The Matthew 25 Network v Matthew 25

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.

Global Burning

I must confess that I am intensely frustrated at so many mega church pastors signing on to the "Evangelical Climate Initiative". Pope Al Gore clearly holds a lot of sway these days with 85 evangelical leaders jumping onto his global warming train. Let's just hope that it's a train with a carbon neutral footprint.

As an Australian living in Scandinavia, I see the prospect of global warming as a highly enticing prospect. And I am fiercely determined not to let Al Gore and all his clergy stand in the way of my dream of wearing shorts in December. I've invested heavily in this vision too and stand to make a killing. Not many people have the foresight to open a surf shop 50 miles inland from the Norwegian coast. But when the icecaps melt and the global warming really kicks in, Norway will be the new Hawaii. And when the oceans rise my surfshop will be right on the beach. I can't begin to tell you how excited I am about this. Of course, the Norwegians are very concerned about rising sea levels which is why they're killing so many whales and keeping the sea level as low as they possibly can. The unconvenient truth is, however, that if someone shut off the power to Al Gore's house, the holes in the ozone layer would close up in one fell swoop anyway.

But what about the mega church dudes crying over the environment. I mean, if there was an 11th commandment it would have to be about using bio-degradable communion cups wouldn't it. I must confess to always being a doubter when it comes to finding a biblical basis for global warming but then I stumbled upon it in the New Testament. How could I have doubted, how could I have been so wrong for so long . . .

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed. Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:9-13)

We're not talking Global Warming here - this is Global Burning. This is a fire that's coming, and it's unquenchably hot, and everlasting, and the only way of avoiding it is by crying out to the Savior in repentant faith.

Right now, here in Denmark, many of the world's leading politicians, scientists, and Bono wannabees are gathered here to try and save the planet - it's just one big carbon neutral party. They could have saved a lot of money by hiring me to make a solitary presentation addressing them about earth's future just by reading from Scripture.

And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15).

The scientists are right in their conclusion that it will get hotter. But they are deluded as to the extent of that heat and downright wrong about man's ability to do anything about it. The one thing we can do as people is to preach the Gospel, warning people to flee from the wrath to come, and find their refuge in a Savior Who is creating a new heaven and a new earth for those He saves.

Here's a GLOBAL WARNING to any preacher dancing with environmental causes - the Gospel of Jesus Christ is mankinds only hope so get busy preaching it - in season, out of season, and before the season of the Lord's return. It's going to get a whole lot hotter . . .

My Plea To Pastors About Rob Bell (Part 3)

I am persevering on this subject today for three major reasons:

1. Rob Bell is exerting a lot of influence on young undiscerning church goers. I was initially dragged into examining the teaching of Rob Bell due to the use of his teaching in my home fellowship and the disturbing understanding of the Gospel that began to "emerge" among many of the impressionable young. The deeper I dug the darker it got (wait until you read the quotes I've got posted today).

2. Though there are worse teachers out there, I get asked the most questions about Rob Bell. Also, Rob tends to be a very gifted communicator who is very adept at cloaking the heretical aspects of his teaching.

3. The reproach he brings on doctrines that people like the reformers were willing to lay down their lives for.

If you think my charges against Rob Bell's teaching are unfounded or over the top then listen to Rob Bell in his own words (with thanks to the guys at "A Thousand Tongues" website for compiling this list).

Rob Bell On Scripture:

“The Bible is a collection of stories that teach us about what it looks like when God is at work through actual people. The Bible has the authority it does only because it contains stories about people interacting with the God who has all authority” (Velvet Elvis p65).

“…it wasn’t until the 300s that what we know as the sixty-six books of the Bible were actually agreed upon as the ‘Bible’. This is part of the problem with continually insisting that one of the absolutes of the Christian faith must be a belief that “Scripture alone” is our guide. It sounds nice, but it is not true. In reaction to abuses by the church, a group of believers during a time called the Reformation claimed that we only need the authority of the Bible. But the problem is that we got the Bible from the church voting on what the Bible even is. So when I affirm the Bible as God’s word, in the same breath I have to affirm that when those people voted, God was somehow present, guiding them to do what they did. When people say that all we need is the Bible, it is simply not true. In affirming the Bible as inspired, I also have to affirm the Spirit who I believe was inspiring those people to choose those books.” (Velvet Elvis p68)

[The Bible is a] “human product…rather than the product of divine fiat” (Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today)

Rob Bell On Heaven and Hell:

”When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter–they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth. What’s disturbing is when people talk more about hell after this life than they do about Hell here and now. As a Christian, I want to do what I can to resist hell coming to earth.” (Velvet Elvis p148)

“Heaven is full of forgiven people. Hell is full of forgiven people. Heaven is full of people God loves, whom Jesus died for. Hell is full of forgiven people God loves, whom Jesus died for. The difference is how we choose to live, which story we choose to live in, which version of reality we trust. Ours or God’s.” (Velvet Elvis p146)

Rob Bell On The Fall:

“I can’t find one place in the teachings of Jesus, or the Bible for that matter, where we are to identify ourselves first and foremost as sinners. Now this doesn’t mean we don’t sin; that’s obvious. In the book of James it’s written like this: ‘We all stumble in many ways.’ Once again, the greatest truth of the story of Adam and Eve isn’t that it happened, but that it happens.” (Velvet Elvis p139)

Rob Bell On The Exclusivity of Christ:

“I don’t follow Jesus because I think Christianity is the best religion. I follow Jesus because he leads me into ultimate reality. He teaches me to live in tune with how reality is. When Jesus said, ‘No one comes to the Father except through me’, he was saying that his way, his words, his life is our connection to how things truly are at the deepest levels of existence. For Jesus then, the point of religion is to help us connect with ultimate reality, God.” (Velvet Elvis p83)

Rob Bell On the Nature of the Atonement:

“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)

Rob Bell On the Virgin Birth:

“What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?

But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?” (Velvet Elvis p26)

Rob Bell On Faith:

“Who does Peter lose faith in? Not Jesus; he is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi is doing. If the rabbi calls you to be his disciple, then he believes that you can actually be like him. As we read the stories of Jesus’ life with his talmidim, his disciples, what do we find frustrates him to no end? When his disciples lose faith in themselves….. Notice how many places in the accounts of Jesus’ life he gets frustrated with his disciples. Because they are incapable? No, because of how capable they are. He sees what they could be and could do, and when they fall short it provokes him to no end. It isn’t their failure that’s the problem, it’s their greatness. They don’t realize what they are capable of….God has an amazingly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I’ve been told I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I’m learning is that Jesus believes in me….God has faith in me.” (Velvet Elvis p133-134)

For further reading I recommend Mark Sohmer's scholarly review of Rob Bell's book Velvet Elvis.

Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book Of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Rob Bell (Part 10)

Phil Johnson over at Pyromaniacs has writen an article on the emergent sacred cow otherwise known as Rob Bell. It is such a great and insightful read that I have posted it here as well. If ever there was a barometer of the lack of discernment among professing Christians, Rob Bell´s popularity certainly makes it very obvious. The guy is a seductive speaker and innovative story teller but if you don´t get a lot of red flags every time you hear this guy speak you need to give your biblical literacy a serious boost. In this article on the Pyromaniacs blog, Phil Johnson responds to an interview Bell did with a Boston newspaper which has a link below. Johnson is a truly exceptional Christian thinker of the modern era and I encourage you, the reader, to take the time to digest Phil´s words . . .

