By using warped and toxic teachings of EC leaders like Emerging Church rock star pastor Rob Bell the mainstream of the visible church has been poisoning its own young; and since squishy evanjellyfish has now followed the mortally wounded mainline denominations out of the closet, with its man-love of heart murmur spirituality at the expense the God-centered spirituality of sola Scriptura, I’ve also been giving you peeks at its bleak future of division and compromise of God’s Word.

Let me remind you here that, not only is Tony Campolo a leading spokesman for this postmodern progressive de-formation of the Christian faith—Liberalism 2.o—he’s also still quite influential within younger sectors of evangelicalism as well. It’s important to remember, that as admirable as some of his social concerns are, Campolo is actually in bed spiritually with his fellow Red Letter Christian (RLC) friends Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren and universalist Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr.

Other notable RLCs would be Campolo’s disciple Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis, progressive/liberal historian Diana Butler Bass, and Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at the Emerging Church of universalist Doug Pagitt; a spiritual motley crew if there ever was one. Against this background I’ll point you to the following tweet this morning by Campolo:

(Online source)

If you didn’t know “the Wild Goose” reference has a double meaning; first, Celtic Christianity calls the Holy Spirit an Geadh-Glas, the Wild Goose, and “teaches that the Holy Spirit is the representative of God’s femininity.”[1] Secondly, it’s the name of an upcoming apostasia-palooza called the Wild Goose Festival (WGF), which has the Emerging Church buzzing with excitement. The link Campolo provides takes us to Pentecost: The Coming of the Wild Goose by Jim Wallis where he informs us:

In two weeks, my family and I will be headed down to Shakori Hills, North Carolina for the Wild Goose Festival. In the Celtic Church, the symbol for the Holy Spirit is a wild goose — wild, free, and untamed. The festival will be a weekend of justice, spirituality, music, and the arts. It is an “and” kind of space, more than an “either/or.” It will, no doubt, be a busy weekend. But I am looking forward to it, not just for the activities, but for the reminder that it is by chasing after the wild goose, the Holy Spirit’s movement, that we see ourselves, and our world, transformed. (Online source)

As you watch the promotional video for WGF below you’ll see a veritable who’s who of heretics who’ll be embarking upon some Wild Goose Chase after another spirit (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:4); this includes all the people I’ve mentioned above, as well as others quite familiar to AM such as gay-affirming “pastor” Jay Bakker, self-professed “queer inclusive” ELCA pastrix Nadia Bolz-Weber, EC interspiritual leader Samir Selmanovic, Christian universalist Chad Holtz, and the Empress of Emergence Phyllis Tickle.

It’s also interesting to note that among the speakers we find outright purveyors of Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) in Living Spiritual Teacher and Jesuit priest John Dear as well as Carl McColman of the spiritually whacked website Anamchara and author of The Big Book of Christian Mysticism: The Essential Guide to Contemplative Spirituality. Dear is a disciple of Thomas Merton, the Golden Buddha of CSM and just take a look at who recommends McColman’s book:

The history section of WGF tells us:

The Wild Goose Festival began as a simple but potent idea: What if Greenbelt could happen in a unique United States context?

For those of you who aren’t familiar, Greenbelt is an arts, music, justice and spirituality festival that’s been happening in the UK for nearly 40 years. (Online source)

I talked about Greenbelt a couple of years ago in Greenbelt Festival A Peek At Future Inclusive Christianity where I explained it’s really another glimpse of the all-inclusive faith these Emergent Christ-followers find worth believing; and in fact, this perversion of the Christian faith may have already slithered into the Young Adult and Youth ministries of your own local church. Essentially, it’s really a spiritual free fall out into the delusion of creating your own Christianity with a mystic mush god made in your own image.

The wise Christian will have nothing to do with these neo-Gnostic fools who’ve unbuckled themselves from the Word of God and have embarked upon their Wild Goose Chase of subjective experience; with no gravity, they will only drift deeper into spiritual outer space. While debunking the mythology of Dallas Willard, a major perpetrator of CSM along with his twin Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, Bob DeWaay hits upon the critical issue with this pragmatic existentialism:

If pragmatic tests are the means of determining which practices are valid, and if these people feel closer to God and more like Christ through their practices, then Willard has no valid way of rejecting their practices. Having no valid argument, he resorts to an invalid ad hominem argument.

He cannot have it both ways. Either God’s Word determines both how we come to God and how we grow in grace, or humans determine these things by pragmatic means. (Online source)

As I close this out, for now, I bring your attention to a piece by Dr. Al Mohler entitled An Unmitigated Theological Disaster — Kirby Godsey Strikes Again. You may wonder what this has to do with the Wild Goose Festival; in a word, everything. Consider the opening quote Mohler uses and, if you’ve been following what I’ve been covering here lately at Apprising Ministries, see if it doesn’t sound mighty familiar:

“Most Christians assume that Christianity is the one and only  religion that is God-inspired and that carries the imprimatur of God’s  blessing,” laments R. Kirby Godsey. In his new book, Is God a Christian?,  Godsey sets out to oppose that assumption and to argue that “the  stakes for mankind have grown too high for any of us to engage our faith  as if our understanding of God represents the only way God’s presence  may be known in the world.” (Online source)

Did you recognize the theme song of the emerging Wild Goose set; in Emerging Church Leader Samir Selmanovic Worships With Witches I told you this WGF speaker sings it this way:

Can it be that the teachings of the gospel are embedded and can be found in reality itself rather than being exclusively isolated in sacred texts and our interpretations of those texts? If the answer is yes, can it be that they are embedded in other stories, other peoples’ histories, and even other religions?…

God’s table is welcoming all who seek, and if any religion is to win, may it be the one that produces people who are the most loving, the most humble, the most Christlike. Whatever the meaning of “salvation” and “judgement,” we Christians are going to be saved by grace, like everyone else, and judged by our works, like everyone else…

For most critics of such open Christianity, the problem with inclusiveness is that it allows for truth to be found in other religions. To emerging Christians, that problem is sweet… Moreover, if non-Christians can know our God, then we want to benefit from their contribution to our faith.[2]

This is what underlies the Wild Goose mythology, and it’s not Christianity; it’s at best the heresy of Christian universalism, and at worst, it is pagan universalism. So, while Al Mohler is discussing someone not necessarily aligned with Emergent Wild Goosers, what he says fits these deluded dreamers perfectly:

In When We Talk About God … Let’s Be Honest, Godsey embraced positions that the church has openly declared to be heresy. In Is God a Christian?,  Godsey just picks up where he left off in his earlier book, but this  time he is even more explicit in his embrace of radical pluralism.

“Christians need to get over it,” he admonishes. “Jesus is not God’s  only word.” As he explains, “Every person is a word from God that has  never been spoken and will never be spoken again in exactly the same  way.” He also admonishes Muslims to “get over it” when they claim  exclusive status for the Qur’an. The very idea of exclusivity is a  “peril” that “simply defies reason.”…

For the most part, Godsey studiously avoids engaging the biblical  text. That is at least consistent with his marginalization of biblical  authority. “The notions of inerrancy and infallibility are treacherous  human fallacies,” he argues. In his earlier book, he had asserted that  “the authority for our faith should not rest on the Bible alone, or even  primarily.”…

Instead, he argues that Christians should “weigh scripture against the  word that we have heard and seen from God in Jesus.” At this point,  Godsey is left in an untenable position. What does he know of Christ  apart from the Scriptures? This is a familiar predicament for liberals  who deny biblical authority but claim a knowledge of Jesus. Whatever  knowledge of Jesus we have apart from the Bible is just a figment of our  imagination. If the Bible is not the authoritative source of divine knowledge, we are left with nothing more than our own imagination and arbitrary judgment. We can make Christianity anything we might want it to be.

In the place of the Bible, Godsey claims human reason as his authority. Thus: “No rational pathway can lead us to the conclusion that Christians alone or Muslims alone have sole access to the ultimate reality that underlies the meaning of the universe.” Based on that judgment, Godsey then argues that claims of exclusivity are immoral because such claims turn Christianity “into a self-centered, narcissistic religious system that says to the rest of the world that they must become like us if they wish to be accepted by God.”…

There are different forms of universalism and inclusivism within theological circles today, but the most intellectually embarrassing form of pluralism is the very one that Godsey champions. He writes as if all the religions of the world are basically similar, when even a cursory knowledge of the belief systems of the world reveals how dissimilar they are. Godsey does not even privilege monotheism, arguing that Christians should see adherents of all other religions as “equals before God.” (Online source)

You need to know that the people I mentioned earlier are all on that same broad path; some further along than others, but they are on it nonetheless. My question is: How far down this wide road to destruction does mainstream evangelicalism itself have to get before it finally recognizes the New Downgrade? The sad fact is, these associated with this Wild Goose Chase after another spirit have absolutely no business whatsoever teaching in the heart of the Christian community:

I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. (Romans 16:17-18)

Wild Goose Festival – June 23 – 26, 2011 – Shakori Hills Farm, NC from Wild Goose on Vimeo.

