For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.

The Emporer’s Clothes

Apprising Ministries has been tracking the Emerging Church for you as it continues coming out of the closet, and in more ways than one, with its new version of Progressive Christianity—Liberalism 2.0—that’s now being cobbled together e.g. by folks like progressive/process theologian Dr. Philip Clayton along with the Emergent Church trinity of Brian McLaren, universalist pastor Doug Pagitt, and his own progressive theologian in residence Tony Jones.

With McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity and the recently concluded heresy-fest Theology After Google (TAG) the Emerging Church 2.0 have now begun their latest offensive against the historic, orthodox, Christian faith. The goal now is to advance their new de-formation of progressive/liberal theology called Emergence Christianity right into the very heart of largely spiritually obtuse mainstream evangelicalism.

In much the same way as what the late Dr. Walter Martin had dubbed circa 1985 the Cult of Liberal theology once infected the mainline denominations a few decades ago people involved with the neo-liberal cult of the Emerging Church slowly took over the leadership positions within mainstream denominations, its related seminaries, and pumped out relentless revisionist propaganda through evangelical publishing houses to begin their indoctrination.

The EC, which is another arm extending from the same Druckerites who launched the Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven movement, most specifically targeted Young Adult and Youth groups through “alternative worship” that included the virus of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) under the guise of the so-called Spiritual Formation of neo-Gnostics like Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster and his spiritual twin Dallas Willard.

Remember, Brian McLaren did tell you that Foster and Willard were “key mentors” in the EC; and so they were, helping unload their romanticized version of Roman Catholic Counter Reformation spirituality that serves to short out one’s critical thinking skills. Scott Hodge Shares His Love For Julian Of Norwich shows how far this CSM has spread because he’s one of the fast rising stars of the Druckerite Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven movement ala Perry Noble and his disciple Steven Furtick.

And yet there’s Hodge, ostensibly a mainstream evangelical Protestant, paying homage to an apostate (at best) ascetic Roman Catholic mystic as a fine example of seeking direct experience with “God.” What I’m doing now is beginning to show you glimpses of where this latest EC offensive and their goal of further transforming Christian theology, to use Philip Clayton’s term, which comprises the title of his latest book. In fact, behind TAG was Clayton’s Transforming Theology project:

Some churches and denominations possess robust and potentially revolutionary theologies but are rather less active in successful in bringing about the changes that their beliefs imply. Others are deeply involved in transformative action but seem to have trouble formulating exactly what are the distinctively Christian beliefs that motivate these actions…

 [A] part of the website, and of our overall project, is dedicated to those Christians who are writing and working in powerful and accessible ways to transform church and world. We are identifying these men and women, publicizing their work, making their books available to bloggers and to the media, recording interviews with them that can be downloaded as podcasts — in short, creating a network of theologians whose work is transformative. (Online source)

In closing this out, for now, I’ll tell you that the videos I placed here below feature some of the progressive theologians associated with this “overall project” working “to transform church and world.” These “Christian thinkers” are responding to the question: “What Did God Do in Christ That We Couldn’t Do for Ourselves?” I do believe you’ll find their answers most interesting.

Part One

Part Two

See also:

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

THE EMERGING CHURCH, PHILIP CLAYTON, AND NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

CALLID KEEFE-PERRY, KEN SILVA, AND THEOLOGY AFTER GOOGLE

THE EMERGING CHURCH PUSHING PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY IN GOOGLE ERA

Dr. Brian McLaren, a Christian author, speaker, blogger and networker, will present his lecture “Beyond Absolutism, Pluralism, Relativism” at 7 p.m. Monday, March 22, in the Alexander Reading Room on the Baylor campus.

The event, which is free and open to the public, is part of the Intersections Lecture Series, which is hosted by Baylor’s Honors College and the department of student activities. Intersections explores the connection between faith, culture and theology through topics such as faith related to art, literature, politics and more… (Online source)

Concerning McLaren as “author, speaker, blogger and networker,” I’d also add heretic. The fact is, his A New Kind of Christianity begins laying out systematically the postmodern form of progressive/liberal theology aka Emergence Christianity—Liberalism 2.0—McLaren personally believes; and because he’s done so we can now clearly see that Brian McLaren has now departed from anything even remotely resembling the historic, orthodox, Christian faith.

See also:

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE EMERGING CHURCH, PHILIP CLAYTON, AND NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY

CALLID KEEFE-PERRY, KEN SILVA, AND THEOLOGY AFTER GOOGLE

THE EMERGING CHURCH PUSHING PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY IN GOOGLE ERA

Now this attempt at “transforming Christian theology,” to use McLaren’s friend progressive/process theologian Dr. Philip Clayton’s term, is still developing, but don’t kid yourself, such as these new Gnostics believe that they’re on a mission from God and they’re not about to stop actively promoting what some are beginning to call a “big tent” version of Christianity. The recently concluded Emergent Church heresy-fest Theology After Google was about rallying EC troops to begin using the new social media to advance this upgraded version of the Cult of Liberal Theology.

Here I’ll point you to The Goshen College Record, published by student journalists on campus, and a short piece called Religion and Science Conference to discuss complexity of the world. Therein Marlys Weaver tells us that many people “from across the country will be meeting at Goshen College this weekend.” And what’s going on you may ask; seems folks will be gathering to “discuss ‘rethinking humanity and ethics in light of the science-religion partnership’ in the 10th annual Religion and Science Conference.” Weaver then tells us:

This year’s lecturer, Philip Clayton, is the professor of religion and philosophy at Claremont Graduate University. He wrote in summarizing his presentations that his three lectures will “use evolutionary theory, together with insights from the religious traditions, in order to better understand what humanity is and how we should act in the world.”

His opening lecture, Friday at 7:30 p.m., is entitled “Starting with the Big Picture: The Evolutionary Emergence of Body, Mind and Spirituality,” where he plans to address the history of the cosmos while also focusing on current religious thoughts on evolution and emergent complexity. His lecture Saturday at 10:30 a.m., “Apes with Big Brains: Anthropology and the Biological Sciences,” will examine the differences between humans and their biological cousins while addressing human altruistic behavior and actions related to today’s global challenges. Both of these lectures will be in the church-chapel and are open to the public.