See, this kind of stuff is why I keep saying the historic meaning of the word evangelical will probably never be recovered. (You might want to read The Boston Globe's religion section and then come back here. The rest of this post will be more relevant if you have the full context.)

I do agree with Rob Bell about one thing. (Quick. Somebody wash my mouth out with soap. Please.) He's right when he points out that the way the secular media usually employ the term evangelical—as a synonym for religious right-wing politicos—is a misnomer. Bell says, "For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context."

Well, yeah, OK. I suppose that's part of the problem. More precisely, the term evangelical has been systematically evacuated of any reference to its historic doctrinal roots. People today therefore feel free to assign it any meaning they fancy—religious or non-religious. Practically everyone in the world of popular religion now claims to be "evangelical" in one sense or another. That includes not only old-line Moral Majority types who think the Republican Party agenda is gospel truth; hip middle-class Willow Creekers who couldn't care less about either doctrine or politics but just want to be entertained; crypto-Socinians like Bell and McLaren; crass socialists like Jim Wallis and Sojourners; heavily politicized left-wing wingnuts who think Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Al Franken are all good medicine—or whatever.

In fact, listen to Bell's own cockamamie claim about what the term properly describes: "I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That's a beautiful sort of thing."

So is that what Bell considers "a spiritual context," or did he already forget what he had just been saying about how the term became politicized and corrupted in the first place? Hmmm.

An interviewer at The Boston Globe evidently wondered the same thing. He tells Bell, "I'm struck by the fact that I don't hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you."

Bell's answers to that question and others in a similar vein are instructive. Among other things, he admits, "I have as much in common with the performance artist, the standup comedian, the screenwriter, as I do with the theologian. I'm in an odd world where I make things and share them with people."

One thing is clear: Bell himself is no true evangelical in any historic sense of the term. The Boston Globe's headline ("Bell aims to restore true meaning of 'evangelical'") is exactly backward. Bell has no agenda to "restore the true meaning" of the term evangelical, much less encourage a revival of true evangelical belief. In fact, Bell has made a career of attacking historic evangelical convictions—laying siege to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the wrath of God against sin, the authority and perspicuity of Scripture, the necessity of the virgin birth, the coherence of the biblical testimony about the Resurrection, the exclusivity of Christ, and whatever other historic Christian doctrines Bell finds politically incorrect.

In fact, if you have the stomach to read the complete version of The Boston Globe interview, don't miss Bell's arrogant skepticism about the sovereignty and omniscience of God: "For a lot of people, dominant questions center around, 'Why is this happening? Why me? Why now?' Unfortunately, the religious voice often enters into the discussion at an inappropriate time—'God just planned this.' Really? Your God planned this, not mine."

If any popular figure "in the evangelical movement" (or on its copious fringe) deserves the label "heretic," it is Rob Bell. The guardians of evangelical politeness don't like that kind of candor, but when a secular newspaper like The Boston Globe is publishing pieces implying that the best, most promising alternative to right-wing civil religion is a mish-mash of Open Theism and performance art—and that whatever "evangelicalism" is, it must be one or the other of those two abominations, it's time for people with historic evangelical convictions to speak up clearly and make the biblical message heard again.

Go Back To Part 9
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Brian McLaren (Part 3)

There is a lot of coded rhetoric that oozes from the mouth of Brian McLaren. It often centres around the emergent idea of "bringing the kingdom" through social programs and not preaching the Gospel. It generally serves as a great smokescreen because who is going to argue against helping the poor and fighting social inequality. In the following audio John Macarthur (the other voice you'll hear is Todd Friel of Wretched Radio) clears the smokescreen through a sound grasp of Scripture and the Gospel itself. I found this really helpful because something very sinister lies beneath the surface of these "humble" self proclaimed good samaritans . . .



The following article is courtesy of R. Scott Clark at www.heidelblog.wordpress.com and is a great expose on all this "bringing the kingdom" talk that is a constant thread in Brian McLaren's conversation.

Sunday night I heard a sermon on Acts 28 during which my attention was drawn to the way Luke uses the expression, “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” (Kingdom of God). I was struck by eschatological character of Luke’s conception (and by implication, Paul’s conception, as Luke reports his preaching).That passage pushed me to go back to the beginning of Acts to see how the expression occurs in the rest of the book. Though we rightly think of Matthew’s gospel as the “kingdom” gospel, it is interesting to note that Luke begins Acts by summarizing Jesus’ instruction of the disciples “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). The disciples, of course, still thinking like dispensationalists, theonomists, and pharisees wanted to know when Jesus was going to establish an earthly dominion. How did Jesus answer their query? By taking visible, bodily leave of them! The ascension is Jesus’ response to the disciples’ lust for this-worldly power, for the restitution of the Mosaic-Davidic-Solmonic theocracy. His answer to the query was also, of course, the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the visible church through the ministry of Word and sacrament and confirmed, in the apostolic period, by signs and wonders.

Luke characterizes Philip the Evangelist’s preaching ministry (Acts 8:12) with the expression: “εὐαγγελιζομένῳ” (preaching the Good News) “περὶ τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ” (about the kingdom of God). Luke quickly fills in the blank as to what he means by “kingdom,” however, as he connects the message about the kingdom of God not to anyone or anything else but “τοῦ ὀνόματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,” i.e. “of the name of Jesus the Christ.” In other words, Philip’s Good News was about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Luke further narrows the conception of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” by connecting it to the administration of the sacrament (i.e., the covenant sign and seal) of salvation: baptism. The essential character of the Kingdom of God is eschatological but, in Acts thus far, its only earthly manifestation is Christ-centered and ecclesiastical in character.

In 14:22 the fundamentally eschatological character of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is made clear when the preaching of Paul and Barnabas is characterized in terms of entering the Kingdom of God through “many tribulations.” Immediately, the message is contextualized in terms of the visible, institutional church (v. 23) where elders are appointed with prayer and fasting. The instruments of the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” are counter-intuitive and decidedly spiritual. For Luke to think about the kingdom is to think in eschatological terms but when he thinks about its manifestation in the earth, he thinks of the visible, institutional church.

Without a broader context, the brevity of the references in Acts 19:8 and 20:25 might be enigmatic but as it is, we do not have to guess at the content of the Apostle’s evangelical preaching. He was pointing his hearers in the synagogues and in the churches to Jesus the Messiah, the fulfillment of the promises and the ascended and reigning king who earned his throne with blood and a cross. That this is so is made certain by Acts 28:23:

From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God (διαμαρτυρόμενος τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ) and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

The book ends much as it began: with preaching about kingdom of God. This time it is not our Lord but it is the Apostle Paul. We find him in prison but the Kingdom is not imprisoned nor is the good news of the kingdom imprisoned. Paul proclaimed the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” which Luke identifies, epexegetically, as “teaching about Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). Indeed, it seems to have been Paul’s burden to continue to do exactly what our Lord himself began to do just before his ascension. To convince folk that the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” is not an earthly program obtained by planning and administration or by the proper distribution of goods (even though there was a program for poverty relief within the visible church), or even of healing (which certainly occurred as part of the ministry of the Word), but it is fundamentally other-worldly, heavenly (located where Jesus the King is!) and that it has broken into history in the person of Jesus the Messiah and in the outpouring of the Spirit and his work of the ascended Lord through his Spirit in Apostles through the gospel. Whoever is united to Christ by faith alone, by sovereign gift of the Spirit alone, is a citizen of his kingdom (Phil 3). That kingdom is consistently administered in Acts by the preaching of the Word and the administration of sacraments.

