through people like Brian McLaren who have latched onto them. This is why I take such strong exception to Wright. The shadow of NT Wright's teaching looms large in my own backyard - which is what provokes my severe response. What Paul really said is laid out for us in the New Testament. And much of it is avoided by Wright. One would think he's never read the first three chapters of Romans. Anyone can read the New Testament and see that all men are very evil sinners, God punishes sin, future judgment is a very real threat, salvation is a VERY major theme, that God wants all the glory for saving us, that the law condemns us because we cannot keep it, that Christ fulfilled the law by not sinning, that Christ took the punishment in the place of sinners . . . this stuff is so obvious I was able to grasp it the first time I delved into the pages of the Bible. Why does Wright continually deny, ignore, or downplay these issues. "that whosoever believes in Him would not perish but have everlasting life", "the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life" etc. Individual salvation, and how it can take place is a HUGE theme in the New testament.
Wright's denial of imputation is flat out heresy. Secondly, good teachers are explicitly clear on the Gospel whereas Wright is obscure, and confusing. Thirdly, how can he write a book on a basic understanding of Christianity and ignore so many major themes such as the Atonement. People like NT Wright survive in a climate of niceness and civility where being vague entitles them to the benefit of the doubt. I think George W Bush was right when he said "If they're not for us, they're against us". Maybe you don't want to label him a heretic, but in an environment of biblical illiteracy and lack of discernment, you should at least tell people to read something more worthwhile and stay away from the fog.
We are not called to be passive or silent in the face of such opposition to the glorious Gospel.
I was reading through Matthew 25 yesterday during the gathering of our fellowship and I was reminded of the social gospel/political activism "ministry" called "The matthew 25 Network" which was pioneered by Brian McLaren. The Matthew 25 network came to my attention in September of 2008 with my post The Lie Of The Social Gospel. Brian McLaren used the money of donors to fund political advertisements in support of radical pro-abortionist Barack Obama. The hypocrisy of McLaren is staggering enough considering his years of pontificating against conservative Christians for their political involvement. But as I read through the 25th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, I was staggered between how far removed it was from the agenda outlined on the Matthew 25 Network mission statement:
We are a community of Christians from diverse paths gathering in response to the words and acts of Christ. We humbly seek to love and care for all our neighbors.
Government policies and the election of our public officials reflect our core values. As citizens we recognize our responsibility to partake in and affect our national and global community through our government. We believe people of faith and good will should actively engage in the political process as advocates for social justice.
We engage the world as it is and hope for the world as it ought to be, working to strengthen families, to see the dignity in all, to conserve God’s creation, and to seek peace and justice at home and abroad – unabashedly advocating for the least of these.
The Matthew 25 Network identifies their main issues as health care, immigration reform, prison reform, "abortion reduction" (can you smell what that is code for), environmentalism, domestic poverty, rural investment, inner city investment, foreign aid, and civil rights. And what does this have to do with Matthew 25? Good question!
The first part of Matthew 25 (verses 1 to 13) is the parable of the ten virgins which warns us to be ready for Christ's second coming in any event. However, you will find nothing on the Matthew 25 Network about Christ's second coming. Perhaps this is because McLaren doesn't even believe in the "ten virgin" warning:
The phrase “the Second Coming of Christ” never actually appears in the Bible. Whether or not the doctrine to which the phrase refers deserves re-thinking, a popular abuse of it certainly needs to be named and rejected. If we believe that Jesus came in peace the first time, but that wasn’t his “real” and decisive coming - it was just a kind of warm-up for the real thing - then we leave the door open to envisioning a second coming that will be characterized by violence, killing, domination, and eternal torture. This vision reflects a diversion, a return to trust in the power of Pilate, not the unarmed truth that stood before Pilate, refusing to fight...
If we remain charmed by this kind of eschatology, we will be forced to see the nonviolence of the Jesus of the Gospels as a kind of strategic fake-out, like a feigned retreat in war, to be followed up by a crushing blow of so-called redemptive violence in the end. The gentle Jesus of the first coming becomes a kind of trick Jesus, a fake-me-out Messiah, to be replaced by the true jihadist Jesus of a violent second coming.
This is why I believe that many of our current eschatologies, intoxicated by dubious interpretations of John’s Apocalypse are not only ignorant and wrong, but dangerous and immoral.” (page 144, Everything Must Change).
Don't you just wish McLaren could be a little more succinct in articulating his denials of established Christian teaching? Anyway, the disconnect between the Matthew 25 Network and the Matthew 25 of Scripture doesn't end there.
Following on in Matthew 25 we come to the "parable of the talents" (verses 14 to 30)before closing with the terrifying account of God separating the sheep (true converts) from the goats (false converts) (verses 31 to 46). Both the parable of talents and God's separation of the sheep and the goats contain overwhelming warnings of eternal damnation. Again, the subject of hell is an absent subject on The Matthew 25 Network. The irony is staggering.
Surprise, surprise, Brian McLaren is not a big fan of the doctrine of hell . . .
The Matthew 25 Network should consider naming themselves after another chapter in the Bible like . . . actually I can't think of one that describes their agenda.