_________________________________________________________________________
End Notes:

[1] http://tiny.cc/y22d1, accessed 6/12/11.

[2] Samir Selmanovic, “The Sweet Problem of Inclusiveness – Finding Our God in the Other,” in An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones editors [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007], 192, 195, 196, emphasis mine.

See also:

BRIAN MCLAREN SPEAKS AS A UNIVERSALIST

TOXIC THEOLOGY OF DOUG PAGITT

THE EMERGING CHURCH, DOUG PAGITT & PROCESS THEOLOGY

DOUG PAGITT AND HIS SOLOMON’S PORCH AFFIRM HOMOSEXUAL SIN

ROB BELL AND POSTMODERN NEO-LIBERALISM

BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY IS A POSTMODERN PROGRESSIVE LIBERALISM

MORE ON—THE gOD OF THE EMERGING CHURCH

With this in mind, I’ll remind you that not only is Tony Campolo a leading spokesman for this postmodern form of progressive Liberalism 2.o de-formation of the Christian faith, he is also still quite influential within younger sectors of evangelicalism as well. It’s important to remember, that as admirable as some of his social concerns are, Campolo is actually in bed spiritually with his fellow Red Letter Christian (RLC) friends Living Spiritual Teacher and EC guru Brian McLaren and universalist Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr. Other notable RLCs would be Campolo’s disciple Shane Claiborne, Jim Wallis, progressive/liberal historian Diana Butler Bass, and Tony Jones, the progressive “theologian in residence” at the Emerging Church of universalist Doug Pagitt; a spiritual motley crew if there ever was one.

Against this background I’ll point out that back on March 10, 2008 on his PBS show Tavis Smiley asks Tony Campolo, “what is a ‘Red Letter Christian?’” Campolo replies:

Well, he or she is somebody whose beliefs are very traditional in a sense. It’s a person that believes in the Apostles’ Creed, who believes salvation comes from Jesus, who believes that the bible was inspired by God, but whose politics are not aligned with the religious right. (Online source)

Hmm, that doesn’t quite sound quite right. Let me see if I can fix that:

“Well, he or she is somebody whose beliefs are very ‘traditional’ in an ecumenical sense where most any belief that considers itself Christian is accepted as simply another ‘tradition.’ It’s a person that relishes the brevity and non-specitivity of the Apostles’ Creed, who believes that the Bible becomes inspired by God as a given passage ‘speaks’ to them, but whose politics are not aligned with anyone we broad-brush as being part of some nebulous religious right.”

Please understand I am not being critical of the Apostles’ Creed; I’m telling you that the language allows people to inject new meanings while using the same terminology. Lord willing, I’ll have more on that and show you how they do it; for now though I draw your attention to the Red Letter Christians blog and a post by Tony Campolo called Defending ‘Red Letter Christians’: Answers to the Most Common Critiques. Campolo begins by telling us this particular piece “is in response to a comment I received from my post ‘Why the Religious Right Will Dominate’,” which I covered previously in Tony Campolo Goes On A Tirade.  Campolo shares the comment he received:

“How sad that the depth of the ‘new and improved evangelical’ theology is limited to the ‘red letters; in scripture. Is the implication that these are the only (or most important) words of God worth our devotion? As an “old and outdated” evangelical I will keep the whole of scripture as the Word of God, thank you.” (Online source)

While Campolo will bring us into the postmodern Wonderland of Humpty Dumpty language and try to deny what was just said, this is just about right. This so-called Red Letter Christian business is a not so subtle twist of old liberalism which, because it denies the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible, tries to play the words of Paul against those of Jesus. But as J. Gresham Machen wrote in his classic book Christianity & Liberalism:

[the teaching of] Paul was not primarily faith in God like Jesus’ faith; it was faith in Jesus; Paul committed to Jesus without reserve the eternal destinies of his soul. That is what we mean when we say that Paul stood in a truly religious relation to Jesus. But Paul was not the first to stand in this religious relation to Jesus.

Evidently, at this decisive point, he was only continuing an attitude toward Jesus which had already been assumed by those who had been Christians before him. Paul was not indeed led to assume that attitude by the persuasions of the earlier disciples; he was converted by the Lord Himself on the road to Damascus.[1]

And in addition Machen also points out:

The truth is, the witness of the New Testament, with regard to Jesus as the object of faith, is an absolutely unitary witness. The thing is rooted far too deep in the records of primitive Christianity ever to be removed by any critical process. The Jesus spoken of in the New Testament was no mere teacher of righteousness, no mere pioneer in a new type of religious life, but One who was regarded, and regarded Himself, as the Savior whom men could trust.

But by modern liberalism He is regarded in a totally different way. Christians stand in a religious relation to Jesus; liberals do not stand in a religious relation to Jesus– what difference could be more profound than that? The modern liberal preacher reverences Jesus; he has the name of Jesus forever on his lips; he speaks of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God; he enters, or tries to enter, into the religious life of Jesus. But he does not stand in a religious relation to Jesus. Jesus for him is an example for faith, not the object of faith.

The modern liberal tries to have faith in God like the faith which he supposes Jesus had in God; but he does not have faith in Jesus.[2]

However, in the big tent circus Christianity of the Emerging Church 2.0 we’re dealing with a postmodern form of liberalism, which includes people who do believe in the miraculous, as well as those who do not. Campolo then explains:

Red Letter Christianity is not an approach to Scripture that seats the ‘red letters’ of the Bible above any other letters from the Bible. There is no hierarchy of ‘red letters’ down to ‘black letters.’ Instead, Red Letter Christianity places an emphasis on Christ’s words as found throughout the New Testament. Much in the same way that certain churches identify with Micah 6:8 or John 3:16 our movement identifies with the specific words of Christ with regards to action and deed. (Online source)

Sounds good at first, but Christian churches don’t get to “identify” with certain parts of Scripture; we are called out of the world to assemble to worship God in Christ. We are to preach to preach the only Gospel there is (cf. Galatians 1:6-9), repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name because salvation is by God’s grace alone, through faith alone, in the finished work on the Cross of Christ alone. As a secondary effect “actions and deed” may produce positive effects in the world; but the primary mission is what Jesus tells us here — “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21). Yet this is the heart of the problem with these RLCs because, in seeking harmony with the world, that Gospel is not what they preach; this becomes clear as Campolo tells us:

I am excited about the movement of Red Letter Christianity and the impact it will have throughout our world. For those of you still questioning allow me to quote Jesus, “for whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). I can assure you that I am not against you but am for, together with you, the betterment of our world through the spread and proclamation of Christianity in both word and deed. (Online source)

This is why RLCs can partner with dead mainline churches long ago killed by the cult of liberal theology; “the betterment of our world” is not the Gospel, it’ a form of man-centered dominionism. If only they cared about the souls of the people they try to please with a message that can be preached by any religion; or social agency for that matter. In closing this, for now, I will say that I’m glad to see that Campolo said:

a study of Christ’s teachings found within the Red Letters undoubtedly point’s readers over and over again to the entirety of Scripture. Throughout his teachings, Christ directly and indirectly refers to the teachings of the law and the prophets. Whether Christ is referring back to Leviticus or Isaiah, the Red Letters vividly show the connection between Christ’s words and the whole of Scripture. As Jesus himself says: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” (Online source)

In this case Campolo is exactly right; for example, Paul’s writings contain pastoral applications of Christ’s teachings, and since Jesus Christ—the Lord—is God, where the Lord God speaks in the Old Testament, Jesus also speaks. You know, if Tony Campolo and the Red Letter Christians were actually in tune with what he just said above, it sure would clear up a lot of the issues they can’t seem to figure out. Let’s take their conundrum concerning the deviant and sinful lifestyle of having sexual relations with another of the same sex, i.e homosexuality. The Bible teaches Jesus is God, and that He is the Creator of everything (cf. John 1:1-3). In Leviticus 18:22 the Lord God says — You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. So now you know what view Jesus has concerning homosexuality.

And it gets even clearer right within the red words of the New Testament as well when Jesus, our Creator Himself, is quoted by Matthew in his eyewitness deposition as saying — “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:4-5)? Did you catch that Tony; it’s patently obvious Jesus has just defined marriage as between a male, that would be a man, and a female, which of course is a woman. And we know the identity of he who created them from the beginning, don’t we Tony and your Red Letter Christian buds. This means that same-sex sexual relations, being outside the marriage covenant of our Creator, will always be a sin of sexual immorality.

Uh-oh, not all the RLCers—I would venture most—don’t believe all those red letters; for example Emerging Church Theologian Tony Jones Says Jesus Was Wrong. You may recall that regarding those who are unrepentant in their practice of the sin of homosexuality Jones stated:

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.
(Online source, bold his)

Obviously, as I just showed you, this is absolutely counter to the clear teaching of those red letters that  Bible; but when the Scriptures run against its pro-gay agenda leaders in the Emerging Church conveniently ignore it in favor of their preconceived beliefs. This goes for Tony Campolo as well as he says in his book Red Letter Christians:

Marriage should be viewed as an institution ordained by God and should be out of the control of the state. Of course, homosexual couples could go to churches that welcome and affirm gay marriage and get their unions blessed there, but isn’t that the way it should be in a nation that guarantees people the right to promotion religion according to their personal convictions?