There is no obvious evidence of any political or cultural agenda associated with the “βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ” in Acts. At every point when the Apostles had opportunity to “speak truth to power,” to challenge the socio-economic or political or cultural status quo they refused. According to many modern conceptions of the Kingdom of God, the disciples failed rather badly to “bring in the kingdom” or to restore it. Instead Paul insisted on preaching the foolishness of the crucified Messiah and the foolishness of his resurrection. Terrible way to take back a culture I know, but there it is. Perhaps the apostles learned something at Pentecost? Perhaps they learned that the kingdom isn’t something we bring in? Perhaps they learned that it isn’t a matter of culture or earthly power or influence, but of the inbreaking of the power of salvation through faith alone in Christ the king alone, in whom alone the kingdom is embodied and in whom alone the kingdom comes in this world through the proclamation of the gospel?

Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book Of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Brian McLaren (Part 1)

If Rob Bell is the Anakin Skywalker of the "emergent conversation" then Brian McLaren would have to be the Yoda (isn't the resemblance uncanny? Hey, I've never seen them in a room together. One is a fictional character and the other is a fictional Christian). As the leader of the leaderless emergent movement, McLaren continually speaks in philosophical psychobabble that somehow manages to impress "Christians" looking for a "new kind of gospel". One of his favorite cards to play is the "I'm orthodox but" card. He uses this card to great effect by appeasing suspicious church goers with affirmations of historic Christian confessions out of one side of his mouth all the while redefining the terms and conditions out of the other side. Welcome to the fog that is postmodernism!

So where is Brian McLaren on the evangelical spectrum? Well, in his own words he is a "Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN" (from the cover of "A Generous Orthodoxy"). We now know why God is not the author of confusion - it's McLaren's job!

And you can forget about non-negotiable basic Christian doctrine because Brian McLaren simply finds that sort of certainty redundant. In his own words:

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)

But amidst all this uncertainty McLaren seems to be very certain about one thing - all those biblical fundamentalist conservative Christians are wrong. Sometimes his postmodern fog clears for a brief moment and he tells us what he really thinks about the epicentre of the historic orthodox Christian faith - penal substitutionary atonement . . .



Most of us know what Jesus said happens when the blind lead the blind. It's why I think "emergent churches" should be called ditches. Hmmm, I guess if we extend that thought then emergent congregations of more than 1000 could be called "mega-ditches". If you attend one of these churches where this kind of teaching prevails - run for the exit. If you're reading one of McLaren's books - burn it (it's about as helpful as an ashtray on a motorbike). Am I being perfecly clear in an unpostmodern way? I hope so - I don't want the reader in any doubt as to where I stand on these issues.

Anyway, that's enough of trying to nail honey to a wall for today! I'll dig a little deeper into Brian McLaren's world of confusion and heresy on Monday.

Go On To Part 2

Shocking Undertones to Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

In ealier posts I discussed Rick Warren's inauguration prayer for Barack Obama's presidency. Though I was critical of his prayer in general, I did commend Warren for praying in Jesus Name and not being a sissy on that issue. Well it turns out that I might not have listened closely enough and Warren has been very sneaky - but not sneaky enough for people sharper than myself.

If you want a refresher here is the prayer again - listen carefully and then examine the startling revelations below.

Islam expert Robert Spencer at JihadWatch.org, an organization dedicated to bringing public attention to jihad theology and defending Western society, criticized Warren for including a common refrain from Islam's Quran – "You are the compassionate and merciful one."

"'The compassionate, the merciful' is, of course, a reference to the invocation at the beginning of every chapter of the Qur'an except one: 'In the name of Allah, the compassionate, the merciful,'" Spencer writes. "Making sure everyone feels included – terrific. But the prayer indicates yet again that there is little general awareness of the reasons why the term 'Judeo-Christian-Islamic values' is a misnomer."

Warren also included the foundational Jewish prayer Shema Yisrael, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one,"

The Dallas Morning News religion blog writer, Jeffrey Weiss, wrote, "I found it to be inclusive – in the sense that he expressed God's love of all peoples and set forth a set of broad moral imperatives." On the Dallas paper's message board, one contributor presented a complimentary critique, with a fitting conclusion, regardless of one's opinion of Warren's invocation.

"A prayer for our time and our new President," he writes. "May God's care and blessing be upon a people that can extend that blessing onto others. The Lord of ALL (non-Christian, gay and lesbians included) is the Lord of us. May we recognize and honor Him so. As this prayer clearly reminds us, we will eventually have to give an account to Him of our deeds, good or bad."

And being a converted pantheist, I mean environmentalist, he had to play to the “tree huggers” this zinger, “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.” And then he couldn’t leave the civil rights over constitutionalists out by praying the adulterous Martin Luther King into heaven.

Greg Dixon at "Freedom's Phoenix" shared the following startling revelations.

Praying in the Name of Isa Inexcusable

I must confess that when Warren came out to pray, I was nervous for him but I was not a Boo Bird. I wanted him to pray a good prayer. I wanted him to hit a homer for our Lord Jesus Christ. He is a Baptist preacher. He follows a Baptist preacher as Pastor to Presidents, what an honor. But when he closed his prayer by saying, “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life – Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, – who taught us to pray…:” My heart sank. Isa is the Muslim word for Jesus through out the Koran. Here is what the word means in the Koran.

Jesus in Islam [Hilal Plazz.com]

“Jesus, or Esa as he is known to Muslims, is one of Allah’s greatest prophets who brought the same message as all of God’s messengers – worship the One true God without partners. It is obligatory on Muslims to love Jesus and to honor him, as they do for all of Allah’s messengers. Muslims, however, do not believe that Jesus is the son of God nor God himself. According to Islam, Jesus was simply a man who was born of a miraculous birth to Mary without male intervention.”

Is 'Isa the true name of Jesus?
Jochen Katz
“The traditional Arabic name for Jesus is Yasu'. Until very recent times, all Arab Christians used no other name for Jesus. And even today, that is the name used by more than 99% of all Arab Christians. Just walk into any Arab Christian church, turn on Arabic Christian broadcasting, read Arabic Christian literature written for Christians. You will only find Yasu', never E(I)sa . Only very recently (perhaps some 25 years ago) some Christians started to use the name E(I)sa in Arabic publications written specifically for Muslims in the hope that they may more easily accept their message if they see the quranic (Koran) name for Jesus instead of the traditional Christian one.[1]

Nevertheless, among themselves, Arab Christians do not use E(I)sa (Isa) Abualrub's statement suggests that Arab Christians commonly use E(I)sa , and that is simply wrong.” Mr. Katz also explains that Esa is Esau the brother of Jacob the son of Isaac. Dr. Scott Johnson from Ft. Myers, Florida who has a powerful Internet ministry, has now gone on record with these potent words: “I want to go on record as saying the Rick Warren is NO pastor of mine, and should be shunned by every Bible loving Christian until such time as he repents of his sin, turns his life around and truly decided to follow Jesus, not Esa! Until then, he is no brother of mine and no example of a Christian.”