Clayton’s final lecture is Sunday and only open to registered participants. There, Clayton will present “What’s a Nice Hominid Like You Doing in a Place Like This? Ethical Dilemmas Our Biology Never Prepared Us For.” This lecture will wrap up the conference with thoughts on how religious traditions can help humans deal with the increasing complexity of the world and those in it. (Online source)

So the new kind of progressive Christian theology—Liberalism 2.0—laid out by Brian McLaren and now being advanced by the Emerging Church through theologians like Philip Clayton will “use evolutionary theory, together with insights from the religious traditions, in order to better understand what humanity is and how we should act in the world.” And I suppose we need to thank God that they’ll help us grasp “the differences between humans” as opposed to our “biological cousins” from which we evolved. Well now, I’d have to say that evangelicalism does indeed face some ethical “dilemmas” it’s likely not prepared for.

See also:

PHILIP CLAYTON AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

KEN SILVA ANSWERS PHILIP CLAYTON

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

APPRISING MINISTRIES WITH A PEEK AT THE COMING SOTERIOLOGY OF EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY

In fact, the other two-thirds of the EC trinity—universalist pastor Doug Pagitt, and his progressive theologian in residence Tony Jones, are key players in promoting Clayton’s idea of transforming Christian theology; actually a de-formation of the faith, through use of the new social media for this after Google world. The key point to remember is that we’re clearly talking about the theology of “conservative” evangelicals as opposed to that of “progressives” ala those who adhere to a form of progressive/liberal theology. It’s not the use of technology; but rather, the theology itself at issue.

Below is the video of the TAG presentation by Quaker mystic Callid Keefe-Perry, which he entitled Lewis Carroll, Orthodox/Quaker Thought, The Audobon Society, and the Willingness to Squint. For more information on how Quakers view Scripture you may wish to take a look at what Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster teaches in Richard Foster: The Bible A Reliable Guide Despite Inconsistencies. There he tells us that the Bible “serves as a most reliable guide for our own spiritual formation”; so it’s not the most reliable, but according to Foster, a mere reliable guide with our inner  life.

Now it’s interesting to note that at 09:45 of the video below, as a Quaker mystic who believes in a form of mysticism’s “spark of the divine” aka the Inner Light within all of mankind, Keefe-Perry’s tells the TAG crowd: 

Those of us who’ve had experience with the Christ—within—however you would name it, see the world in that; and there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t make us relativists; it doesn’t make us crazy. It shapes and guides our life.

You see, for mystics and progressives e.g. Dr. Delwin Brown “‘Christ’ is the Christian name for the logos of God in all of creation, including all religions” wherein people are to be encouraged “to consider and to appropriate” the teachings of Jesus “according to the light of the divine in their lives.” [1] And I particularly draw your attention to 11:43 in of the below video where Callid Keefe-Perry refers to Ken Silva “who’s a heresy hunter.” And yes, Callid; I’m definitely out here. But unfortuntately for you, I’m not at all talking about you and others there at TAG being “loosey-goosey,” as you put it in your presentation.

What I’m saying, Callid, is that this new form of postmodern “Christian” theology is actually emptying out Christian terminology of virtually all of its original biblical meaning; and then such as Clayton, McLaren, et al are replacing it ala Humpty Dumpty with completely different meanings. Well I, for one, have absolutely no intention of just sitting here and letting folks like you and your friends, who were showing me such heartwarming Christian love there at TAG, become “master” by reimagining the historic, orthodox, Christian faith into something else entirely. And I just thought you might wish to know.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:  

1. Delwin Brown, What Does a Progressive Christian Believe? [New York: Seabury Books, 2008], 38.

See also:

PHILIP CLAYTON AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

APPRISING MINISTRIES WITH A PEEK AT THE COMING SOTERIOLOGY OF EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY

It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

Romanticizing Roman Catholic Mystics Continues Spreading

Scott Hodge is one of the fast rising stars of the Druckerite Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven movement ala Perry Noble and his disciple Steven Furtick. The About section at his personal blog Livin’ Venti tells us he’s “the lead pastor of The Orchard Community in Aurora, IL.” Hodge preaches in what I call a Christian comedian style, very reminicent of Emergence Christianity icon Rob Bell and his co-teaching pastor Shane Hipps, where it seems that virtually every sentence has to contains some attempt at humor.

The sermon I’m discussing here, Experience, is an ode to the Roman Catholic recluse and mystic Julian of Norwich (1342-1420) and was preached by Hodge as part of the series called Yesterday in September 12, 2009. In fact, when he reviewed Hodges’ sermon on his March 9, 2010 Fighting for the Faith program Christian apologist Chris Rosebrough called it ”an impassioned plea for the validity of mysticism.” After listening to it, as a former Roman Catholic myself, I heartily concur with Chris.

Apprising Ministries has long been exposing in the influx of corrupt Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) as taught by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, along with his his spiritual twin Dallas Willard, under the guise of so-called Spiritual Formation. For years now I’ve been studying this CSM from various religions and traditions from their own sources and recently in The Emerging Church, A Lava Lamp, And Leaven I explained how it is that enemy forces have been able to use it to gain a huge foothold even within the mainstream evangelical community.

Sadly, when mainstream evangelicalism made the dubious choice to embrace the Emerging Church it didn’t realize that the EC would turn out to function as a Trojan Horse from which Satan’s counterfeit Emergent Church would unload this refried Roman Catholic mysticism inside its walls. What you need to know is it’s really a form pietism where practioners convince themselves they’re closer to God through ascetic “spiritual disciplines.” Now with people like Scott Hodge we’re seeing this CSM spreading and beginning to take root within the wider Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven community.

That’s why I felt led to bring your attention to Hodge’s recent sermon on the Roman Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich, within which he clearly holds up her up as a good example of how we can seek “experience” with God. However, as one who’s read these mystics and has been exposing how their mystic musings are counter to the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura, I can tell you Hodge is obviously not very familiar with the issues surrounding people like Julian of Norwich; and in fact, he really doesn’t appear to have much of a grasp of what happened with the Protestant Reformation either.