If such a proposal became normative, those like myself who hold to traditional beliefs about marriage would go to traditional churches where conservative beliefs about marriage are upheld, and we would have our marriages blessed there.[3]

So while Campolo says he has a “traditional” belief concerning marriage, he erases it when he partners with heretics like Tony Jones and Brian McLaren who don’t. No, don’t be fooled by all their religious blather; when all is said and done these Red Letter Christians are simply using this pious sounding title for themselves as a way to speak words the world will find acceptable, and that’s why the world listens to them (1 John 4:5).

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

[1] J. Gresham Machen, Christianity & Liberalism [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002], 82, 83.

[2] Ibid., 85.

[3] Tony Campolo, Red Letter Christians: A Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics [Ventura: Regal, 2008], 94.

See also:

TONY CAMPOLO: “CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM” TRUMPS THE BIBLE

EMERGENT EVANGELICAL PROPHET TONY CAMPOLO

TONY CAMPOLO WITH “MYSTICAL ENCOUNTERS FOR CHRISTIANS”

MYSTICISM MELDS MUSLIM MYSTICS TO TONY CAMPOLO AND EMERGENCE CHRISTIANITY

IS SHANE CLAIBORNE A CHRISTIAN-MUSLIM?

UNDERSTANDING THE NEW SPIRITUALITY: GOD INDWELLS MANKIND

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

Among those heavily involved with the sociological development of this new form of liberalism is Tony Campolo, also a leading spokeman for something known as Red Letter Christians. In his post What’s a ‘Red-Letter Christian’? Campolo tells how this group began and who was involved; you’ll see that it includes his friends Brian McLaren and Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr:

Recently, I met with a group of religious leaders who have become increasingly disturbed by the alliance between evangelical Christians and the Republican Party… The meeting was joined by the Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine; Father Richard Rohr, a well-known Catholic writer and speaker; Brian McLaren, a leader of the emergent church movement;… we decided not to call ourselves “progressive evangelicals.” We came up with a new name: Red-Letter Christians. (Online source)

It’s also important to note that this spiritual motley crew has now swelled to include such EC notables as Shane Claiborne, progressive/liberal theologian Tony Jones, Jim Wallis and progressive/liberal mainline historian Diana Butler Bass. This brings us to a tweet yesterday from Tony Campolo:

(Online source)

That link takes us to Tony’s tirade at the Red Letter Christians blog, which is entitled Why the Religious Right Will Dominate. Campolo begins by taking us into the postmodern Wonderland of Humpty Dumpty language where words are bent and shaped like Play-Doh:

There are reasons why Religious Right Evangelicals will continue to dominate religious discourse, not only in their own sector of the Christian community, but also in what transpires in mainline denominations. Moderate voices, for the most part, are being sidelined and those with liberal views will find fewer and fewer means to express their opinions or gain an audience for their convictions. (Online source)

Mainline dernominations succumbed long ago to what the late cult expert Dr. Walter Martin labeled the Cult of Liberal Theology, and the so-called religious right had zero to do with that. As Martin pointed out circa 1985:

every major theological seminary that has turned from orthodox Christianity began with disbelief of Biblical doctrine. There wasn’t a single exception. This corrupt Bibliology then lead them to the next step. Their Theology began to be touched by it, their view of the Cross, the Virgin Birth were both immediately questioned; then came the miracles of Christ.

And finally they had emptied the Gospel of all its content; they were simply using the outward shell so that they go on collecting money from the people and the churches; because they knew that if the people in the pew knew that they were apostate, they’d throw them out. So the strategy was hang on to the trust funds; hang on to the money we’ve got; hang on the properties we control, and we will gradually educate the laymen into this new approach to theology.
(The Cult of Liberalism, available from Walter Martin Religious InfoNet)

Once you deny the Virgin Birth of Christ Jesus our Lord you have denied Who He is and have no connection to the Savior; i.e. you are apostate, at best. Dr. Al Mohler sums up the position well when he says:

The authority of the Bible is almost completely gone where liberal theology holds its sway. The authority of the Bible is replaced with the secular worldview of the modern age and the postmodern denial of truth itself. The true church stands without apology upon the authority of the Bible and declares that Jesus was indeed “born of a virgin.” Though the denial of this doctrine is now tragically common, the historical truth of Christ’s birth remains inviolate. No true Christian can deny the virgin birth. (Online source)

In the same way, the true Christian has no basis for fellowship with those who have denied Who Jesus is; in Scripture they’re referred to as false prophets and teachers:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. (2 Peter 2:1-3)

You can almost hear the hiss as Campolo takes his swipe against what he calls “old-time gospel preaching.” Yeah, we wouldn’t want the Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name getting in the way of Campolo and his Red Letter Christian (RLC) cohorts as they corrupt the church visible with their emerging form of neo-fascist dominionism. In his screed Campolo complains about “how the Religious Right,” what ever that is, has come “into its dominating role,” and how totally ambiguous:

Religious Right laypersons came to realize that with very little effort just a few of them are able to exercise enormous influence on what happens and who speaks at any kind of religious gathering. If a particular speaker who does not fit their profile of someone they deem politically and theologically “safe,” they know that just a half dozen phone calls to the offices of the sponsoring organizations or to a denominational office can lead to the cancellation of that speaker.

Sadly, sponsors of such gatherings as youth conventions, denominational rallies, and other popular mass religious gatherings are overly sensitive to such complaints. In cowardly fashion, otherwise reasonable church leaders are easily intimidated and quickly yield to the demands of Religious Right critics.

What makes matters worse is that the internet helps cantankerous, disgruntled right-wing Evangelicals to spread far and wide anything about any moderate or progressive Christian leaders they want silenced. Lies and distortions can be spread, via the internet, in an inexpensive way, and the effects are astounding. (Online source)

Oh-kay; it’s not like heretics and apostates are using the Internet to spread their universal message of the mystic mush god with a man-shaped hole in his/her/it’s heart, eh. Then after telling us about some unnamed speaker who allegedly was disinvited to some unkown service because of supposedly “false rumors” by more anonymous bloggers Campolo really leaves reality behind as he says:

This same kind of tyranny has taken over the Christian publishing business. Christian bookstores, nationwide, tend to be owned and operated by well meaning people who want to propagate their faith through the sale of Christian books. Again, a handful of complaints raised about some authors that Religious Right Evangelicals consider “dangerous” will have the books written by such authors sent back to the distribution houses of the publishers. It doesn’t take these publishers long to recognize whose books they should put in print if they want Christian bookstores to put their books on the shelves. (Online source)

Hardly; Zondervan alone publishes many authors propagating Campolo et al’s version of the Christian faith; the fact is, since 1997 the church has been bombarded with books from leaders within the Emerging Church. Even Campolo himself says:

The good news is that moderates and progressives, in spite of all the problems caused by the internet for those who do not have the Religious Right’s “good housekeeping seal of approval,” through the internet have found ways of getting their messages out to any who are open to what they are saying. (Online source)

Moderates and progressives, these are the people Campolo and his brood wish to advance; for example fellow RLC’s like Brian McLaren and Tony Jones, progressive theologian in residence at the church of universalist EC pastor Doug Pagitt. In closing this, for now, here’s a little taste of what so-called progressive Christianity teaches. All of mankind is already children of God; and something called The Center for Progressive Christianity informs us:

(Online source)

As I’ve said before this “big tent” progressive Christianity 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. To give you a further glimpse at what this man-centered Liberalism 2.0 looks like consider the following by Dr. R. Scott Thornton, Director of Sacred Grounds Resource Center, from his book Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith:

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.”[1] 

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.”

If you’re tempted to think this is just a quote from some obscure book you should know that no less an authority as Campolo’s friend and fellow RLC Richard Rohr himself 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]

However, the message of Christianity is the Gospel, not bringing the man-centered musings of dominionism in order “to heal, transform our world.” Next Brian McLaren’s pal Dr. Philip Clayton—a leading architect in the emergence of big tent circus Christianity—tells us that Hal Taussig, “New Testament professor” at Union Theological Seminary gives a “beautiful summary” of this progressive Christianity. Taussig tells us the following, which should immediately arrest our attention, and it gives us even more cause to reject this progressive neo-liberal, or postmodern liberal, de-formation of Christianity:

4. The belief that Christianity can be vital without claiming to be the best or the only true religion. In contrast to mainstream Christianity’s lukewarm “tolerance” of other religions, progressive Christianity pro-actively asserts that it is not the best or the only. Progressive Christians take pains to simultaneously their own Christian faith and their support of the complete validity of other religions.
(Grassroots Progressive Christianity: A Quiet Revolution, bold his)

Note carefully: Progressive Christians “pro-actively” assert Christianity is not “the only” way to God and also lend their ”support of the complete validity of other religions.” Christians should support a person’s right to believe whatever they wish to about God; but that being said, we must not deceive people into thinking they are actually worshipping the one true and living God apart from being regenerated in Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:20).