Praying In Jesus’ Name

While on earth, the Lord Jesus instructed His disciples that after He was gone they were to pray to the Father in His name to receive answers for their prayers. The most hated name in America today is the name of Jesus. You can say God all over the place, but if you say Jesus, you will be treated as if you have the plague. Courts are ruling that His name cannot be invoked in prayer in the halls of the legislatures of the states, and many preachers now are careful at city council meetings and other public gatherings to use generic endings like, “In His name”, etc. After all, we wouldn’t want to offend Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. Warren’s prayer was carefully crafted to be legally correct when he said, “I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life…Jesus”. That was politically and legally correct. He wasn’t forcing Jesus on anyone else. He had the right to say that Jesus was the one who changed his life, although he didn’t say that He was His Savior.

In private conversation or a church setting that might fly, but not in a public forum. The Lord Jesus said, Lu 9:26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. With these words Rick Warren presented another Jesus that is not the Jesus of the Bible. The Jesus of the Bible is not Warren’s personal Jesus, he is a universal Jesus. Three times God spoke from heaven and said, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.” The writer of the book of Hebrews said, Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Racism in Reverse - Rick Warren's Prayer

On my previous blog entry I discussed Rick Warren's inauguration prayer for Barack Obama and in particular his mention of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Some readers may argue that this blog is taking on a political bent. On the contrary I want to wrap this up today and, hopefully, show that the issues at stake here are far more theological than political.

When we reflect back on the life of Dr. King and the war he fought against racism in the USA there are several valuable things we can learn as they pertain to the Great Commission. This concerns the scope of government legislation in what it can achieve, and the battles that can only be fought in the realm of the human heart. The success that Dr. King achieved, at the cost of his own life, was achieved within the realm of government. Black Americans received the right to vote, to sit where they chose on a bus, and to study at the finest universities to name but a few. In short, African Americans gained legal access to participate in every sphere of American life with the exact same opportunities that all other Americans had - and this was undoubtedly a great achievement. But, as I mentioned in my last post, Dr. King had a "dream" and that dream went far beyond the changes that were made to American law. I belive his dream is best summised in this statement:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character".

That is interesting in the light of what Rick Warren said during his inauguration prayer for Barack Obama:

"We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where a son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven."

I believe that Warren was certainly implying that the election of Barack Obama as President was the realisation (at least in part) of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream. It is quite clear from the context of Rick Warren's statement that his assumption about this is based upon the color of Obama's skin and not on the content of his character. In reality, Warren's comment flies in the face of what Dr. King fought for. Though much has changed in American law, little has really changed at the coalface of American attitude (or human attitude) for that matter.

We just had an election where a wide variety of political aspirants brought brought a wide variety of political agendas before the American people. But polling and research reveals that when voting day came many black people voted for the black candidate because he was black with little or no knowledge of his political agenda or moral fibre. There were women who voted for the female candidate because she was a woman. People with a strong fear of a roundhouse kick to the head voted for Huckabee because Chuck Norris said so (I am definitely among that demographic).

So what are we to make of all this, Christian brother and sister? What am I driving at pointing this sad reality out? For one thing, the role of Gospel preaching in transforming society at the grassroots level. Why are we surprised that we cannot stamp out racism when we cannot stamp out sin? As I have often said the heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart. The Lord Jesus spoke of what flows out of this unregenerate human heart:

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander (Matthew 15:19).

With this in mind why are we surprised that people carry racist attitudes? I am contending here that the strongest weapon against racism is the strongest weapon against sin and that weapon is the Gospel of Jesus Christ for it is the power of God unto salvation (Romans 1:16), a power so radical that it can change a wicked human heart to love God and obey His commandments:

I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. (Ezekiel 36:25-27)

So utterly transforming that we can experience the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and become a new creature in Christ Jesus (II Corinthians 5:17). In short, no amount of legislation or social work can ever measure up to an encounter with the Living God! Something I believe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had just prior to his tragic assasination . . .



Time is short - may your labor be in work that will ring through eternity.

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

Go Back To Read My Previous Post On Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

Rick Warren's Prayer, Martin Luther King's Dream, and Barack Obama's Character

There has been lots of controversy and criticism coming from both sides concerning "America's pastor" Rick Warren accepting Barack Obama's invitation to pray at his inauguration. Do I think Rick Warren should have accepted the invitation - No! But that is not what I want to discuss here today. A lot of people a lot smarter than I am have made plenty of comment about this and I do not feel the need to go over ground already covered. For good biblical insight I recommend you read Al Mohler's article concerning Warren's invitation here.

Personally, I was stunned that Rick Warren didn't think Obama's inauguration was worthy of his best Hawaiin shirt. You may even notice that Rick Warren's voice strikes an uncanny resemblance to that of Dr. Evil (could they be one in the same . . . I've never seen them in a room together . . . c'mon Rick say "one million dollars" . . . naaahh!!). But what struck me even more was the content of Rick Warren's prayer. Thankfully, he didn't sissy boy out on praying in the name of Jesus (STOP PRESS - actually he did wimp out, see this post). But I want to zero in on another comment during the prayer that I believe reveals a lot about Rick Warren's theology and how it is informed by ideology rather than vice versa. Watch and see if you can spot it . . .



Did you notice Rick Warren's reference to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr?

"We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where a son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven."

Dr. King was a great activist who fought the unbiblical racial segregation in the USA during the 1960's. Probably the cornerstone of Dr. King's platform (and his most famous speech) was that he had "A Dream". What was his dream? The essence of it was summed up during that famous speech when he said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" (emphasis mine).

One would assume judging by Warren's statement "that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven" that he sees the election of Barack Obama as a realisation, at least in part, of Dr. King's dream. The context for Warren's claim (which he is in no position to make anyway - we only know that heaven rejoices over sinners who repent) is based upon Obama's African ancestry. Just stop and think about it for a moment - is it the realisation of Dr. King's dream? Is Warren basing his comment on the color of Obama's skin or the content of his character?

So we've just had an election where many black people voted for Barack Obama because he is black. Many women voted for Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Many mormons voted for Romney because of his mormonism. Many soldiers voted for McCain because he is a war hero. And scores of people with less than a black belt in karate voted for Huckabee because Chuck Norris said so. Does modern America really evaluate people on the content of their character? Legislatively much has changed, but attitudes seem to be hard to sway through policy.

We can only speculate as to whether Martin Luther King would have endorsed Barack Obama as President. But we can at least examine this in the light of the creeds Dr. King professed. In 1963 writing from a jail in Birmingham Alabama he once wrote:

"A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law."

If Dr. King's evaluation of the content of a man's character was based upon men living by these stated values and furthermore as a champion of those who are oppressed and have no voice (black people were not allowed to vote at that time) then one can only hope that Dr. King would have also been a defender of the unborn. It is interesting to note that the niece of Dr. King (Dr. Alveda King) recently said:

"the killing of a quarter of the black population of the US has not been from the lynch mobs of her childhood days, but from abortionists, “who plant their killing centres in minority neighbourhoods and prey upon women who think they have no hope." “The great irony,” she said, “is that abortion has done what the Klan only dreamed of.”

Watch this video and ask yourself if the election of Barack Obama is the realisation of Dr. King's dream . . .