Let me point you to something called ask the priest, which is “is maintained by priests of the Episcopal (Anglican) tradition”; and to Rev. David Simmons, the Rector of St. Matthias Episcopal Church, Waukesha, WI, who’s also associated with the Order of Julian of Norwich. The following comes from Simmons’ post Feast Day of Julian of Norwich:

All we know for certain about Saint Julian of Norwich is that she spent a significant portion of her life as an an­chorite, a recluse, at Saint Julian’s Church in England’s Norwich, that she was granted by God a series of sixteen visions or “showings” (as she called them) of the Crucified Christ, and that she was the first woman to write a book in English – her Revelations of Divine Love – which recounts her visions and her own twenty-year process of coming to understand their meaning… (Online source)

Simmons is correct when he tells us that an anchorite (to withdraw) was “a recluse who was literally sealed in one closed room,” in her case, “adjacent to” the Roman Catholic “church in Norwich.” The Roman Catholic encyclopedia New Advent tells us that achorites were people, mostly men, “who have sought to triumph over the two unavoidable enemies of human salvation, the flesh and the devil, by depriving them of the assistance of their ally, the world.” And of these ascetics we’re further told that, “the earliest of these fugitives from human society were the vast deserts of Egypt and Syria.” [1] 

Concerning Julian of Norwich, Simmons goes on to explain that “the anchoritic life of seclusion” was actually “highly revered” in the superstitious and pietistic Roman Catholic community of her day. As a matter of fact, Simmons rightly informs us that, “parishes vied with each other to have ‘a saint’ living in a cell attached to their church.” However what’s important to inderstand from actual history, as opposed to the revisionist romanticizing of these mystics today, is the “life of an anchorite was considered the most holy, most ascetic, and most pious life possible in late medieval England.”

Because of the tragic self-righteousness at the core of this lifestyle, these are not people to be emulated; but rather, they are to be pitied for wasting their lives by abusing themselves and refusing basic creature comforts thinking this was somehow pleasing to God and would bring them closer to Him. Though he is obviously sympathetic to Julian of Norwich, which is why I chose to feature his peice, Simmons actually confirms what I just told you as he shares that “often the truly devout soul” wanted a “personal avenue of asceticism” because it was considered the deepest “solitary an­choritic life.” 

Revelations That Keep People Enslaved In Pietistic Religious Bondage Aren’t From God

Then Simmons gives us the background for Juian’s visions:

In early May in her thirty-first year (confusion in surviving manuscripts makes it uncertain whether it was May 8 or May 13), Julian was struck with an apparently terminal illness. When she was expected to die, her parish priest was sent for and he placed a crucifix before her, telling her to cast her eyes upon her Savior.

When Julian did so, the crucifix came alive for her and she began to receive the fifteen showings in which she experienced being present at the Crucifixion of Christ, and then listening to and speaking with Christ afterwards. She apparently wrote an account of her revela­tions shortly afterwards, and then twenty years later she expanded that short account to include the conclusions of her two-decade-long study and meditation on the meaning of her visions. (Online source)

The above is confirmed in The Shewings Of Julian Of Norwich: Introduction, edited by Georgia Ronan Crampton, where we’re told that these revelations—or ”shewings” (means showings) as she called them—of Julian of Norwich came in “an intense experience that took place within a few days and nights of May, 1373, in Norwich.” And further, the book The Shewings of Julian of Norwich:

is a first-person account of a young woman’s visions. They came, she tells us, when she was thirty and a half years old, after seven days and nights of illness. At the very point of death – her curate holds a crucifix before her eyes to comfort her, and she is aware that her mother, thinking her dead, has moved to close her eyes – she received fifteen “shewings,” to be confirmed the next day in a sixteenth. Health restored, she lived on into old age, almost certainly as an anchorite.

Two accounts of the showings, or revelations, as Julian also calls them, one much longer than the other, survive. She apparently wrote a first, short narrative soon after the 1373 illness, and a second, six-fold longer, twenty years later: “For twenty yeres after the tyme of the shewing, save three monethis [months], I had techyng inwardly” (lines 1865-66). Much of the short text reads as if it were immediately, spontaneously, recounted. An authorial consciousness as well as a bolder and a more elaborated theology mark the long text. (Online Source)

It’s important to note a couple of things here: 1) As with most mystics, Julian had these visions while in ill health; and 2) often their visions/experiences were only received over a brief period of time. By the way, the reason the Roman Catholic has a crucifix—where Jesus is depicted upon the cross—is because of the heresy called the Mass in Roman Catholicism where Christ is sacrificed, albeit in an “unbloody” mystical way, each time the empty ritual of the Mass is performed. Returning to The Shewings Of Julian Of Norwich: Introduction we’re also told even more about these ascetic anchorites.

“[A]nchoritism’s most flourishing century” happened to be the one in which Julian lived; in other words, it was at the height of this spiritual endeavor that she chose this wasteful lifestyle. And to desire to “be an anchorite was to choose a more severe and idiosyncratic” lifestyle; a “solitary” one, which included ”a more deeply contemplative” approach to God. For one who became an anchorite:

After enclosure they remained, normally for life, in the same restricted quarters, most attached to a church or convent… The prescribed size for a solitary’s cell was twelve square feet… An anchorhold found at Compton in Surrey allowed barely room to turn around,… Cells were to have three windows, the first opening to the church to allow the recluse to hear Mass, receive the Sacrament, and speak with a confessor; the second for delivery of necessities; the third, for light, was to be covered so as to be translucent, but not distracting…

Enclosure rituals for the neophyte recluse included a mass with prayers for the dead; the anchorite was henceforth to be one dead to the world…the center and reason for being of reclusive life was contemplative prayer. (Online source)

Lord willing, I’ll have more on Julian of Norwich another time; but for now, this is the backdrop against which to listen to the sermon lauding this apostate (at best) Roman Catholic mystic Julian of Norwich whose faith rested not in Christ, but in the pietistic non-gospel of the Church of Rome. Jesus says to His Church — “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (John 20:21). Quite obviously Jesus didn’t live in a secluded cell abusing Himself physically; nor did His Apostles, or their immediate disciples. And no less an authority on than the late Thomas Merton, whom you’ll hear Hodge mention in his sermon above, has said these ascetics didn’t come along until the hermits of the desert in the early third century.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:  

[1] http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01462b.htm, accessed 3/18/10.