Finally, consider the following by The Center for Progressive Christianity, where the heretical John Shelby Spong and Living Spiritual Teacher Dr. Marcus Borg are Honorary Advisors. This is from About Us—The 8 Points:

Point 2: Pluralism By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who… Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us. (Online source, emphasis mine)

Since, as with the original liberalism, this neo-liberalism is in direct contradiction to e.g. John 8:24 and John 14:6 I’ll say it here again: Progessive Christianity is neither progressive nor Christian.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes: 

[1] R. Scott Thornton, Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith [Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 2009], 28, emphasis mine. 

[2]  Ibid., back cover.

See also:

TONY CAMPOLO: “CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM” TRUMPS THE BIBLE

EMERGENT EVANGELICAL PROPHET TONY CAMPOLO

BIG TENT CIRCUS OF POSTMODERN LIBERALISM

THE EMERGENT CHURCH CULT OF POSTMODERN LIBERAL THEOLOGY

FOR BRIAN MCLAREN AND MARCUS BORG BEING “BORN AGAIN” IS REACHING “ENLIGHTENMENT”?

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

THE CULT OF LIBERAL THEOLOGY ROTTEN ROOT OF THE POSTLIBERAL EMERGING CHURCH

First, it is necessary to understand what sola Scriptura does and does not assert. The Reformation principle of sola Scriptura has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as our supreme authority in all spiritual matters. Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture.

It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science. 

This or that “scientific truth” for example, may or may not be actually true, whether or not it can be supported by Scripture—but Scripture is a “more sure Word,” standing above all other truth in its authority and certainty. It is “more sure,” according to the apostle Peter, than the data we gather firsthand through our own senses (2 Pet. 1:19). Therefore Scripture is the highest and supreme authority on any matter to which it speaks. But there are many important questions on which Scripture is silent. Sola Scriptura makes no claim to the contrary.

Nor does sola Scriptura claim that everything Jesus or the apostles ever taught is preserved in Scripture.  It only means that everything necessary, everything binding on our consciences, and everything God requires of us is given to us in Scripture.

Furthermore, we are forbidden to add to or take way from Scripture (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32, cf. Rev. 22:18-19). To do so is to lay on people’s shoulders a burden that God Himself does not intend for them to bear (cf. Matt. 23:4).

Scripture is therefore the perfect and only standard of spiritual truth, revealing infallibly all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That—no more, no less—is what sola Scriptura means.

The Westminster Confession of Faith defines the sufficiency of Scripture like this:

The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men (1:6).

The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Church include this statement on sola Scriptura:

Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation (article 6).

So sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture is sufficient. The fact that Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture (Jn. 20:30; 21:25) is wholly irrelevant to the principle of sola Scriptura. The fact that most of the apostles’ actual sermons in the early churches were not written down and preserved for us does not diminish the truth of biblical sufficiency one bit. What is certain is that all that is necessary is in Scripture—and we are forbidden “to exceed what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

Scripture clearly claims for itself this sufficiency—and nowhere more clearly that 2 Timothy 3:15-17. A brief summary of that passage is perhaps appropriate here as well. In short, verse 15 affirms that Scripture is sufficient for salvation: “The sacred writings . . . are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” Verse 16 affirms the absolute authority of Scripture, which is “God-breathed” (Gk. theopneustos) and profitable for our instruction. And verse 17 states that Scripture is able to equip the man of God “for every good work.” 

So the assertion that the Bible itself does not teach sola Scriptura is simply wrong. (Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 2)

John MacArthur

HT: Email Brigade

And Judah did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and they provoked him to jealousy with their sins that they committed, more than all that their fathers had done. For they also built for themselves high places and pillars and Asherim on every high hill and under every green tree, and there were also male cult prostitutes in the land. They did according to all the abominations of the nations that the Lord drove out before the people of Israel.

Now Bowing Before Islam

As part of documenting the implosion of mainstream evangelicalism, increasing parts of which may be as apostate right now as the Roman Catholic Church in Luther’s day, here at Apprising Ministries I’ve been talking about a growing love affair among professing evangelical Christians with the false religion of Islam. For example, in Evangelical Imams Wooing Islam I brought your attention to Seattle church invites Muslims to dinner where we’re told that:

A Seattle-area church is reaching out to Muslims by having area pastors sit down over dinner with imams affiliated with the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations to share their religious beliefs. Michael Ly, associate pastor of Soma church in Renton, Wash., believes the project will open doors for further understanding between the two faiths.

The Seattle Times reported Ly believes that reaching out to Muslims with friendship is what Jesus would do… (Online source)

Like I said, pastor Ly thinks this dinner “will open doors for further understanding between the two faiths”; but the question we need to be asking is: What further understanding are we seeking? After-all, there are tons of materials available as to what the religion of Islam teaches; and it’s extremely unlikely that these pastors are going to be occupied with the word, testifying to the Muslims that the Jesus is the Christ as Paul was in Acts 18:5. I then showed you this tweet from Purpose Driven/Seeker Driven pastor Bob Roberts, Jr to his pal Pete Wilson, another pastor of the same semi-pelagian ilk:

(Online source)

Unfortunately for such as these seeking friendship with the world Jesus already told us the preaching of the Gospel isn’t about bringing world peace:

“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.” 

“Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me.” (Matthew 10:34:40)

Then in Jim Wallis And Sojourners Making Muslim-Christians I discussed an article by Aaron Taylor, who tells us his “knowledge of culture, history, and world affairs combined with a passion for Biblical integrity sets him apart from the crowd,” called Can Muslims Follow the Biblical Christ and Still Be Muslim? Therein he tried to make a case for turning practicing Muslims, who supposedly “love  Jesus,” into Christians:

I can remember before moving to Senegal as a missionary, a thought flashed through my mind, “I wonder if God might use me to initiate a movement of Muslims coming to biblical faith in Christ as part of a Reformation movement within Islam?”…

I read Carl Medearis’s excellent book Muslims, Christians, and Jesus. In his book, Carl shares stories of his interactions with Muslims who deeply love Jesus and strive to follow his teachings — yet remain committed Muslims. I nearly wept thinking about how things could have been different if I had trusted my original instincts. (Online source)

Of course that’s asinine; but because those following the new postmodern version of Progressive Christian theology—aka “big tent” universalist Emergence Christianity—spewed by the sinfully ecumenial Emerging Church aka Emergent Church are deciding truth by group hug, instead of Scripture, we go off-roading  into the jungle Wonderland of Humpty Dumpty language bending and shaping words into whatever Play-Doh shapes we want them at a given time. Taylor muses his man-centered myth:

if a Muslim can believe and practice the bare essentials of what biblical faith in Jesus requires and still be true to their own faith, then not only have we figured out a way to build a bridge of peace between the historic religions of Islam and Christianity, we’ve also figured out a way for Christians to be faithful to the command of Jesus to “Go and make disciples of all nations,” without using our faith as a battering ram to demonize people of another faith. (Online source)

Well, how convenient; why didn’t the Apostles think of that, might have saved them from being murdered. And how’d that blending of religious practices work out for Israel in the Old Testament? I guess we’re going to have to rework 1 Corinthians 10:21 — No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. Hmm, for these Muslim-Christian hybrids with alleged “biblical faith in Jesus” while remaining “true to their own faith,” let’s make that read — “Yes, I meant to imply that what pagans—but certainly not the Muslims—sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God.” And none of this is a problem for neo-Gnostic mystics practicing their critical thinking skills killing, and spiritually corrupt, Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism.

The Emergence Of The Mystic Non-Gospel Of Non-Conversion As Everyone’s God’s People

Consider the following from Tony Campolo, who’s one of those Red Letter Christians along with other apostates like Living Spiritual Teacher and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren, progressive theologian Tony Jones, the heretical “theologian in residence” at the gathering place of his equally heretical universalist pastor Doug Pagitt—who together comprise the unholy trinity of the sinfully ecumenical Emergent Church. Campolo is mentor for another RLC, Shane Claiborne of the New Monasticism, and as I pointed out in Mysticism’s Gospel Of Goodness And Shane Claiborne Campolo would opine and then query the below in one of his books:

a theology of mysticism provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God, which seem at odds with their own spiritual traditions but have much in common with each other.

I do not know what to make of the Muslim mystics, especially those who have come to be known as the Sufis. What do they experience in their mystical experience? Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism?[1]

Notice the double-speak as first Campolo tells us Islam and Christianity both have “examples of ecstatic union with God”; then he muses, “Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism?” Campolo certainly hopes so; this would help him win friends and influence people within Islam, and would by-pass that nasty exclusive message of Scripture e.g. — Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him (Romans 8:9). Yeah, that’s just gonna get in the way of this whole Muslim-Christian thing; so we’ll ignore it because we feel that faithful Muslims, who’re doing “good” in the area of global social reform, must be following God in the way of Jesus. Ah, I know, even if they don’t personally happen to know it; yeah, that’ll work, salvation by osmosis. Hey in this case, no siree Buddha, we don’t need that old Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name.