Go On To Read The Next Post On Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 3)

Tony Jones and the F-Bomb

After a fairly large amount of exposure to the "emergent conversation" it has become apparent that the use of coarse language is fairly commonplace. This is obviously not the case for every individual who is a part of the "emergent village" but it certainly seems to be an alarming trend.

It is no surprise when the national corodinator of the emergent village is not averse to some of the worst forms of "colorful language". Tony Jones speaking about the Bible wrote:

"This connection between deconstruction and the Bible is especially meaningful, methinks. I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts. This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this). And I think that deconstruction is the only hermeneutical avenue that comes close to expressing the transgressive nature of our sacred text."

There it is, a great case of bad theology and bad language going hand in hand. Tony Jones, "theologian in residence" at Doug Pagitt's fellowship otherwise known as "Solomon's Porch" drew deep from his well of Christian apologetics and stated (concerning the issue of swearing):

“People in the Bible swear. And we need to re-think the cultural context of swearing.”

Really Tony? Do you really need to use that language? Is it the best witness to the fallen world around us? When Paul writes to the church in Ephesus:

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4)

is it possible that your coarse language could fall into this category. Tony Jones would argue in the negative but either way is it really worth taking speculative chances with the word of God or erring on the side of caution in order to take care not to offend God. The Bible makes a very strong case against offending God - think Ananias and Saphira - and also to avoid the appearance of evil.

Here is an interesting article I found on the subject so you can make up your own mind:

Why any Christian would fight for the liberty to use foul language is beyond me, but there is a growing debate as to whether cussing is appropriate for the believer. Let’s start with two basic facts:

First, There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says, “Thou shall not use any of these words,” followed by a list of the most common cuss-words of our day. Second, the verse most people use to argue against the use of foul language is Ephesians 4:29: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth . . . .” As the second half of the verse seems to indicate, the “unwholesome word” Paul has in view here is probably not a reference to individual cuss-words, but rather to unkind, unhelpful, or untrue statements or messages that would tear a fellow believer down rather than building him up.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want anyone to rush to the hasty conclusion that cussing is appropriate. In my view there are at least six reasons to conclude that cussing is inappropriate for believers.

1. Many of the words known as cuss-words are descriptions of immoral acts, filthy emissions of waste from the body, or private body parts. Whatever the original meanings of these words, these vulgar meanings are undoubtedly connected with them now. When a person uses one of these words, he is calling to mind one of these acts or objects. With this in mind, remember that Paul tells Christians to dwell on things that are honorable, pure, lovely, and excellent (cf. Phil. 4:8). When you use language that calls to mind some obscene act or private body part, you are not only dwelling on the wrong objects yourself, you are also making it difficult for your hearer to focus on the right things.

2. The Christian who uses foul language in public wastes the opportunity to set himself apart from many unbelievers who commonly say the same things. The fact is, the person who does not know you but hears you fire off a cuss-word in a sentence would not likely think, “Now there’s a fine Christian man (or woman)”? Your speech leaves him with no reason to suspect that you are any different than everyone else, and therefore, gives him no reason to listen to what you might have to say about Christ.

3. Paul wrote to Corinth, saying, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He did not want Christians to offend anyone unnecessarily, not even the unbelievers around them, and certainly not a fellow Christian. He was not referring to the offense of the gospel, of course, or an offense taken by someone who despises certain Christian beliefs or practices. Cussing is not part of the gospel message, however, and it certainly is not an essential Christian practice. Therefore, if even a single Christian (or an unbeliever, for that matter) is offended by your foul language, you have sinned.

4. Many movies receive an “R” rating because of foul language, meaning that even unbelievers recognize that cussing is inappropriate, at least for children. Additionally, in many public parks and other venues, the use of foul language is prohibited altogether. Frankly I find it shameful when Christians claim as a personal liberty that which even our pagan society recognizes as offensive.

5. Given the fact that the tongue is “a restless evil and full of deadly poison,” that which cannot be tamed and which “defiles the body” (James 3:6, 8), Christians should have as their “default setting” a natural suspicion of what comes out of their mouths. This thought is affirmed by Proverbs 10:19 which says, “When there are many words, sin is not lacking.” The fact is, the more you say, the more likely you are to sin. Using these biblical principles as a guide, if there is any question as to whether or not something produced by the tongue is sinful, we should always err on the side of caution rather than appealing to our liberty.

6. One would hope that Christians who claim the liberty to cuss in public, among their families, or even in the presence of other believers, would at least find such language unthinkable in the presence of Jesus Christ. The fact is, however, if you would not cuss in His presence, then you cannot cuss with a clean conscience at all because as Jesus said, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

I would never want to rob a believer of any genuine Christian liberty, but our liberty in Christ is not “the right to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited.” Christian liberty is freedom from the slavery of sin (Rom. 6:16-22), freedom from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and freedom to “have as our ambition . . . to be pleasing to [the Lord]” (2 Cor. 5:9).

Judge for yourself, but please make your highest aim to glorify God in all that you do and say (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). And remember as you judge that “there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Eph. 5:4).

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 2)

We've already read and heard the shocking views that Tony Jones (national coordinator for the Emergent Village) has concerning the authority of Scripture and his acceptance of people who practice homosexuality and claim to be Christian.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Tony is one of the few emergents willing to be clear and open about his agenda - which is why I am amazed that he still gains acceptance as a legitimate Christian teacher. He was one of the most vocal supporters of staunchly pro-abortion President elect Barack Obama. He recently appeared on "Way of the Master Radio" to debate Christian pro life apologist Scott Klusendorf one day prior to the US presidential election. Click Here to hear the debate which begins 21 minutes into the program.

A theme that emerges throughout the debate is that Tony Jones takes a pragmatic approach (even by his own admission) that is not really well thought out even as far as pragmatism goes. Todd Friel who hosts the program later informed me that the audio was lost for the closing part of the debate which was apparently very zesty and revealing. Nonetheless, the audio that remains is very interesting fly on the wall stuff in trying to understand the trainwreck that is "emergent theology".

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 1)

Why I Applaud Emergent, Tony Jones

This Blog has had some very severe criticism of the emergent movement and justifiably so. Laden with heresies cloaked in vague and ambiguous language, it is the key proponents of this movement that pose one of the greatest dangers to our undiscerning youth culture. Tony Jones is the "theologian in residence" at Solomon's Porch which is a fellowship of people in Minnesota having their minds corrupted by the heretical teachings of Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The truth is that everyone is a theologian - the question is whether you are a good one or a bad one. And Tony Jones falls easily into the latter category.



But the great thing about Tony is that unlike the continual fog of a Brian McLaren or Rob Bell, the "theologian in residence" keeps sending up red flag after red flag making it patently obvious to any genuine convert that they had better run away as fast as they can. Thank you Tony for being overt in your heretical ideas. We've already heard Tony's heretical view on the New Testament writings of Paul. What follows is another great example of a big red flag:

Tony Jones on Unrepentant Homosexuality
In "Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue: How I Went from There to Here" Jones has removed all doubt as to his position, and that which he feels the Body of Christ itself should take, regarding those who are unrepentantly practicing the sin of homosexuality:

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. (”Aha!” my critics will laugh derisively, “I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!”)

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Marsha West at Renew America had this to say:
After years of pondering and praying, praying and pondering, he managed to come up with the wrong answer. How do I know this? Because his "revelation" doesn't line up with Scripture.