See also:

SOUTHERN BAPTIST PASTOR RICK WARREN AND SADDLEBACK CHURCH OPENLY RECOMMEND CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM

RADICAL APOSTATES, RICK WARREN AND PETER SCAZZERO

CALVINIST CONTEMPLATIVE/CENTERING PRAYER?

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY OF RICHARD FOSTER ROOTED IN THE EASTERN DESERT AND THOMAS MERTON 

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR 

MYSTICISM: WHEN GOD SENDS AN EVIL SPIRIT

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM (CSM) OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION IS RECKLESS FAITH

It’s not evangelical Protestant Christianity; and worse, this highly subjective CSM is truly hostile to the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura. Here’s a couple of examples from Foster. The first is from a 2005 piece in Quaker Life called The With God Life: An Interview with Richard Foster.  While hawking The Renovare Spiritual Formation Bible, which had just come out, the Quaker mystic tells us how the experience-oriented Quakers subjectively approach God “in the gathered silence.”

And while explaining this to us Foster also reveals that he personally does not hold to the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture: 

“The Immanuel Principle is ultimately cosmic,” according to Foster. “We are to reign with God and be with God forever and forever. In the past God worked first directly, then indirectly with his people. Since Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection, God works both directly and indirectly. Quakers in the gathered silence experience God both directly and indirectly.” 

I noticed that the focus on the with-God life circumnavigates inconsistencies found in Scripture and differing opinions about theology. By looking at how God revealed himself to people throughout Biblical history negates all those arguments. “You bypass it all,” stated Foster. “You put your focus on how God has been with a person and what does that say to me, now? What are their strengths and weaknesses and how does that apply to me? It’s all about developing charact — character that goes on into the future where we will reign with God and be with God eternally. (Online source, emphasis mine) 

According to Richard Foster the infallible and inerrant Bible has “inconsistencies” that, as one of the new Gnostics, his “with-God life” helps him ”circumnavigate.” Foster’s practice of CSM supposedly allows him to negate and then ”bypass” all the “differing opinions about theology” because, well obviously, he and his fellow neo-Gnostics like Willard have gleaned superior direct gnosis (means knowledge) from God through their CSM:

Dallas Willard understands Quaker thinking about as well as anybody,” Foster acknowledged. “I had him do a study once on George Fox and his insights just blew me away.” (Online source) 

If you didn’t know, George Fox is the heretical mystic who founded the original Quaker sect and, right in lock-step with classic mysticism which believes God indwells all of mankind, taught of “the Inner Light.” Now we can consider Foster’s teaching in the video below, which is a segment from GET A LIFE!: The With-God Life. In this clip Foster is talking about the “zoe-life [aka with-God life] that we receive from God” which “will accomplish its work; sustaining us, and moving us inevitably forward into Christlikeness.” 

However, the “we” Foster is talking about here is not restricted to Christians; as a practicing Quaker, Foster is speaking of “the Inner Light”—which they teach is Christ—within all of mankind as he says:

This is a life! Powerful; irrepressible, self-sustaining, life—a with-God life. You see, this zoe is built into the very DNA of who we are as beings created as the image of God. (:41-1:00)

What you’ll hear Foster teaching is classic Quaker doctrine, which is itself, right in line with classic Gnostic mysticism with its fantasy of “the divine spark” of God within all of mankind. [1] Since this isn’t the subject of this piece I’ll simply tell you that in John 14:6 Jesus tells us that He is zoe and the Bible teaches one receives the gift of zoe [aka eternal life] is given only by God’s grace alone; through faith alone, in the finished work on the Cross of Christ Jesus alone. In other words, by believing the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Christ’s name.

Concerning our topic of Foster’s low view of Scripture, after talking about how supposedly this with-God life “flows from God through scripture and into the thirsty wasteland of the human soul,” at 7:09 into the video the Quaker mystic talks “very specifically about the role of the Bible in all of this.” First he sets up, and then knocks down, a couple of straw men, i.e. things those of us who adhere to Sola Scriptura are not actually teaching. Afterward Foster says:

Let me share with you what the Bible is. The Bible is a most reliable guide into this zoe life. You see, the Bible is God’s book; no one owns it, but God. And God has so superintended the writing of Scripture that it serves as a most reliable guide for our own spiritual formation. So you see, the purpose of the Bible is, a most reliable guide into the zoe life that God intends for you and for me. (8:20-9:10)

Right in line with classic Quakerism, and what he said above in the aforementioned interview, Quaker mystic Richard Foster has just told us that his experience in CSM will trump what Scripture says because it’s merely ”a most reliable guide”; but for these neo-Gnostics, the Bible simply is not the most reliable guide as in the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura. Those following people like Richard Foster had better wake up soon… 

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:  

1. I refute this idea biblically in Understanding The New Spirituality: God Indwells Mankind.

See also: 

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY OF RICHARD FOSTER ROOTED IN THE EASTERN DESERT AND THOMAS MERTON

“CELEBRATION OF DISCIPLINE” BY RICHARD FOSTER AN ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THEOLOGICAL ERROR 

“INWARD JOURNEY” ESPOUSED BY RICHARD FOSTER IS A FORM OF DIVINATION

IS DALLAS WILLARD A CHRISTIAN?

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY/MYSTICISM (CSM) OF SPIRITUAL FORMATION IS RECKLESS FAITH

THE TERMINOLOGY TRAP OF “SPIRITUAL FORMATION”

9 MARKS: INTERVARSITY PRESS SEEMS ADRIFT

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Bad News

Yesterday Christian Post ran Emergent Christians Mull Theology in Google Era, a report by Lillian Kwon on the recent heresy-fest Theology After Google (TAG) put on by by progressive/process theologian Dr. Philip Clayton. Apprising Ministries has been covering issues associated with TAG e.g. in Tony Jones, The Emerging Church And Progressive Christianity and Philip Clayton With “Big Tent” Christianity In The Emerging Church.

Kwon begins by telling us “progressive Christians” are encouraging “its cohorts” to learn to better make use of “today’s technology and social media” in order to further their “theological conversations.” Tony Jones, progressive theologian in residence for the Emerging Church of universalist pastor Doug Pagitt—one third of the Emergent Church trinity along with Jones and EC leader Brian McLaren—opened up the TAG conference.