If someone looks good to us—in other words—hates the evil empire and does good deeds like us, then they’re in; pretty slick, eh. In fact, in that Claiborne article I mentioned above I brought to your attention that, what I’ve just outlined above, is the mystic non-gospel. I showed you by quoting one of Claiborne’s heroes; that would be the late apostate Mother Teresa, who actually took her name out of her respect for so-called “Christian” mystic Teresa of Avila. From my personal copy of her book, following the words of the universalist Mother Teresa, “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from her organization] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence.” The “witness to the love of God’s presence” is mystic-speak, and not trying “to convert” people is simply more man-centered music in tune with those who have itching ears. She goes on to say:

Whether you are a Hindu, a Moslem or a Christian, how you live your life is the proof that you are fully his or not. We must not condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. Maybe a person has never heard of Christianity. We do not know what way God is appearing to that soul and what way God is drawing that soul, and therefore who are we to condemn anybody? It matters to the individual what church he belongs to.

If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation. This is the way God comes into his life.[2]

No doubt people in other religions will love hearing that; but it is dead wrong, and if we truly love God and our fellow man then we will tell them the truth from God’s Word. We’ll do it as lovingly, patiently, and gently, as possible because the Christian has been given the minstry of reconciliation so:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2 Corinthians 5:16-21)

But Campolo and Claiborne aren’t interested in that; I think you see why such as these aligned themselves with those who eschew sola Scriptura. Yeah, unfortunately the Bible just keeps getting in the way of their lovefest with Islam so as Campolo says:

We don’t have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people,… (Online source)

Ok, we say hi to Humpty Dumpty again; right Tony, we can keep “trying to convert”…um, “God’s people” and…ah, “even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people.” I see it now; after lying awake as I sleep in the light tonight, I can then start my evening tomorrow morning by taking a shower with cool, dry, hot water. Gothcha boys. And as I close this, for now, in the article I just quoted above Claiborne confesses:

When a devout Muslim brother asked Tony and I to have this cross-generational dialogue about interreligious cooperation for an interfaith publication, we jumped on it. (Online source, emphasis mine)

My question is: If Shane Claiborne has a devout Muslim “brother,” does this now make Claiborne himself a Christian-Muslim? I mean, apparently he’s in the process of approaching this in the opposite direction from those alleged hybrid Muslim-Christians, who’re practicing Muslims that supposedly “love  Jesus.” So could it be that, in Shane Claiborne, we’re witnessing a new breed hybrid of Christian-Muslims practicing Christianity but who also love Muhmmad? Stay tuned…

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] Tony Campolo, Speaking My Mind: The Radical Evangelical Prophet Tackles the Tough Issues Christians Are Afraid to Face [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004], 149, 150, emphasis mine.

[2] Kathryn Spink, Mother Teresa, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers [New York: HarperCollins, 1983], 81, 82, emphasis mine.

See also: 

QURAN ON CHRIST JESUS

CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM—THE SAME GOD?

DO CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS WORSHIP THE SAME GOD?

ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: THE DEITY OF CHRIST

KEEPING YOU APPRISED OF: ISLAM

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND ISLAM REALLY DO WORSHIP THE SAME GOD

RICK WARREN: PURPOSE DRIVEN TO ASK FOR ALLAH’S FORGIVENESS

People say, ‘Do not be negative; let us be positive; let us just preach the simple gospel’. But the Bible is full of negatives, full of warnings, ever showing us these terrible possibilities. If you find in yourself a dislike of the warnings of the Scripture and of this negative teaching, it is obvious that you have been duped by the wiles of the devil. You have not realized the situation in which you are placed.

The movements to which I am referring can be best classified and considered along the following lines. We start with Heresies within the Church, which have been caused and produced by the devil and his powers. I am not concerned to go into the detail of heresies; I am simply concerned to emphasize the fact of heresies, the fact of movements within the life of the Church that have so often led to terrible trouble and produced a state of chaos.

A heresy is ‘a denial of or a doubt concerning any defined, established Christian doctrine’. There is a difference between heresy and apostasy. Apostasy means ‘a departure from the Christian truth’. It may be a total renunciation or denial of it, or it may be a misrepresentation of it to such an extent that it becomes a denial of the whole truth. But a heresy is more limited in its scope. To be guilty of heresy, and to be a heretic, means that in the main you hold to the doctrines of the Christian faith, but that you tend to go wrong on some particular doctrine or aspect of the faith. The New Testament itself shows us clearly that this tendency to heresy had already begun even in the days of the early Church.

One of the first things you are to learn in this Christian life and warfare is that, if you go wrong in your doctrine, you will go wrong in all aspects of your life. You will probably go wrong in your practice and behaviour; and you will certainly go wrong in your experience… We read about these things constantly in the newspapers. Some are rejoicing because Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are drawing nearer together. ‘What does the past matter?’ they say, ‘Let us have the right spirit, let us come together, all of us, and not be concerned about these particularities.’ I have but one comment to make about this matter, and I regret to have to make it. To me, all such talk is just a denial of the plain teaching of the New Testament, a denial of the Creeds and the Confessions and the Protestant Reformation! It is carnal thinking, in addition to being a denial of the truth.

According to the teaching of the Bible, one thing only matters, and that is the truth. The Holy Spirit will honor nothing but the truth, His own truth. But that, He will honor. To me the most marvelous thing of all is that, the moment you come to such a conclusion, you realize that in a sense nothing else matters. … Nothing matters in the spiritual realm except truth, the truth given by the Holy Spirit, the truth that can be honored by the Holy Spirit. Is there anything more glorious in the whole of the ld Testament than the way in which this great principle stands out? God often used individual men, or but two or three, against hordes and masses. Is there anything more exhilarating than the doctrine of the remnant? While the majority had gone wrong, the ones and the twos saw the truth.

Take a man like Jeremiah. All the false prophets were against him. There is a man who had to stand alone. Poor Jeremiah – how he hated it and disliked it! He did not like being unpopular, he did not like standing on his own, and being ridiculed and laughed at, and spat upon, as it were; but he had the truth of God, and so he endured it all. He decided at times to say nothing, but the word was like fire in his bones, and he had to go on speaking it. Obloquy and abuse were heaped upon him, but it did not matter; he was God’s spokesman and God’s representative. Similarly Moses had to stand alone when he came down from the Mount where he had met God. To stand in isolation from one’s fellows, but with God, is the great doctrine of the Old Testament in many ways. And it is emphasized in the New Testament also. (Online source)

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

See also:

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

ROB BELL IS DEFINITELY NOT LIKE JESUS

TOXIC THEOLOGY OF DOUG PAGITT

CORRECTING TONY JONES

JIM WALLIS SAYS YOUR SALVATION ISN’T YOURS

JAY BAKKER PREACHES ON TWITTER

BIG TENT CHRISTIANITY A GROUP HUG IN THE EMERGING CHURCH

In fact, the term big tent itself really concerns the universalism forming the rotten core of this pseudo-Christian neo-liberalism—Liberalism 2.0—now being spread by an upgraded Emerging Church 2.0 throughout the mainstream of evangelicalism. At this point it’s important to remind you again that we are not just talking here about a universalism teaching men will be saved regardless of their religious convictions. Rather what’s under discussion is a Christian Universalism (CU), which does generally see Jesus Christ as the only way that all men will eventually be saved. There are various views but this CU is based upon some type of a universal atonement of Christ on the Cross that sounds a lot like the following from Rob Bell, the Elvis-like rock star pastor of the Emergent Church rebellion against the authority of the Bible:

So this is 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.” All things, everywhere. This reality then isn’t something we make come 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.[1]

During this past year in articles like The Emerging Church And The New Progressive Theology On Other Religions I’ve been 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. For example, Philip Clayton’s current book Transforming Christian Theology cites Hal Taussig, “New Testament professor” at Union Theological Seminary, whom he says gives a “beautiful summary” of this “progressive Christianity”[2]; and here’s what Taussig tells us about this progressive neo-liberal de-formation of the Christian faith in his Grassroots Progressive Christianity: A Quiet Revolution:

4. The belief that Christianity can be vital without claiming to be the best or the only true religion. In contrast to mainstream Christianity’s lukewarm “tolerance” of other religions, progressive Christianity pro-actively asserts that it is not the best or the only. Progressive Christians take pains to simultaneously their own Christian faith and their support of the complete validity of other religions.[3] 

The pious statement likely draws applause, and will certainly please the world, but the problem is the historic, orthodox, Christian faith has never taught “the complete validity of other religions.” I began studying liberal theology many years ago, but as I began to see the EC drifting toward universalism—particularly with the unholy Emergent trinity of Pagitt, Jones, and EC guru Brian McLaren—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 advancing postmodern progressive Christianity.