Evidently what the Bible teaches on sodomy made Tony feel uncomfortable, so he decided to hold back his opinion until he could come to terms with what he was "feeling." I say "feeling" because his conclusion doesn't comport with the written Word of God.

When people like Tony play fast and loose with God's Holy Word these are the atrocities that occur. It will be all downhill from here for Tony unless he repents - and he's already a long way down that hill.

Go On To Part 2

Thirteen Heresies in the Shack

There is a book on the market called "The Shack" which masquerades as some sort of "Christian" message about the Trinity. It is infiltrating so many churches and seducing so many undiscerning church goers that it needs to be exposed for the disgrace that it is. Eugene Petersen had this to say “This book has the potential to do for our generation what John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’ did for his. It’s that good!” It should scare any Christian that Eugene Petersen is somehow allowed to teach in any Bible college let alone command respect as a commentator on anything Christian. I'm still scratching my head as to how his pathetic "The Message" gets passed off as a Bible translation. But Petersen isn't the only one buying into the multitude of heresies propogated by William Young's bogus work of fiction. Michael W Smith is another of several high profile people to endorse "The Shack".

To be clear from the outset, the god of "The Shack" is not the God of Scripture and is an imposter of the worst kind. Preacher and Scholar Dr Michael Youssef preached a sermon recently which exposed 13 major heresies taught within the pages of "The Shack".

Here they are listed below:

1. God the Father was crucified with Jesus (p96).

Because God's eyes are pure and cannot look upon sin, the Bible says that God would not look upon His own beloved Son as He hung on the Cross, carrying our sins (Habakkuk 1:13; Matthew 27:45).

2. God is limited by His love and cannot practice justice (p102).

The Bible declares that God's love and His justice are two sides of the same coin — equally a part of the personality and the character of God (Isaiah 61:8; Hosea 2:19).

3. On the Cross, God forgave all of humanity, whether they repent or not. Some choose a relationship with Him, but He forgives them all regardless (p225).

Jesus explained that only those who come to Him will be saved (John 14:6).

4. Hierarchical structures, whether they are in the Church or in the government, are evil (122).

Our God is a God of order (Job 25:2).

5. God will never judge people for their sins (p120).

The Word of God repeatedly invites people to escape from the judgment of God by believing in Jesus Christ, His Son (Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1-3).

6. There is not a hierarchical structure in the Godhead, just a circle of unity (p122).

The Bible says that Jesus submitted to the will of the Father. This doesn't mean that one Person is higher or better than the other; just unique. Jesus said, "I came to do the will of Him who sent me. I am here to obey my Father." Jesus also said, "I will send you the Holy Spirit" (John 4:34, 6:44, 14:26, 15:26).

7. God submits to human wishes and choices (p145).

Far from God submitting to us, Jesus said, "Narrow is the way that leads to eternal life." We are to submit to Him in all things, for His glory and because of what He has accomplished for us (Matthew 7:13-15).

8. Justice will never take place because of love (p164).

The Bible teaches that when God's love is rejected, and when the offer of salvation and forgiveness is rejected, justice must take place or God has sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross for nothing (Matthew 12:20; Romans 3:25-26).

9. There is no such a thing as eternal judgment or torment in hell (p248).

Jesus' own description of hell is vivid ... it cannot be denied (Luke 12:5, 16:23).

10. Jesus is walking with all people in their different journeys to God, and it doesn't matter which way you get to Him (p182).

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no one will come to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

11. Jesus is constantly being transformed along with us (p182).

Jesus, who dwells in the splendor of heaven, sits at the right hand of God, reigning and ruling the universe. The Bible says, "In Him there is no change, for He is yesterday, today, and forever" (Hebrews 11:12, 13:8; James 1:17).

12. There is no need for faith or reconciliation with God because everyone will make it to heaven (p122,192).

Jesus said, "Only those who believe in me will have eternal life" (John 3:15, 3:36, 5:24, 6:40).

13. The Bible is not true because it reduces God to paper (p65,66,134,198).

The Bible is God-breathed. Sure, there were many men through 1,800 years who put pen to paper (so to speak), each from different professions and different backgrounds, but the Holy Spirit infused their work with God's words. These men were writing the same message from Genesis to Revelation. If you want to read more about the place of Christ in the Scripture, read "We Preach Christ" (2 Timothy 3:16).

Here is some audio of Michael Youssef's sermon courtesy of Way of the Master Radio (commentary: Todd Friel)



Mark Driscoll wasn't backward in coming forward either



Just stay away from this book, arm yourself with a few facts about the heresies contained within, and warn others about it.

Tony "Lawman" Miano and The Gospel According to Rick Warren

My precious brother in Christ Tony "Lawman" Miano is a shining light in the body of Christ. He is a man who burns with passion for God's glory and the Gospel and weeps over the lost. I recently had the priveledge of hearing Lawman preach one of the best open air sermons I've ever heard during the recent Ambassador's Academy (http://www.ambassadorsalliance.com/)in California. As an active preacher who labors in keeping the Gospel message pure and clear, Lawman was deeply convicted to respond to an interview with "America's Pastor" Rick Warren where Warren gave his version of the Gospel. I thought what Tony wrote was so good that I would also post it here.

Thursday, December 4, 2008
Rick Warren's "Book of the Month Club" Gospel

What I am about to say must be prefaced with a few very clear statements.

First: I do not believe Rick Warren is the Anti-Christ. There are those who may disagree. To those who disagree I say...get a grip. I do not believe he is any more or any less evil and sinful than I am.

Second: I do not question Rick Warren's sincerity. I believe he believes that what he says and teaches is consistent with the truth of God's Word.

Third: Rick Warren has done many, many things to advance social justice and benevolence around the world. I should aspire to be so generous and caring.

Fourth: I do not presume to know the true condition of Rick Warren's heart and the state of his soul, before a holy and just God. I must examine my own heart every day to see if I am in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5).

However, with the above qualifying statements in mind, I also believe this. Rick Warren is one of the most dangerous men in Christendom, today. He is a danger to the Church and to the lost.

Strong words, I know. Hyperbole? Shrill rhetoric? I don't think so.

What follows is an interview (a 2-part video) Rick Warren recently did with Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, on Fox News.

I will comment after each video segment.



At approximately 3:30 into the above video Alan Colmes begins to question Warren about the exclusivity of faith in Jesus Christ, as the means of eternal life. Warren doesn't miss a beat; but sadly he plays the wrong song.

Warren said, "I believe Jesus Christ came for everybody. I don't think He came for Christians. The Bible said, 'Take this good news to the whole world.' I don't care whether you're Baptist, Buddhist, Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, Muslim, or no religion at all. Jesus Christ still loves you. You still matter to God."

While later in the interview Warren would affirm that "Jesus is the way" and that God sent only one Jesus--not many, the above statement comes dangerously close to universalism. To the unsaved ear, it probably sounds as if you can remain a practitioner of any religion, or no religion at all and be right with God, if you believe in Jesus.

Without delving into a Calvinist/Arminian debate, it is quite obvious from Scripture and from the reality of life that Jesus didn't come for everybody. Why? Because many people die and go to hell.

Jesus didn't come only for Christians? Of course He did, because only Christians (true Christians) are saved. Only born again followers of Jesus Christ (Christians) will spend eternity with the Lord in heaven.