Jones had those in attendance do a “thought experiment” where he had them close their eyes and imagine that they “went online” and “at random” looked at the websites of “ten evangelical churches” and then went and looked at the “websites of ten progressive churches.” After a very short pause Jones said they could open their eyes and then he told them:

If you’re like me, the result of this thought experiment is the macrocosm, progressives tend to s**k at social media and technology; and evangelicals tend to kick our a**at that. This event, this gathering is about us starting to turn the corner on that. [1]

The key point here is we’re clearly talking about “progressives” doing theology as opposed to “evangelicals,” and ”how theology will be changing” as TAG speaker and Quaker mystic Callid Keefe-Perry puts it in the video below.  What I’ve been drawing out has to do with this newer postmodern form of Progressive Christianity—Liberalism 2.0—being cobbled together by Clayton et al; which McLaren has begin to lay out systematically in his new book A New Kind of Christianity, and that the Emerging Church 2.0 will be advancing through this “technology” into mainstream evangelicalism.

Returning to Kwon’s CP piece, now we’ll begin to see the category shift as she quotes the TAG party line:

In this Google-shaped world, theological conversations are no longer limited to Ph.D. holders, seminary presidents and church heads, says the group, but they’re open to all Christians. Unfortunately, progressives are way behind their evangelical brethren when it comes to making effective use of new technologies and social networking and making their voices heard, it laments. (Online source)

The Use Of Technology Has Never Been The Issue; It’s The Spread Of Corrupt Theology

1) This wasn’t limited to such before; rather the spread of “theological conversations” was somewhat limited, but theology (means study of God) has always been “open to all Christians”; and 2) quite obviously “evangelicals” are not opposed when it ”comes to making effective use of new technologies and social networking,” or “progressives” wouldn’t allegedly be “way behind” evangelicals. Now I don’t call myself an evangelical or a fundamentalist, though I am funadmental in my theology; that said, the fact that I’m personally quoted in Kwon’s piece again proves I’m not against using social media:

The progressive Christians leading the conference have been associated with the emergent church movement, which conservatives have been highly critical of. The conference was labeled by at least one Christian as a “heresy fest.”

Ken Silva, a conservative minister who regularly comments on his blog, Apprising Ministries, on what he finds to be apostasy, cautions that “progressive Christianity aka liberal theology will be showing up more and more around the circles of the sinfully ecumenical emerging church aka emergent church.” And the Theology After Google event, he argued, is evidence of that. (Online source)

This isn’t about Lillian Kwon, because she’d have no way to know the networks of ministers that I’m involved with in using this new media ; however, this is not strictly about the Emerging Church and it’s Emergence Christianity. The overarching issue is the newer version of progressive liberalism Philip Clayton and cohorts are currently pushing as they make their attempt at transforming Christian theology, to use his term. Of course they’re welcome to their beliefs; but, Lord willing, they may also rest assured of our continued opposition.

As Kwon continues she exposes who the primary ring-master is behind this “big tent” Christianity:

Organizers of last week’s event were mainly from Transforming Theology, which is a nationwide movement of people who say they are working to transform and renew the Christian Church in and for the twenty-first century.

Clayton, who is leading the movement, says while theology was read, preached and taught by a select few in the Age of Gutenberg, today, “in the Age of Google, theology is what you do when you’re responding to blogs, contributing to a wiki doc or google doc, marking up a Word doc on your computer, participating in worship, inventing new forms of ‘ministry,’ or talking about God with your friends in a pub.” (Online source)

You can see from Ken Silva Answers Philip Clayton, where he speaks specifically of me as a critic in a recent post at his personal blog, Clayton is well aware of who I am. When Jesus gave me these media outlets five years ago I was led, as one He’s called as pastor-teacher, to use the Internet as a mission field to do online apologetics and discernment ministry while defending the historic, orthodox, Christian faith. This isn’t something I have ever taken lightly because I have a James 3:1 judgment awaiting me one day.

So since I function on defense somewhat as a middle linebacker on this playing field of ideas, as such, if men like Clayton want to run the ball of corrupt doctrine up the middle of my Lord’s visible church, then he can expect I’ll be doing whatever I can within Biblical rules to try and discourage him from doing so. And Kwon shows us where Clayton’s jumped the track onto the wrong team:

There are no strict criteria for what is acceptable or unacceptable theology, adds Clayton, professor of Theology at Claremont School of Theology.  (Online source)

I’m afraid “no strict criteria” for theology is merely wishful thinking from those like Clayton who seek the approval of the world with this big tent [read: universal] pragmatic postmodern upgrade of old modern theology. The only criteria for proper theology is the Holy Scriptures inspired by the one true and living God, Whom we meet in the Person of God the Son—Christ Jesus of Nazareth. As I close this, for now, I’ll point you now to a question that I personally asked Dr. Philip Clayton on his blog; he chose not to respond.

The issue came up because one of Clayton’s followers addressed me about “dominant emphases in evangelical vs. progressive theological reflection.” So I did my best to go to the heart of why there can never be agreement between a Bible-believing Christian minister like myself and a progressive/liberal one like Clayton. In showing the contrast, I used Marcus Borg, whom I do respect for his willingness to go on record with his beliefs where so many others holding similar views choose instead to use Humpty Dumpty Language.

As I pointed out at Clayton’s blog:

I guess what I’m trying to say is, a progressive e.g. like Marcus Borg, and one such as I who holds to the historic Christian faith I alluded to before, can never have unity. We don’t believe in the same Jesus; so as admirable as it is to try and make a “big tent” Christianity to include us both, in the end, it ceases to be Christian.

That said, there’s nothing even in Reformation theology that precludes caring for the good of our fellow man. Without arguing I’m simply stating that my point is, as I see it, we don’t need to jettison proper Christian doctrine even in an “after Google world.” (Online source)

Later, while speaking to another commenter, Clayton addresses my comment but doesn’t speak directly to me as he says:

In a sense, it’s MORE valuable because we are wrestling together with hard questions of what it means to be Christlike today, even though we don’t agree on all the details.

For this reason, it makes me sad to read above, “We don’t believe in the same Jesus; so as admirable as it is to try and make a ‘big tent’ Christianity to include us both, in the end, it ceases to be Christian.” I don’t think that would be the impression of the neutral observer on this site. (Online source)

This is when I asked Clayton the following question, to which he’s never responded:

To be clear, I said of a liberal/progressive like Marcus Borg: “We don’t believe in the same Jesus.” And you said, “I don’t think that would be the impression of the neutral observer on this site.”