You may recall that not too long ago McLaren even 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). It’s also important for you to know that a founding member of RLC just 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 really become quite active around EC sectors.[4]

As we watch the development of this Liberalism 2.0 advanced by the EC it’s important that you begin to recognize the names of some of the major proponents; you may rest assured they have an agenda to take over the visible church with A New Kind of Christianity, which is what McLaren’s latest book was about. Now if these people do believe in “the complete validity of other religions,” then quite obviously, we have some form of universalism being taught. 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![5]

Thorton’s supposedly “faith-filled” progessive Christianity involves universal pluralism as he explains:

Many paths lead people into relationship with God. If I grew up in Indoa, I’d probably be a Hindu; Saudi Arabia, Muslim; Israel, Jew. But I wasn’t. I was born into a Christian family…as I’ve committed more of my life to Christian discipleship, I’ve experienced a transformation that leads me to believe that “the way” taught and modeled by Jesus is a pure reflection of God’s intentional will for humankind. [6]

However, even though the progressive/liberal Christian believes that only they are living the “pure reflection” of the way God would have everyone live, still they acknowledge that there are other “paths” which can also take “into relationship with God.” From About Us—The 8 Points  at the website of The Center For Progressive Christianity:

Point 2: Pluralism
By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we are Christians who… Recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.
(Online source, bold mine)

As such then, we’re not surprised that in Thornton’s sermon Grace, delivered at something called The Institute for Progressive Christianity, he takes a shot the doctrine of hell as he tells us we’ve set up bad rules like:

If you do not believe certain things about Jesus you are not “saved”. You are somehow condemned to an eternity of torment in a place called hell. We draw distinct lines in the sand and label some people good and some people evil and propose that those we have labeled evil must be destroyed. I’m sorry to say that if Jesus appeared today, he would have to once again rebel against these barriers in the same way that he did 2000 years ago.[7]

Well, if other paths also lead to God and if, as Philip Clayton puts it, we’re going to “rediscover a deep, vibrant form of incarnational Christian life and faith–one based not on an economy of exclusion but of embrace”[8] then we need to rethink the doctrine of hell now, wouldn’t we; and so they are as you can see e.g. in Razing Hell With Sharon Baker, who even comes highly recommended by EC guru Brian McLaren. You may also recall in Brian McLaren Attacks The Substitutionary Atonement I showed you he has said:

[T]he kingdom of God comes through suffering and willing, voluntary sacrifice, right? But in an ironic way, the doctrine of hell basically says, no, that that’s not really true. That in the end, God gets His way through coercion and violence and intimidation and domination, just like every other kingdom does. The cross isn’t the center then. The cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God.

Baker puts it this way:

I’m even more concerned about remaining faithful to the God of love, who loves the worst of the worst, the world’s enemies, including, even, the Hitlers, the Idi Amins, and the Osama bin Ladens of the world. Our traditional views of hell as a place of eternal punishment where unbelievers dwell in undying flames contradict the image of God as merciful, forgiving, and compassionate. (Online source)

At this point, Baker’s postmodern opining deconstruction aside, I’ll remind you that the “traditional views of hell as a place of eternal punishment” is actually derived from God’s inerrant and infallible Word in the Bible so there’s no conflict at all concerning what He’s revealed about Himself and hell. Against this backdrop I’m pleased to bring your attention to the September/October 2010 e-Journal from 9 Marks that’s entitled Hell: Remembering the Awful Reality. Editor Jonathan Leeman tells us:

Wisdom so often in life prescribes moderation. It’s wise to eat with moderation, to speak with moderation, to feel with moderation, some would even say to believe with moderation.

But there’s absolutely nothing moderate about the doctrine of hell. It’s extreme in every way. It’s an extreme idea for the mind. It’s an extreme confrontation for the heart. And it blows against all the rules of social etiquette.

Embracing the reality of hell means setting aside moderation. It means admitting that our sin is dark and heinous to the point of eternal damnation; that the white light of God’s character and glory justly destroys those who have fallen short of his glory; and that that our non-Christians friends have nothing greater to fear. That’s tough to do when you have moderate views of your sin, your friend’s sin, and of God’s glory.

Embracing the reality of hell also means going against the fallen cultural structures and belief systems of this world, all of which conspire together with our own hearts to repeat the serpent’s promise of a moderate outcome, “You will surely not die.”

As hard as it is to stare at the doctrine of hell, surely it must be salubrious to our faith to do so from time to time. It forces us to once again reckon with who God is and who we are. We hope this issue of the 9Marks eJournal will help all of us to do just that. (Online source)

Among other articles in this timely e-Journal you’ll find Pastoral Fearmongering, Manipulation, and Hell by Mark Dever, How Does Hell Glorify God? from James M. Hamilton Jr., and Greg Gilbert‘s Why Hell Is Integral to the Gospel where he brings out what’s happened to those following the spiritual dead-end of progressive Christianity, which is neither progressive, nor Christian:

For some, the horror of the Christian doctrine of hell—that it is a place of eternal, conscious torment where God’s enemies are punished—has led them not just to avert their eyes and minds, but to deny it entirely. “Surely,” they say, “hell is a fictional construct used to oppress people with fear; a God of love would never allow such a place to really exist.” There’s an emotional power to this argument, to be sure. No one, certainly no Christian, likes the idea of hell.

At the same time, this doctrine isn’t just drapery on the side of the Christian worldview, something with no relevance to the structure of the faith itself. Nor is the doctrine of hell an embarrassing, unnecessary, primitive wart that we believe just because we’re told we have to.

On the contrary, the doctrine and reality of hell actually throws the glory of the gospel into sharp relief for us. It helps us to understand just how great God really is, how sinfully wretched we really are, and how unutterably amazing it is that he would show us grace at all. Moreover, the reality of hell—if we don’t push it out of our minds—will focus us, above all, on the task of proclaiming the gospel to those who are in danger of spending eternity there… (Online source)

Which is why I continue to warn such as these I’ve been discussing here; though the progressive/liberal Christians follow a Jesus, in actuality, their glorified social reformer is a phantom who’s essentially Gandhi with a beard. And, because they have gone through the gate [that] is wide out onto the way [which] is easy that leads to destruction (see—Matthew 7:13), a non-existent savior is powerless to help them. And so this is why, in the love of God, we will continue to pray for these deceived progressive/liberals—for whom Christ also died—because there’s still time for them to avoid hell and accept the good news of the glorious Gospel of repentance and the forgivness of sins in the Name of Jesus Christ.

________________________________________________________________________________

End notes:

[1] Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005], 146, emphasis mine.

[2] Philip Clayton, Transforming Christian Theology [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010], 120.

[3] Bold is his.

[4] Rohr is also a member of an important Emerging Church network I’ve discussed previously e.g. in Emerging Church TransFORM.

[5] R. Scott Thornton, Inclusive Christianity: A Progressive Look at Faith [Pasadena: Hope Publishing House, 2009], back cover.

[6] Ibid., 7.

[7] http://tiny.cc/ui70a, accessed 9/1/10.

[8] http://tiny.cc/w5wue, accessed 9/1/10.

See also:

THE EMERGING CHURCH AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE THEOLOGY ON CHRIST 

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE DOESN’T MATTER TO BRIAN MCLAREN

ROB BELL AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

DOUG PAGITT AND CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALISM

THE NEW DOWNGRADE AND ITS APOSTLES OF UNBELIEF

SURPRISED BY GOD’S JUDGMENT

WHAT IS THE WORST THING ABOUT HELL?

You need to understand that this spurious CSM—the refried Roman Catholic mysticism “discovered” by Living Spiritual Teacher and Quaker mystic Richard Foster, and now perpetrated within the mainstream of evangelicalism as supposed Spiritual Formation with an able assist from his spiritual twin SBC minister Dallas Willard, was a core doctrine in the EC right from its hatching in Hell. In Good Shepherd Church Going Ape…Almost I gave you another pathetic exhibit of how just how squishy—man-pleasing—evanjellyfish is becoming as a result of practicing this mysticism.

In The Gloves Must Come Off yesterday I told you that there will be nothing gained by foolish “conversation” with unregenerate Apostles of Unbelief in the EC; and among their number you’ll find mystics like rock star Emerging Church pastor Rob Bell and his good friend, heretical quasi-universalist Emerging Church pastor Doug Pagitt who heads the Emergent Solomon’s Porch where the equally heretical Tony Jones happens to be his “theologian in residence,” who’ve long been teaching counterfeit forms of Christianity to young mainstream evangelicals.

The quicker you come to understand that such as these long ago jettisoned the proper Christian spirituality of Sola Scriptura—of course we can experience God in His Word—for myth-based mysticism the better for you; for you see, their mentors like Living Spiritual Teacher and Roman Catholic mystic Richard Rohr along with his fellow Red Letter Christian pal Living Spiritual Teacher and leading Emergent Church guru Brian McLaren, are just as off spiritually as the original Gnostics, which were being roundly rebuked by the authors of the New Testament.