Colmes, recognizing (as any other honest person who watched the interview would recognize) that Warren didn't answer the question, specifically asks if people who don't believe in Jesus can still find their way to heaven.

Warren said, "I'm not the authority on that; but I believe Jesus is."

What, pastor? You're not an authority on the way of eternal life? Are you so ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ that you literally passed the buck to Jesus on national television? It was as if Warren was saying, "Hey, don't blame me. I didn't say it. Jesus did. Don't look at me. He did it."

Warren said, "Everybody is betting their life on something. Jesus said, 'I am the way.' I'm betting He's not a liar. I'm betting that He told the truth."

Yet more politically correct parsing from "America's Pastor." So, is faith in Christ some kind of cosmic roll of the dice, pastor? What if the person to whom you are bringing such a message isn't a gambling man?

And it got worse.

Colmes tries yest again to get a straight answer from Warren. In response, Warren reveals why he is so utterly dangerous to the souls of men. He said, "I'm saying that this is the perfect time to open their life and give it a chance. I'm saying give Him a 60-day trial."

Colmes response, while probably meant to be tongue-in-cheek, was profound and all-too-true of the gospel Warren proclaims. Colmes said, "Sounds like the book of the month club."

Instead of recognizing his error, Warren joins in the jocularity. "I dare you to try trusting Jesus for 60 days." Warren quipped. "Your money guaranteed back."

Warren's church and churches like it around the world are filled with people who are trying on Jesus for size--who are taking Jesus for a test drive, or using Him as a product for a 60-day trial. And what do people do with a product with which they are not satisfied? The return it. They return it and are embittered toward the product and the manufacturer. They don't trust the manufacturer and they tell others that the manufacturer is unreliable. They then look upon others who do trust the manufacturer as foolish, ignorant, and even incompetent.

And so is the case with those who "try Jesus for 60 days" in response to Rick Warren's gospel. Warren is dangerous because his message creates false converts who later become bitter backsliders. He is dangerous because to the non-religious people in our culture he makes the cross of Christ and Christianity appear shallow, trite, and foolish. To those in the unbelieving world who have no interest in spiritual things, Warren must look like a game show host, with Jesus being the lovely parting gift.

And what about the people who take Warren up on his "60-day trial offer"? What if they get through the 60 days and decide they like this whole "Christian-thing"? What then? Are they pronounced "saved" by Warren and other pastors who use the same infomercial tactics? Is that the test of salvation--trying Jesus on for size and, after a trial period, if the person sticks around and decides they have found their purpose in life they then are a Christian?

Pastor Warren, what verse is that?

Sadly, because of the kind of gospel Warren and others preach, this has become the all-too-common testimony of so many false converts in the American Church.

"My life was a mess. A friend invited me to church and it wasn't half-bad. The speaker didn't bore me with a lot of Bible stuff, the music was upbeat, the people all seemed pretty normal, and the speaker didn't make me feel uncomfortable about who I am by talking about sin and judgment--stuff like that. He gave me some really helpful suggestions for making my life better, and I knew I should include God in my life. After all, what if hell is real? Man, I don't want to end up there. So, I decided to give Jesus a go. It took a little while, but in time my life wasn't such a mess. Jesus really came through for me. He helped me get over my hurts and hang-ups. So, I committed my life to Him for the rest of my life. Now my life has purpose and I have a church family who really cares about me. Now, I am going to go out and help as many people as I can. And maybe, just maybe, they will see Jesus in me and then I can invite them to church."

Warren woefully missed the mark. No mention of sin. No mention of judgment. No mention of repentance. No mention of the deity of Christ. No mention of the sinless atonement. No mention of the resurrection. Warren presented just another feel-good, easy-to-swallow, "open up God's gift to you" message, which is no gospel at all.

The gospel of Rick Warren is as palatable (and as unimportant) to the unbeliever as the "Book of the Month" club. If you like to read, you enjoy a book. If you don't like to read, well, you're no worse off.

As much of a train wreck as Warren's statements were, there were some very brief and redeemable moments in the the second half of the interview.



But those redeemable moments didn't come from the "pastor." They came from the anchor. They came from Sean Hannity. At least Hannity mentioned sin and repentance.

I hope the Lord one-day leads Rick Warren to repent of the watered-down gospel he proclaims to the masses. Instead of using his present notoriety for presenting quasi-spiritual, pragmatic, and eternally-purposeless platitudes; I hope the Lord draws Warren to repentance and he begins to preach the gospel that saves instead of a gospel that further enslaves.

Yes, the world loves Rick Warren. But the world hates Jesus Christ. The world loves a "Book of the Month" gospel. But the world hates the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Repent, Pastor Warren. I'm praying for you.

You can read Tony "Lawman" Miano's blog here http://thelawmanchronicles.blogspot.com/

A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 4)

Continued from Monday

The first emergent church died out in the Sinai desert after 40 years on a journey never getting anywhere with a 40 year "conversation" full of questions and devoid of answers. The subsequent generation did a post mortem on post modern and decided that doing what God says could be a good idea after all. As the new generation crossed the Jordan into the land of milk and honey the rotting carcass of postmodern thought lay in the Sinai desert. The emergent movement was down but not out and by the time of the Messiah's arrival there was a "new kind of emergent" waiting to reveal himself.

When Jesus Christ arrived on the scene the tyranny of the Roman empire was well and truly entrenched. Post modern thought had seemingly died out in the Sinai. Israel had abandoned the idea of God being conformed to man's ideas. But a Roman governor by the name of Pontius Pilate was only too willing to embrace the theological suicide of post modern thinking.

As the climax of redemptive history drew near Pilate would utter words that would ultimately become a core doctrine of the doctrineless emergent movement in the 21st century. Pontius Pilate presided over the criminal proceedings as the spotless and perfect Lamb of God awaited His sentence. The Roman Governor was oblivious to the sovereign ordained plan that was transpiring before his eyes. Pilate gazed on the God-man Jesus Christ and asked the question "what is truth?". Pilate never realised that the Truth was standing directly in front of him. Jesus Christ Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life was marching to Calvary to endure far more than a Roman army could inflict on Him - God's just and Holy wrath.

So here we are in the 21st century. Beards have given way to soul patches, sandals have given way to Birkinstocks, and colliseums have given way to coffee. But beneath this nothing much has changed. As the Brian McLarens and Rob Bells of this world clutch in the dark as they search for "truth", Scripture stands before them plainly stating the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

So what is the point of this satire? It is here to serve as a reminder that the "new truths" being served up by the post modern gurus are nothing more than old lies. As Spurgeon once said:

"We ought not, as men in Christ Jesus, to be carried away by a childish love of novelty, for we worship a God who is ever the same, and of whose years there is no end. In some matters "the old is better." There are certain things which are already so truly new, that to change them for anything else would be to lose old gold for new dross. The old, old gospel is the newest thing in the world; in its very essence it is for ever good news. In the things of God the old is ever new, and if any man brings forward that which seems to be new doctrine and new truth, it is soon perceived that the new dogma is only worn-out heresy dexterously repaired, and the discovery in theology is the digging up of a carcass of error which had better have been left to rot in oblivion. In the great matter of truth and godliness, we may safely say, "There is nothing new under the sun."

Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 3)

Continued from Thursday November 27 2008

It was there on the doorstep of the “promised land” that the emergent church really took root and established itself. As the twelve spies returned consensus was taken. Joshua and Caleb on the one hand wanted to go into combat with the inhabitants of the land and fight a war over the resources contained within that land. The other ten spies protested citing that there was no UN resolution for going to war and it would give Israel a bad name within the international community.

New voices of reason “emerged” aside from Moses with fresh and nuanced insights that could lead to an ongoing dialogue. Rather than give an answer to the complex and multifaceted question of whether to go where God told them - they thought it would be better to embark on a 40 year trek through the Sinai desert. After all, the destination wasn’t important – it was the “journey” that mattered. These 40 years on a journey never getting anywhere allowed for an invigorating and ongoing “conversation”.

This conversation was able to continue unabated over those 40 years as the emphasis was never on answers, but on exploring what it means to follow God in new and revolutionary ways - rather than listening to what He told them to do. The “conversation” thrived and was ongoing. People loved to gather and do manna together. After 40 years they were on the cusp of furthering the "conversation" when alas they all died in the desert. All those dead people really put a downer on the “conversation”.

The subsequent generation did a post mortem on post modern and decided that maybe the land of milk and honey was a good idea after all – especially if God said so! So the first significant “emergent village” had died out in the Sinai desert. The new generation crossed over the Jordan into Canaan. The “conversation” was put on hold to experience centuries of silence. The Messiah would one day come and so too a new kind of emergent . . .

To be continued.

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

The Business of Life and Death

It is at this time of year that many Danes brave the cold to buy Christmas gifts. Go out and watch the people occupied with things that will never matter in eternity. People, we are in the business of life and death. If we don’t preach the Gospel to them either with our words or with a tract then who will? This is the best time all winter to get out and talk to people.

Dark clouds are gathering all over the world right now as we see the economic crisis unfold. Western people including many professing Christians are going to learn a hard lesson about greed. Many people have been spending recklessly in the last 5 to 10 years and the banks were only too happy to lend them the money to do this. Well the banks aren’t so happy about it anymore and have decided that it’s time to collect. People are very afraid about this, whether it is their home, car, or retirement money. In this time of global fear we need to draw people’s attention to something they should be much more afraid about . . .

Even darker clouds are gathering all over the world right now as the cup of God’s wrath fills up against a wicked generation. Most of these people have been busy pursuing pleasure and material gain never realizing that God continually delays His wrath, giving them time to repent. Well God’s cup of wrath is filling up further every day and it is only a matter of time before it overflows with His righteous judgment on a world bound for Hell. As you gaze on these deluded people running from one store to the next buying another useless thing that will burn up on the day of judgment - remember such were we before God redeemed us by His own blood. As the clock counts down to Armageddon are you going to continue watching? Are you going to believe the evil lie of modern preachers who say “preach the Gospel, if necessary use words” which is like saying “wash always, if necessary use water”? Or are you going to use that voice that God gave you?

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, 'You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling
block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul." (Ezekiel 3:17-21)

Stop for a moment and listen. Can you hear it? Do you hear it? It is the sound of thousands of church goers saying absolutely nothing about the glorious blood bought once for all delivered Gospel. Don’t sit in your warm apartment this Christmas season and offend God with silence. Someone recently asked me how he can possibly witness and share the Gospel when he has so many personal struggles. We can and should preach – in season and out of season – because this has everything to do with the fact that Christ is worthy to receive the reward of His suffering.

Whatever you do, don’t do nothing. If you are scared to witness hand out tracts, if you aren’t scared hand out tracts anyway. Talk to people, be friendly regardless of how they speak to us always remembering that we too were once slaves in Egypt.

Danes often tell me that being introverted and private is a Danish cultural issue. Let me ask you whether your evangelism is informed by culture or Scripture. We are all meant to be a part of a culture and it isn’t Danish or Australian or American. As the author of Hebrews made clear we are meant to be strangers in a strange land longing for a city who’s builder and maker is God.

For people who speak thus make it clear that they are seeking a homeland. If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared for them a city. (Hebrews 11:14-16)

Tomorrow - A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 3)

A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 2)

The saga continues.

Noah and his family were the only human survivors of that ancient environmental crisis. Could global warming really have caused the oceans to rise that much? As the waters abated Noah and his family were given a fresh chance to bring in the "kingdom". It remained to be seen what would "emerge" from this scenario in the following years.

Admittedly that initial covenant of animal sacrifices after stepping off the Ark was a backward step for environmental causes. But generally things went pretty well for several generations up until they decided to build a tower up to heaven. Unfortunately Doug Pagitt had not yet been born and was thus unable to inform them that heaven is not a place (after all, Jesus told His followers that He was going away to prepare a "new reality" for them).

Much confusion emerged as the tower was being built. People simply could not understand each other. One plausible explanation was that Brian McLaren was the spokesman for the project but the latest archaelogical evidence seems to refute this theory. Recent excavation of the ruins shows that the project was abandoned due to the need of accomodating people's differing realities. This ancient civilization embarked, instead, on constructing a massive labyrinth that became so big that everybody ended up lost and scattered across its vast reaches.

The emergent movement was down but not out. A remnant remained that would not make a public appearance, aside from left wing political campaigns, until Moses led Israel out of Egypt. The promised land awaited - could it be an actual place?

To be continued

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

A Brief History of the Emergent Church (Part 1)

It is widely thought that the "emergent church" is a modern phenomenon - so modern in fact that they are post modern or "pomo" for short. Solomon once said that there is nothing new under the sun and so it is with the emergent movement. I thought I'd give the readers today an overview of the origins and history of this not so new movement.

The movement is so old in fact that it's pioneer appears in Genesis chapter 3 where we see the introduction of the deconstructionist post modern hermeneutic or put more simply, twisted Scripture. You know, when the serpent said to Eve "Yea, hath God said?". Admittedly, the "conversation" was rather short winded as they were not yet able to do it over coffee. Nonetheless Eve, and her husband Adam, were more than willing to explore the serpent's narrative rather than be bound by the black and white absolutes of God's commands.

Adam and Eve were now progressives and no longer wanted to confine themselves to the limitations of paradise and besides, they had strong suspicions that the owner voted Republican anyway. It was outside Eden that they got to learn about the real world and the real problems it faced. Their eldest son Cain, for example, had a deep concern about overpopulation. They also had to deal with the archaic idea of right and wrong and figure out the truth that worked best for them.

As time progressed a man called Noah appeared on the scene. He was a man who completely disrupted the societal harmony and pleasure of his day. For one thing, he built a very large boat destroying a lot of old growth forests in the process. Noah's disregard for the environment certainly had a dramatic effect on weather patterns. More and more grey clouds started to appear in the sky.

Noah also talked a lot about a flood that God was going to send and destroy everbody who didn't get inside his boat. It was important for people not to interpret Noah literally. After all, conjecture over whether this flood would be a literal historical event would be to completely miss the depth and meaning of the metaphor God was trying to convey. They decided to contemplate Noah's words as to thier true meaning for each individual. Anyway, there was no way anybody was getting on a boat that didn't have a carbon neutral footprint.

Eventually, Noah's disregard for the environment led to greater and greater climate change. Those grey clouds now filled the sky and Noah's family entered their boat. Noah's words had ceased and the rains had begun and no post modern paradigm could change it . . . .

To Be Continued

Go On To Part 2