So this neutral observer would think that someone like myself who holds to the full Deity of Jesus Christ, in addition to His full humanity, and Marcus Borg who believes Jesus was simply a man, believe in the same Jesus? (Online source)

For you see, what’s at issue with the new version of progressive Christian theology now being advanced by Clayton along with his friend Brian McLaren as well as the Emerging Church 2.0 will ultimately be the same as it was with their forebears in what the late cult expert Dr. Walter Martin called circa 1985 the Cult of Liberalism: Can you even be a Christian if you don’t believe in Who Jesus claimed He is?

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:  

1. From video in Tony Jones And Tripp Fuller On Theology After Google.

See also:

PHILIP CLAYTON AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

APPRISING MINISTRIES WITH A PEEK AT THE COMING SOTERIOLOGY OF EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY

And then secondly, this experience also causes these CSM practitioners to feel—ala Roman Catholic mystic Meister Eckhart—that God already dwells within all of mankind [1], which leads these new mystics to the belief that “if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved.” This is why we know Willard really is telling us that he feels people can make themselves “good” enough to be saved by being sincere in their religious traditions—no matter what faith they might be. [2]

This is crystal clear from the following. Below Willard’s role-playing as if in “an evangelistic conversation with a 20 year old girl” who is a Christian “but finds her worldview challenged when she goes to college.” Willard is supposedly acting as her pastor when, in this hypothetical situation, she tells him:

I used to believe strongly in the Christian faith, but now I think that there are many ways to see the world, and that, just because they differ, doesn’t mean they are right or wrong. (Online source)

There’s some back-and-forth concerning belief in God; but what’s most important to our discussion here is when she says:

“But I still struggle with how I should view those who have other beliefs. I’m not sure I am ready to condemn them as wrong. I know some very good Buddhists. What is their destiny?” (Online source)

Warning: We are now about to enter the mystical world of  Humpty Dumpty Language as Willard says:

I would take her to Romans 2:6-10: “God will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor, and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

What Paul is clearly saying is that if anyone is worthy of being saved, they will be saved. At that point many Christians get very anxious, saying that absolutely no one is worthy of being saved. The implication of that is that a person can be almost totally good, but miss the message about Jesus, and be sent to hell. What kind of a God would do that?

I am not going to stand in the way of anyone whom God wants to save. I am not going to say “he can’t save them.” I am happy for God to save anyone he wants in any way he can. It is possible for someone who does not know Jesus to be saved. But anyone who is going to be saved is going to be saved by Jesus: “There is no other name given under heaven by which men can be saved.” (Online source, emphasis mine)

For our purposes here I’ll not wrestle with the snake; instead, I want you to pay very close attention to what I highlighted above, and particularly to what I underlined. Notice what Willard is suggesting here; he’s saying there is such a thing as being “worthy of being saved”; a person can be “good,” and that someone can be saved (means being regenerated) who does not even know Jesus. Now, in case you’re inclined to think Willard has changed his mind since then, the other day in the Apprising Ministries piece Is Dallas Willard A Christian? I showed you where he recently said the same things again.

This time while Willard’s answering questions put to him by his friend John Ortberg beginning at 07:22 of the audio clip below you’ll hear Willard say once more, “Now, I believe that everyone who deserves to be saved will be saved no matter where they are or what they do.” And then Willard goes on continuing to contradict the Bible when he says:

It’s so important to understand that God is not biased about these matters [being saved and devout] and He is open and in touch with everyone in the world, and for all who seek them with all of their heart—and that is defined in terms of coming to love Him, and not just have the right beliefs about Him—but coming to love Him, and loving their neighbor as themselves.

Now it’s that this point I’ll share with you something I find rather odd about these mentors of the Emerging Church like Willard and Foster, who’re the ones that spawned the current neo-liberal Apostles of Unbelief around the Emergent Church such as EC icon Rob Bell. Suddenly these mystics such as Willard, who delight dwelling in mystery, absolutely feel they know that God “is open and in touch with everyone” who’s supposedly seeking Him “with all their heart.” And this when what Willard is saying is in direct contradiction to what we know God has actually said in His revealed Word in the Bible.

Well, I’d have to say that it’s very likely their real problem is one of selective biblical hearing and then knowing just what they want to know. So this seems a good place to end this piece for now; and Lord willing, next time we’ll go roaming through Romans to see what God has to say about the speculations of Dallas Willard, beginning with:

as it is written: “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, there is not even one.” (Romans 3:10-12)

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

1. Mystics will refer to this as “the divine spark,” which I refute in Understanding The New Spirituality: God Indwells Mankind.
2. Practitioners of CSM often call it discovering the “authentic” or “true” self; I cover this further in The Real Truth About Your “True Self”.

See also:

DELUSIONS OF DALLAS WILLARD

CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY OF RICHARD FOSTER ROOTED IN THE EASTERN DESERT AND THOMAS MERTON

DISCIPLINES TO DECEPTION IN SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION

LIBERALISM 2.0 THE NEW PROGRESSIVE CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY 

THE NON-GOSPEL OF THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

Sincerely Wrong, Is Still Wrong

Apprising Ministries has been pointing out in recent posts such as The Non-Gospel Of The Emerging Church 2.0 and Philip Clayton And The Emerging Church 2.0 that A New Kind of Christianity (ANKoC), the latest book by Brian McLaren, begins laying out systematically the newer postmodern form of Progressive Christianity that this Emergent Church (EC) has been advancing with its Emergence Christianity. I’ve encountered my fair share of criticism for saying this all along, but the Lord be praised, people are finally recognizing this Liberalism 2.0 for what it is.

Since this attempt at “transforming Christian theology,” to use McLaren’s friend progressive/process theologian Dr. Philip Clayton’s term, is still developing I would say there is a level of sincerity in McLaren’s posture of asking questions. However, don’t kid yourself, such as these new Gnostics believe that they’re on a mission from God and they’re not about to stop actively promoting what some are beginning to call a “big tent” version of Christianity. Let’s be clear; this is absolutely not merely a rehash of liberalism, rather, it’s an attempt to cobble together a new, more user-friendly, version of it.