A couple of years ago in Contemplative Spirituality/Mysticism (CSM) Of Spiritual Formation Is Reckless Faith I pointed you to Reckless Faith: When The Church Loses Its Will To Discern , oft-overlooked 1994 book by Dr. John MacArthur. In this book, one of our Lord’s most trusted generals told you—three years before their even was any Emerging Church—why in this postmodern time these neo-Gnostics, who’re neo-orthodox in their theology (at best), would run to embrace mysticism:

Neo-orthodoxy is the term used to identify an existentialist variety of Christianity. Because it denies the essential objective basis of truth—the absolute truth and authority of Scripture—neo-orthodoxy must be understood as pseudo-Christianity… Neo-orthodoxy’s attitude toward Scripture is a microcosm of the entire existentialist philosophy: the Bible itself is not objectively the Word of God, but it becomes the Word of God when it speaks to me individually.

In neo-orthodoxy, that same subjectivism is imposed on all the doctrines of historic Christianity. Familiar terms are used, but are redefined or employed in such a way that is purposely vague—not to convey objective meaning, but to communicate a subjective symbolism… Thus while neo-orthodox theologians often sound as if they affirming traditional beliefs, their actual system differs radically from the historic understanding of the Christian faith. By denying the objectivity of truth, they relegate all theology to the realm of subjective relativism.

It is a theology perfectly suited for the age in which we live. And that is precisely why it is so deadly… [Contemplative Spirituality aka] Mysticism is perfectly suited for religious existentialism; indeed, it is the inevitable consequence. The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, of other purely subjective means. Objective truth becomes practically superfluous.

Mysticial experiences are therefore self-authenticating; that is, they are not subject to any form of objective verification. They are unique to the person who experiences them. Since they do not arise from or depend upon any rational process, they are invulnerable to any refutation by rational means… Mysticism is therefore antithetical to discernment. It is an extreme form of reckless faith.[1]

Now I’ll be blunt; if you can’t see what MacArthur has just told you fits these Emerging Church mystics perfectly, then in my view it’s because you just don’t want to. Charles Spurgeon dealt with their fetid forebears in the original Cult of Liberalism; do you remember what it would cost him in the Downgrade Controversy? Too bad in this New Downgrade, while so many praise him, there doesn’t appear to be any Spurgeon on the immediate horizon. If there were, here’s what he’d be saying:

Beloved, your risen Lord wants you to be happy. When He was here on earth, He said, “Let not your heart be troubled”; He says just the same to you today. He takes no delight in the distresses of His people. He loves you to believe in Him and be at rest.

Find if you can, beloved, one occasion in which Jesus inculcated doubt or bade men dwell in uncertainty. The apostles of unbelief are everywhere today, and they imagine that they are doing God service by spreading what they call “honest doubt.” This is death to all joy! Poison to all peace! The Savior did not so…

I have not much patience with a certain class of Christians nowadays who will hear anybody preach so long as they can say, “He is very clever, a fine preacher, a man of genius, a born orator.” Is cleverness to make false doctrine palatable? Why, sirs, to me the ability of a man who preaches error is my sorrow rather than my admiration.

I cannot endure false doctrine, however neatly it may be put before me. Would you have me eat poisoned meat because the dish is of the choicest ware? It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would fain make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who have soft words for such deceivers.

“That is your bigotry,” says one. Call it so if you like, but it is the bigotry of the loving John who wrote—”If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.”

I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is depriving our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.

He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to whom it is all the same whether it be God’s word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. Oh, if some of you were like fathers you would not have tolerated in this age the wagon loads of trash under which the gospel has been of late buried by ministers of your own choosing. You would have hurled out of your pulpits the men who are enemies to the fundamental doctrines of your churches, and yet are crafty enough to become your pastors and undermine the faith of a fickle and superficial generation.

These men steal the pulpits of once orthodox churches, because otherwise they would have none at all. Their powerless theology cannot of itself arouse sufficient enthusiasm to enable them to build a mousetrap at the expense of their admirers, and therefore they profane the houses which your sires have built for the preaching of the gospel, and turn aside the organisations of once orthodox communities to help their infidelity: I call it by that name in plain English, for “modern thought” is not one whit better, and of the two evils I give infidelity the palm, for it is less deceptive.

I beg the Lord to give back to the churches such a love to his truth that they may discern the spirits, and cast out those which are not of God… (Online source)

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] John MacArthur, Reckless Faith: When The Church Loses Its Will To Discern [Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994], 27, 28.

See also:

DID JESUS ARGUE DOCTRINE?

THE EMERGING CHURCH SOWING ITS NEO-ORTHODOX CONFUSION ON SCRIPTURE

IS ROB BELL EVANGELICAL?

PD/SD PASTOR SCOTT HODGE AND THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON MYSTICISM

SADDLEBACK CHURCH, RICK WARREN, AND SPIRITUAL DISCIPLINES

MARK DRISCOLL AND NEO-REFORMED NEW CALVINIST CONTEMPLATIVE SPIRITUALITY

THE PERILS OF ‘WANNABE MYSTIC’ CHRISTIANITY BRETT MCCRACKEN

Pietism & Subjective Christianity

Balance. Is there anything more elusive? Most of us are constantly striving for balance, whether it is with our time, money, diet or relationships. If few of us are ever content that we have found just the right balance in these areas of life, the same can be said for the historical church. God’s people tend to swing from one extreme to another with great regularity, causing considerable tension within the body of Christ. One such tension has been, and still is, between the academic and the experiential, between those who place great emphasis on the theological and those who place the bulk of their emphasis on the subjective. Subjective oriented believers cast the term “dead orthodoxy” at their counterpart. I vividly remember an extremist group marching around the walls of Moody Bible Institute when I was a student there, crying out, “Babylon is falling down.” This same group purposely mispronounced seminary (calling it cemetery) and loved quoting II Corinthians 3:6b, “For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Doctrinally inclined Christians cast aspersions such as “heterodox” at such people (you have to be doctrinally inclined to cast such aspersions). The proper biblical balance is for theology to result in doxology, and doxology to lead to holy, passionate living for Jesus Christ. Unfortunately it seldom seems to be that easy, and so the tension between theology and experience goes on and balance is hard to find. This is a modern day struggle but it has much historical precedent. One such precedent, which still has major ramifications for us today, has been termed Pietism.

A Little History:

Pietism began as a reaction to the highly intellectualized orthodoxy that had become common in Lutheran and Reformed churches in the decades following the Reformation.

Pietism made its appearance as a distinct historical movement within Protestantism, at the end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth centuries, around 1690-1730. Its aim was to stress “practical piety,” as distinct from the polemical dogmatic theology to which the Reformation had initially given a certain priority. Against the intellectualist and abstract understanding of God and of dogmatic truth, pietism set a practical, active piety (Praxis pietatis): good works, daily self-examination for progress in virtues according to objective criteria, daily study of the Bible and practical application of its moral teaching, intense emotionalism in prayer, a clear break with the “world” and worldly practices (dancing, the theatre, non-religious reading); and tendencies towards separatism, with the movement holding private meetings and distinguishing itself from the “official Church.”[1]

While there have been many leaders among the Pietists most recognize the big four as follows:

Johann Arndt (1555-1621). He is considered by modern Historians to be the Father of Pietism. Arndt’s most lasting influence came through his six volume devotional work True Christianity (1606). This was a collection of sermons which relied heavily on the mystics, especially Thomas à Kempis. Arndt was not a classical mystic but he was concerned, especially in book three with how one could find the Kingdom of God within oneself. His answer was found in self-denial as opposed to intellectual pursuit. Arndt, in reaction to what he considered dead-orthodoxy of Lutheranism, preached that the evidence of conversion was not correct doctrine but a changed life.

Philip Jacob Spener (1635-1705). Spener wrote his major work Pia Desideria (Pious Desires), subtitled, Heartfelt Desire for God-Pleasing Reform, in 1675. Many Lutherans date the beginning of Pietism with the publication of this book, which became a manual of Pietistic reforms. Spener, taking Arndt one step further, more aggressively combated those who promoted doctrine to the neglect of piety. Spener did not minimize Scripture but there was a subtle, almost indiscernible shift toward experience.

Auguste Hermann Francke (1663-1727) As Spener’s successor Francke continued, and expanded, Spener’s emphasis on a changed life and practical theology. He was known for his kindness and great interest in foreign missions, as well as his ecumenical spirit.

Count Nicolaus Ludwig Von Zinzendorf (1700-1760). In Zinzendorf the teachings of Arndt, Spener and Francke bear their natural fruit. Zinzendorf developed a system he called, “Theology of the Heart” which basically meant that heart-felt religious convictions and experiences were more trustworthy than theological understanding. As a natural outworking of this philosophy Zinzendorf emphasized the ecumenicalism of Francke, teaching that doctrinal difference between believers should be tolerated. Zinzendorf is best known today because of his leadership within the Moravians, a Pietist sect that had profound impact on the life of John Wesley.

What Did Pietism Teach?

While Pietism had its original roots in Lutheranism, historians identify at least three other branches of early Pietism including Reformed, Moravian and Radical.[2] It is therefore difficult to pin down the exact beliefs of the Pietists, but there were some definite common threads that can be traced throughout all of these branches.

Spener offered six proposals for reform in Pia Desderia which became a short summary of pietism:

• There should be “a more extensive use of the Word of God among us.” The Bible, Spener said, “must be the chief means for reforming something.”
• Spener called also for a renewal of “the spiritual priesthood,” the priesthood of all believers. Here he cited Luther’s example in urging all Christians to be active in the general work of Christian ministry.
• He appealed for the reality of Christian practice and argued that Christianity is more than a matter of simple knowledge.
• Spener then urged restraint and charity in religious controversies. He asked his readers to love and pray for unbelievers and the erring, and to adopt a moderate tone in disputes.
• Next he called for a reform in the education of ministers. Here he stressed the need for training in piety and devotion as well as in academic subjects.
• Last he implored ministers to preach edifying sermons, understandable by the people, rather than technical discourses which few were interested in or could understand.[3]

On the surface there seems little to object in Spener’s proposals; but while he had a concern for proper exegesis, and a high regard for the Bible, he and other Pietist were slowly allowing experience and subjectivism to become more authoritative than Scripture. By the time we get to Zinzendorf this exchange had become obvious. Experience, despite what might be officially stated, had in practice become the final arbitrator in the lives of the Moravians. “Zinzendorf stressed the importance of experiencing God,”[4] to the extent of allowing for personal experience to determine the meaning of Scripture and frame Christian living. Based upon the studies of J. E. Hutton, historian of the Moravian movement, Arnold Dallimore writes:

To them the value of the Bible consisted, not in its supposed infallibility, but in its appeal to their hearts…. The Bible was not its supreme authority, but authority lay also in personal experience, and, of course, varied according to the sentiments of the individual. Nor was the Bible a book to which they gave diligent study; they regarded it somewhat as a compilation of texts and mottoes, and they had the curious practice of opening it at random and accepting the first verse their eye lighted upon as the immediate guidance of heaven. They employed it also in the casting of lots and we are told that the Count “carried his lot apparatus in his pocket; he consulted it on all sorts of topics and regarded it as the infallible voice of God. The Moravians give little attention to systematic theology…. The Society’s gatherings were characterized by an extraordinary fervour, but because of the lack of clear doctrinal teaching, its members proved susceptible to varying religious influences.[5]

On the positive side Pietism rejected cold orthodoxy and called believers back to the Scriptures, not just for intellectual knowledge but also for heart-felt change and authentic personal experience. On the negative side Pietism led to subjectivism which ultimately drew Christians away from truth as found in God’s Word. Many church historians, including Mark Noll, believe that Pietism paved the way for the theological liberalism of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Others, but not all, see a link between unchecked Pietism and the Enlightenment. These are odd outcomes for a movement that attempted to bring the church back to the Scriptures and the proper application of truth. But they are not surprising outcomes given the dominate role that subjectivity ultimately played in the Pietistic movement. Once our lives and churches become untethered from the Scriptures there is no limit where they might land.

Where Did Pietism Go Wrong?

Of course that is a loaded question and presupposes that Pietism did go wrong. Given the fact that Pietism, to some degree, lives on in church related groups as diverse as Amish, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal and the Amana Society it is hard to be precise. But, wherever experience and subjectivity reigns supreme over Scripture in the lives and churches of twenty-first century believers there is something wrong. William Nix summarizes our concern well:

Although Pietists adhered to the inspiration of the Bible, they advocated individual feeling as being of primary importance. That may have been an adequate method for avoiding cold orthodoxy of “Protestant scholasticism,” it opened the door for the equally dangerous enemy of “subjective experientialism.” The first generation of Pietists could recall and reflect on its grounding in Scripture while validly advocating the need for individual experience. A second generation would stress the need for individual experience, but often without a proper Biblical or catechetical basis. This would leave a third generation that would question individual experience with no Biblical or doctrinal “standard” to serve as an objective criterion. In turn, their unanswered questions would tend to demand an authority. When Scriptures were neglected, human reason or subjective experience would fill the need as the required “standard.” Thus while not causing other movements Pietism gave impetus to three other movements in the post-Reformation church: deism, skepticism and rationalism.[6]

What Are the Implications for Today?

The great-grandchildren of Pietism live on in modern evangelicalism. On the positive side, much like original Pietists there is a great hunger today for spirituality. People want a spirituality that works in the trenches of life. They want a faith that is relevant, provides answers and draws them closer to God. There is little interest in “dead orthodoxy.” People want to feel something – experience something. George Gallup documents this spiritual hunger in his book, The Next American Spirituality. Unfortunately much of the spirituality that he observes is without biblical foundation leading him to warn, “Contemporary spirituality can resemble a grab bag of random experiences that does little more than promise to make our eyes mist up or our heart warm. We need perspective to separate the junk food from the wholesome, the faddish from the truly transforming.”[7] But perspective is hard to come by due to the massive level of biblical illiteracy, not only in America but among Christians as well. Half, he says, “Of those describing themselves as Christians are unable to name who delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Many Americans cannot name the reason for celebrating Easter or what the Ten Commandments are. People think the name of Noah’s wife was Joan, as in Joan of Ark.”[8] Then there is what some have called “the great disconnect.” That is, there is a wide chasm between what Americans in general, and self-proclaimed Christians in particular, claim to believe and how they live. While the general populace claim to have a great interest in spirituality, and Christians claim to be followers of Christ, our societies, homes and churches are inundated with corruption, violence, substance abuse, racism, divorce and materialism. This “cluster of moral and theological shortcomings seemingly throws into question the transforming power of religious beliefs,”[9] Gallup admits, leading him to state, “Just because Americans claim they are more spiritual does not make them so.”[10] That leans into an excellent question, “Is the church really rediscovering its spiritual moorings – or just engaging in retreat from seemingly insoluble problems?”[11]

Well, as Yogi once said, “Prediction is very hard, especially when it’s about the future,” but if the New Testament is any indication, things don’t look all that bright. The negative affect of Pietism, in many circles, is the development of Christians desiring a heart-felt faith who, nevertheless, have become increasingly distanced from the Word. Such spirituality may, as Gallup said, give us misty eyes and warm hearts, but it does not create Christians who know Christ in terms described by the Bible. Paul clearly taught in Ephesians 4:11-16 that if we are to grow to maturity, equipped for the “work of service” it will be as a result of biblical teaching from gifted leaders given to the church for that purpose. Without adequate biblical teaching we will be like children “tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (v.14). The perfect spiritual victims for deceitful schemers are those with warm hearts and empty heads. The church is full of folks today who have “a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge” (Romans 10:2). They have a form of godliness but it is not biblically grounded. They are seeking feelings and experiences but not doctrinal truth. They are content to attend churches that do not expound the Scriptures, just as long as they are emotionally moved by the music or drama.

Such “piety” is changing every facet of Christian and church life. Take worship for example. Monte E. Wilson has noted, “For the modern evangelical, worship is defined exclusively in terms of the individual’s experience. Worship, then, is not about adoring God but about being nourished with religious feelings, so much so that the worshiper has become the object of worship.”[12] The cause for this type of worship, Wilson believes, is the loss of devotion to Scriptures. He writes in pejorative terms, “Others—probably the majority in modern American evangelicalism—have utterly neglected any commitment to the content of the Word and have ended with narcissistic ‘worship’ services where everyone drowns in a sea of subjectivism and calls it ‘being bathed in the presence of the Holy Spirit.’ These people come to church exclusively to ‘feel’ God.”[13]

Pietistic leanings, of course, are not limited to worship and the gathered church. Where they are most evident, and most concerning is in the area of “God’s leading.” How does God speak to and lead His people according to Scripture? And how has Pietistic understanding of these things affected the way we interpret both Scripture and our subject feelings? This will be the topic of our next paper.

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:    

[1] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articlesprint/YannarasPietismP.htm. p. 1.

[2] See Christian History Vol. V. #2, “Pietism, a Much Maligned Movement Re-Examined.” p. 19.

[3] Mark Noll, Elwell Evangelical Dictionary (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pietism.htm). P. 2.

[4] Christian History Vol. V. #2 p. 15.

[5] Arnold Dallimore, George Whitefield (The Banner of Truth Trust: London, 1970), PP. 172-174.

[6] As quoted by F. David Farnell, The Master’s Seminary Journal, Vol. 13#1, “How Views of Inspiration Have Impacted Synoptic Problem Discussions”, p. 46.

[7] George Gallup Jr., The Next American Spirituality (Victor: Colorado Springs, 2000), p. 15.

[8] Ibid., p. 30.

[9] Ibid., p. 32.

[10] Ibid., p. 29.

[11] Ibid.

[12] John H. Armstrong, General Editor, The Compromised Church, “Church-o-Rama or Corporate Worship,” Monte Wilson (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 1998 ), p. 67.

[13] Ibid., p. 68.

The article (May 2005 – Volume 11, Issue 5) appears in its original form here.    

See also:    

INTRODUCTION TO MYSTICISM    

MYSTICISM—PART 1    

MYSTICISM—PART 2   

MYSTICISM—PART 3

MYSTICISM—PART 4