Lord willing, I plan to begin giving you some glimpses at a few of the sources this Liberalism 2.0 is drawing from as well as some of what comprises its spiritually bankrupt theology. I began studying liberal theology many years ago, but as I began to see the EC drifting toward universalism—particularly the Emergent trinity of Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and Tony Jones—I began to study the works of more recent progressive Christians such as Marcus Borg and Diana Butler Bass. Bascially I simply followed the interlocking concentric circles closing all around Brian Mclaren, who’s always been the EC’s tip-of-the-spear.

You may recall that not long ago McLaren embarked on a speaking tour with both Borg and Butler Bass, with whom he is good friends. In fact, Diana Butler Bass is also associated with McLaren, his friend Tony Campolo, and new Obama spiritual advisor Jim Wallis in something called Red Letter Christians (RLC). A founding member of RLC happens to be Roman Catholic mystic and Christian universalist Richard Rohr, who’s also a Franciscan priest as well as founder of the interspiritual blackhole called Center for Action and Contemplation. And this past year or so Rohr’s become quite active around EC sectors. [1]

As I begin to give you glimpses of this Liberalism 2.0 advanced by the EC it’s important that you recognize the names of some of the major proponents; and McLaren’s friend, and fellow RLC, Richard Rohr is certainly one of them. You’ll note that on the back cover of McLaren’s ANKoC, right under the endorsement of Phyllis Tickle, is the following from Rohr:

Now and then gifted people emerge who see the situation from a higher and more helpful level. Brian McLaren is one of those seers.

In ANKoC McLaren speaks highly of a progressive/liberal theologian by the name of Harvey Cox, of Harvard Divinity fame, whose latest book is called The Future Of Faith (TFtF). On its back cover McLaren himself gushes:

This important book has not only helped me understand the past, present, future of this amazing phenomenon called Christianity . . . it has also motivated me to keep working to help make actual the possible future Cox envisions.
—Brian McLaren, author of A New Kind of Christian

You’ll need to know that fellow RLCs Jim Wallis, Diana Butler Bass, and Richard Rohr also say similar things on the back cover of this particular book by Cox, which paints a ”possible future” of Christianity—that McLaren’s working to make actual—which is so inclusive that we also read the below on the back cover of TFoF by Cox as well from New Age guru Deepak Chopra:

Harvey Cox has been a voice of both reason and faith in our cynical times. Now, he offers a fresh vision for the resurrection of a new global Christianity that will restore our faith both in ourselves and in the divine.
—Deepak Chopra, author of Jesus: A Story of Enlightenment

It’s Not Exactly Your Parent’s Version Of Progressive/Liberal Theology

Here’s the central issue: When you can create a such a “missional” shift in the Christian faith that even a pantheist mystic like Chopra can sign onto this supposedly resurrected new global Christianity, it’s now safe to say that you’ve clearly departed from anything even remotely resembling the historic, orthodox, Christian faith. So what’s this resurrected new global Christianity, that McLaren’s currently working to make actual, look like; very much like the progressive Christianity of John Shelby Spong, but with more emphasis on the spiritual dimension than had the old modern form of liberal theology.

As I said before, this “big tent” Christianity also incorporates the speculations of emergence theory within evolutionary science because many in the EC believe that, right now, mankind is in the process of evolving upward into a higher state of consciousness. Now I’d like to draw your attention to a book, which gives us a glimpse at what this man-centered Liberalism 2.0 looks like; its by Dr. R. Scott Thornton, Director of Sacred Grounds Resource Center and is called Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith. Of this book Richard Rohr says emphatically:

This excellent book deserves a broad reading! Unless we bring R. Scott Thornton’s kind of faith-filled intelligent response to our Scriptures and practice, I see little ability for Christianity to heal, transform our world. With this kind of wisdom, which is merely Jesus’ wisdom, we can do just that! [2]

Leaving aside Rohr’s misunderstanding of the mission of the genuine Church of Jesus Christ, he does tells us Thornton’s “faith-filled intelligent” work and “wisdom” is right in line with the Liberalism 2.0 of McLaren, which itself is an extention of the “new global Christianity” of Cox that’s transforming Christian theology, in what his friend Philip Clayton calls the after Google world. Thornton begins right along the lines of EC leader Samir Selmanovic finding God in “the Other” religions as he tells us that the basic guidelines for “how we should live” are really essentially the same “for most religions.”

According to Thornton every one of the “major religions” encourages people “to treat each other with love.” In his opinion, because we live in such a diverse world, it then “makes perfect sense” that God would do whatever He had to that He might “reconcile with his creation”; so according to Thornton, the Lord “would approach people of different cultures in different ways.” He then goes on to share the view, consistent with classic progressive/liberal Christianity, that: 

Each major religion has helped a people reach and develop a relationship with God. God’s truth is revealed to people in many different religions. Mother Teresa understood this. She wasn’t interested in proselytizing. She evangelized with her acts of compassion. She never demeaned other religions. At one point she remarked, “We ought to help Jews become better Jews and Hindus become better Hindus.” [3] 

Thornton informs us that when “people are practicing their religion” sincerely, “as it was originally intended,” and provided it’s “not a distorted version,” then people “should be encouraged” to continue on with whatever faith tradition they are part of. He then quotes Jimmy Carter from his book Our Endangered Values where Carter tells us we need to break “through” the “barrier” of surrounding “ourselves in a superior fashion with people who are just like us.” Carter says that “reaching out to others is what personifies a Christian” as this is “the perfect example that Christ set for us.”

And finally Thornton gives us an example of what he’s been talking about when he tells us how: 

Mahatma Ghandi lived his life in accordance with Jesus’ principles. He treated everyone with the same respect whether they were from the highest order of society or a beggar. Other than basic necessities, he gave away his possessions and devoted a portion of every day to spiritual meditation and prayers. 

He led millions of followers on a peaceful revolution that helped liberate half a billion people. Ghandi refused to respond to violence with retaliation, always choosing to “turn the other cheek.” He befriended the “Untouchables” of Indian society, calling them his brothers. 

Although Ghandi was extremely well versed in Jesus’ teachings from the Gospels, he never converted to Christianity. I have a hard time believing this man, who so obviously brought God’s love, peace and compassion into this world, is condemned to eternal separation from that same God. 

Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God and therefore believe that the truest revelation of God comes through Jesus’ teachings. However, they should never condemn another person of great faith if their religion is not Christianity. [4]

In closing this for now I’ll simply say you should be able to see that, at its core, this “big tent” version of progressive Christian theology—Liberalism 2.0—which is still being designed in the Emerging Church 2.0 by McLaren, Cox, and Clayton et al,  is an ill-fated pragmatic postmodern upgrade of modern theology and it’s own doomed attempt to try and blend the Christian faith in with the capricious culture of its time.

________________________________________________________________________________

Endnotes: 

1. Rohr is a member of an important Emerging Church network I’ve discussed previously e.g. in Emerging Church TransFORM.
2. R. Scott Thornton, Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith [Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 2009], back cover.
3.  Ibid., 28.  
4. Ibid., 29.

See also:

TONY JONES AND TRIPP FULLER ON THEOLOGY AFTER GOOGLE

PHILIP CLAYTON WITH “BIG TENT” CHRISTIANITY IN THE EMERGING CHURCH

KEN SILVA ANSWERS PHILIP CLAYTON

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

APPRISING MINISTRIES WITH A PEEK AT THE COMING SOTERIOLOGY OF EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY

So Silva doesn’t like progressive theologians because we acknowledge that people find many paths for following God in the way of Jesus. (Online source)

One quick correction; Silva doesn’t like what progressive theologians teach because they acknowledge that people find many paths for following God in the way of Jesus. I happen to know many people with whom I disagree on various issues, and yet, I still like them personally just fine. In fact, in the combox of the above post I found pastor Buerstetta to be very genuine; and as I told him, I honestly do respect his being willing to come right out with what he believes because there are others who are not so willing. Rev. Dave Buerstetta said to me:

I do believe you and I and every other human being are beloved children of God, precious in his sight, called to live his way of love, justice and peace. I hope we can make room in the “big tent” for all of us. (Online source)

With this out of the way, I want to begin to zero in a little bit upon that phrase ”following God in the way of Jesus,” which you’re likely hearing more and more. Ok, but first I must caution you again; for you see with the Emerging Church, and with its new version of progressive/liberal theology aka the Emergence Christianity—which EC leader Brian McLaren has begun to lay out in his latest book A New Kind of Christianity—we are entering deeply into the world of Humpty Dumpty Language, where words often appear to take shape without any real fixed meaning.

But even so I’m going to help you understand that above phrase, which at face value, sure sounds like an orthodox statement concerning the Christian faith. However, before we’re ready to go further I need to remind you of something Christian apologist Dr. Walter Martin (1928-1989) said concerning Scaling the Language Barrier in his classic textbook The Kingdom of the Cults. How sad that now even within mainstream evangelicalism we’re seeing that it’s become necessary for us to follow the advice below, which was originally being given re. witnessing to non-Christian cultists.

To be able to insure that we are understanding each other Dr. Martin says of the wise Christian:

1 He must strive to direct the conversation to the problem of terminology and maneuver the cult adherent into a position where he must define his usage of terms and his authority, if any, for drastic, unbiblical redefinitions, which are certain to emerge;

2 The Christian must then compare these “definitions” with the various contexts of the verses upon which the cultist draws support of his doctrinal interpretations;

3 He must define the words “interpretation,” “historic orthodoxy,” and standard doctrinal phrases such as “the new birth,” “the Atonement,” “context,” “exegesis,” “eternal judgment,” etc., so that no misunderstanding will exist when these things come under discussion, as they inevitably will;… [1]

So, keeping this all in mind, Rev. Buerstetta tells us people find many paths for following God in the way of Jesus. But I, as a regenerated Christian minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, would tell you that I follow the way of God in Jesus. But we’re not talking about the same Christian faith; as he also said he believes that all human beings “are beloved children of God,” and that as a progressive theologian, he acknowledges “people find many paths for following God in the way of Jesus.” A nice sentiment, which of course the world will love [2], but it’s eternally dead wrong.

In his eyewitness deposition, also known as the Gospel of John, the inspired Apostle tells us what he personally had learned from Christ Jesus Himself. Speaking of Jesus he says:

Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His Name, He gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. (John 1:12-13)

A couple of quick points concerning the above; first notice, to those who believed Jesus then gave the right to become children of God; and simple logic will tell you that if you need the “right to become” something—in this case a child of God—then you were not that something before, i.e. a child of God. Rev. Buerstetta is more than welcome to his opinion; but at the same time when he’s contradicting God the Son, I’m going to recommend we go with Jesus on this one. And, in some way, these people who’re given the right to become children of God are—quite literally—born of God. [3]

In closing this for now, I shared this piece concerning Rev. Buerstetta because he appears to represent well the Liberalism 2.0 being advanced by e.g. Brian McLaren, the other two-thirds of the Emergent trinity Doug Pagitt, and his progressive theologian in residence Tony Jones, and their friend progressive/process theologian Dr. Philip Clayton. All, regardless of religious affiliation, who are sincere in their faith are children of God following Him in the way of Jesus. But sadly, such is the spiritually bankrupt non-gospel of the Emerging Church 2.0 that only leaves people dead in their sins.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:  

1. Walter Martin, The Kingdom of the Cults, Ravi Zacharias, Gen. Ed. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2005), 32.
2. See—1 John 4:5.
3. See—John 3:3-7; 2 Corinthians 5:17.

See also:

TONY JONES AND TRIPP FULLER ON THEOLOGY AFTER GOOGLE

PHILIP CLAYTON AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 2.0

KEN SILVA ANSWERS PHILIP CLAYTON

THE NEW CHRISTIANITY OF BRIAN MCLAREN AND THE EMERGING CHURCH 

BRIAN MCLAREN INVITES YOU ON HIS QUEST TO DESTROY CHRISTIANITY

PHILIP CLAYTON WITH “BIG TENT” CHRISTIANITY IN THE EMERGING CHURCH

MARCUS BORG AND CHRISTIANS WHO DON’T BELIEVE IN JESUS

APPRISING MINISTRIES WITH A PEEK AT THE COMING SOTERIOLOGY OF EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY