Post-Emergence

A Bigger Us?

2010-04-11T12:35:00.001-07:00

Devil of Dordt

2010-04-04T19:27:00.001-07:00

Spurgeonator

2010-03-28T05:09:00.001-07:00

How to be Rejected, Afflicted, Plundered, and Cast Out by the LORD

2010-01-09T07:50:00.000-08:00

We all love to read anything that may give us an edge with the Lord. However, we never want to upset our “Old Man” so we typically avoid the “Thou shalt not…” sections of His Word. Therefore, is it any wonder that many so-called Post-Modern Evangelicals have not seemingly read the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3)?
Evangelicals and other gods…You must be not serious? I am seriously suggesting in the way as Moses warned, “But that's when you must be especially careful not to ask, ‘How did those nations worship their gods? Shouldn't we worship the LORD in the same way?’ No, you should not! The LORD hates the disgusting way those nations worship their gods, because they even burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices” (Deuteronomy 12:30-31).
But aren’t you begging the question…No Post-Modern Evangelical is saying these days to burn their sons and daughters as sacrifices! Maybe not, however going back to 2 Kings we notice they, “Had feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the LORD drove out before” (2 Kings 17:8). Are not many Emergents now suggesting that there are “Other paths to God?” Are not many Emergents now suggesting that there are many spiritual traditions that are “Authentic” or bring about better “Contemplation” or are legitimate “Meditation” customs? “Customs…practiced. And the people…did secretly against the LORD their God things that were not right” (2 Kings 17:8-9).
“Secretly,” as in only the initiated may know or those who are more enlightened and beyond the “Meta-narratives” of the past. Are not many Emergents now suggesting that traditional Churches are hopelessly flawed? So what is the Emergent answer, “They built for themselves high places in all their towns, from watchtower to fortified city. They set up for themselves pillars…on every high hill and under every green tree, and there they made offerings on all the high places, as the nations did whom the LORD carried away before them…And they did wicked things, provoking the LORD to anger, and they served idols, of which the LORD had said to them, "You shall not do this!" (2 Kings 17:10-12).
So where are we to get the legitimate practices, customs, worship, beliefs, about the LORD? “Yet the LORD warned…by every prophet and every seer, saying, "Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, in accordance with all the Law that I commanded your fathers, and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets" (2 Kings 17:13).
Emergents believe they are more enlightened and are the new “Third Wave” of Church history after Catholicism, and Protestantism. So, they usually do “not listen, but were stubborn, as their fathers had been, who did not believe in the LORD their God. They despised his statutes and his covenant that he made with their fathers and the warnings that he gave them” (2 Kings 17:13-14).
Notice the next retrogression, “They went after false idols and became false, and they followed the nations that were around them, concerning whom the LORD had commanded them that they should not do like them…And they abandoned all the commandments of the LORD their God…and worshiped all the host of heaven” (2 Kings 17:16). How many Emergents today believe in the infallibility of the Scriptures these days? How many use astrology?
So what is the real problem then? It was in that they had, “Used divination and omens and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the LORD, provoking him to anger” (2 Kings 17:17). So what will happen to those Post Moderns who continue to follow this path? “Therefore, the LORD was very angry…and removed them out of his sight. None was left [who] did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the customs…introduced” (2 Kings 17:18-20).
What is the ultimate punishment then for Post-Modern Evangelicals or Emergents who continue in this path? “And the LORD rejected…and afflicted them and gave them into the hand of plunderers, until he had cast them out of his sight” (2 Kings 17:20). “He who has ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 11:15).

The Voice John 1:5

2010-01-03T23:01:00.001-08:00

"It's must not be real...his lips keep moving!"

Sola Scriptura Translations Scripture Quiz

2010-01-03T14:22:00.000-08:00

Can you match the three “versions” specifically written against Sola Scriptura (or “The Bible Alone”) and the two translations that convey the timeless quality of God’s Word by remaining true to the original words breathed out by God as in John 1: 1-5?

A. This anonymous work of Jehovah’s Witnesses gives credit for the work to God but has the added benefit of keeping the translators from any accountability. This “version” was edited and revised for the specific purpose of making the Bible agree with Watchtower Society doctrine. When their beliefs contradicted Scripture, it was altered to agree with Jehovah’s Witness’ theology. 1961 New World Translation

B. This new literal Bible translation by the Standard Bible Society combined word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and depth of meaning. It sought transparency to the original, letting readers see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original. 2001 English Standard Version

C. This politically correct “scripture project” by the Ecclesia Bible Society was a collaboration of scholars, pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists for the specific purpose of making the Bible agree with Emergent Conversation theology. This “scripture product” translates words of “theological communities” such as “baptism,” “repentance,” and “salvation” into more common terminology. 2009 The Voice

D. This translation of the Bible grew out of King James I’s hatred for the Geneva Bible’s brief but potent Calvinistic Reformation doctrine in the margins. James authorized this new translation in order to remove these “seditious marginal notes.” 1611 King James Authorized Version

E. This was the primary Bible of the 16th Century English Protestant Reformation used by William Shakespeare, John Milton, John Knox, John Donne, and John Bunyan. It was the first English version in which all of the Old Testament was translated by English Reformers directly from the Hebrew. 1599 Geneva Bible

John 1: 1-5

1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.

2. In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in [the] beginning with God. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. What has come into existence by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.

3. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

4. Before time itself was measured, the Voice was speaking. The Voice was and is God. This celestial Voice remained ever present with the Creator; His speech shaped the entire cosmos. Immersed in the practice of creating, all things that exist were birthed in Him. His breath filled all things with a living, breathing light.

5. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

© by Rafe Spraker Sunday, January 03, 2010

Answers: 1E; 2A; 3B; 4C; 5D

Emergent View of Scripture

2010-01-02T02:00:00.000-08:00

For those who have been thinking that there has been a somewhat unfair, over-reaction by those of us trying to expose the Emergent Church's fables of Existential Experience as an authority equal to the Bible, listen carefully to Marcus Borg as he explains that the Word of God is actually a product of the Jewish and Christian "communities" and not God Himself.

This is contrary to what the Scripture clearly declares about itself (II Tim 3:15-17; I Pet 2:5-7).

Credit: http://www.alittleleaven.com http://marcusjborg.com/index.html

Presbymergents: Loyal Radicals?

2009-12-29T20:49:00.001-08:00

"Presbymergent is the online community for those who live in both the Presbyterian (PCUSA) and Emergent/emerging church worlds and want to try and find a balance between the two. We are pastors, lay people, seminarians, theologians, youth directors and people who generally care about both the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Emergent and the emergent conversation."

Let's discern their nature of "Worship" from one of the Presbymergent "community of ALL peoples."

"We resolve to engage a variety of worship forms. Many people commented on the need for our worship gatherings to engage ritual and liturgy. We also talked about centering prayer and the idea of creating original indigenous liturgies."

Notice the source of authority is ideas from members, "We resolve...Many people commented...We also talked...creating original indigenous." Nothing from the Bible, the PC(USA), the creeds, or any spiritual tradition.

The only recognizable spiritual notions here are some of the vocabulary, "Worship...ritual and liturgy...centering prayer...indigenous liturgies." However, the "Centering Prayer" has a link to a Wikipedia article which gives a fuller explanation of this:

"Centering prayer is a popular method of contemplative prayer or Christian meditation, placing a strong emphasis on interior silence. Though most authors trace its roots to the contemplative prayer of the Desert Fathers of early Christian monasticism, to the Lectio Divina tradition of Benedictine monasticism, and to works like The Cloud of Unknowing and the writings of St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross, its origins as part of the "Centering Prayer" movement in modern Catholicism and Christianity can be traced to several books published by three Trappist monks of St. Joseph's Abbey in Spencer, Massachusetts in the 1970s: Fr. William Meninger, Fr. M. Basil Pennington and Abbot Thomas Keating."

This is a very common form of spirituality shared by many Emergents. Notice the heavily traditional Catholic influence so as Solomon said, "There is no new thing under the sun" (Eccl 1:9). Notice also the emphasis on "interior silence" or as the article further clarifies, "The purpose of centering prayer is to clear the mind of rational thought in order to focus on the indwelling presence of God."

So ultimately, focusing on the indwelling presence of God clears the mind of rational thought which can then be used to "create original indigenous liturgies." This is a much shorter circuit to spirituality than the traditional, longer routes of using the Bible, the PC(USA), the creeds, or any spiritual tradition. So the fable here is Existential Experience and not rationality!

This is a far cry from Westminster's first lines:

"Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation; therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that His will unto his Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which maketh the holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646)

Baptimergent: Progressive Jesus?

2009-12-29T00:00:00.000-08:00

At the Baptimergent and companion Alliance of Baptist sites, a post called, "In a word, "Progressive" appears with a curious attempt at making Jesus a "Progressive."

"Again, Jesus is helpful here. Progressive action in the gospel is determined and measured by relationships made, healed, and sustained. (Matt. 22:34-40) Such relationships are the very nature of the kin_dom of God; the defragmentation of the created world. Being a progressive Christian will describe someone who embodies this kind of defragmentation ethic."

The Progress Jesus in the Progressive's Gospel is a Jesus of Progressive Action determined and measured by relationships made, healed and sustained which is the Very Kingdom of God supported by Matthew 22:34-40?

What does this verse say about relationships? How about determining, measuring, making, healing, and sustaining them? How about relationships as the very Kingdom of God?

The context of most of the Matthew 22 account is "Jesus perceiving their malice" (Matt 22:18) of none other than Pharisees, Herodians, Experts of the Law, and Sadducees who were plotting to "Trap Him by what He said" (Matt 22:15)! So assuredly Jesus must be determining, measuring, making, healing, and sustaining relationships in this passage--Right?

Jesus’ opening Progressive, healing, and sustaining relational words here in context are, "Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? (Matt 22:18)! Wait! Do we start relationships with such openers? I know Emergents do this when talking to us but that's not what the Gospel's point is here. :)

Going with the contextual order here, first the Pharisees and Herodians are plotting how to trap Jesus by what He says (Matt 22:15-16) within the God and Caesar arena (Matt 22:15-22) and Jesus’ classic answer is, "Therefore, give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21).

Next, on the same day, Sadducees (who like Emergents do not believe in resurrections) come to Jesus to question him (Matt 22:23-33) about a wife who had beat Tamar's record for serial-brother marrying (Genesis 38:6-14). Great relational material here! Jesus’ Progressive, healing, and sustaining relational words here in context are, "You are deceived, because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matt 22:29)!

Next, on the same day, Pharisees having heard how Jesus’ Progressive, healing, and sustaining relational words had really silenced the Sadducees, come again this time with an Expert in The Law to test Jesus by what He says (Matt 22:35) about the Primary Commandments of Love God and Neighbors (Matt 22:34-40).

Is this the context of Jesus' statement about the Kingdom of God, "All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments" (Matt 22:40)? There's nothing here about the Kingdom of God or relationships or how to determine, measure, make, heal, and sustain them--just a straight answer about The Law!

Finally, Jesus turns the questioning back on the Pharisees, "What do you think about the Messiah? Whose Son is He?" (Matt 22:41-42). "Sit until I put Your enemies under Your feet" (Matt 22:44)! Great relational material here also! "No one was able to answer Him at all, and from that day no one dared to question Him any more" (Matt 22:46). In other words, Jesus relationship with the Pharisees, Herodians, Experts of the Law, and Sadducees was never restored?

So this account, in context, describes someone who embodies this kind of defragmentation ethic of Progressive Action: First, "Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? (Matt 22:18); Second, "Therefore, give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21); Third, "You are deceived, because you don't know the Scriptures or the power of God" (Matt 22:29); Fourth, "Sit until I put Your enemies under Your feet" (Matt 22:44); and Fifthly, (Calvinist and Remonstrants hold off) "No one was able to answer Him at all, and from that day no one dared to question Him any more" (Matt 22:46). Is this the Jesus of Progessive Action who is determined and measured by relationships made, healed and sustained which is the Very Kingdom of God?

I'm not sure this is what the Baptimergent and companion Alliance of Baptist sites meant by this "in a word!" Come to think of it though, I have seen Emergents act this way when being challenged on their doctrine! :)

Baptimergence III: An Ongoing Tradition?

2009-12-28T00:00:00.000-08:00

Let’s finish our discernment about what Baptimergents believe by looking at an “Identity” statement from a “baptist” family of faith’s third paragraph. Here we finally get to a statement about the Bible, however, the source of authority becomes even more murky!

“From our beginnings, Baptists have self-identified as “people of the book.” This has been a longstanding confession of our commitment to the Bible as a trustworthy source for understanding who we are in relationship to God. We read the Bible prayerfully, and seek to discern its meaning together through what Jesus revealed about God. The stories, liturgies, songs, apocalypses, and parables that make up the Bible have made their way through centuries of translations and interpretations. We trust what we have, and embrace our part in that long ongoing tradition of interpretation and application.”

Reparsing their wording carefully, we again note: From our beginnings…self-identified…“people of the book”…longstanding confession…our commitment…who we…We read…We trust what we have…embrace our part…long ongoing tradition of interpretation and application. Where is authority? Apparently, our tradition of interpretation and application is the authority!

Notice carefully how the Bible becomes the Word of God: Our commitment to the Bible as a trustworthy source [Is there another source?] for understanding who we are in relationship to God [Does the Bible tell us about Who God is?]. We read the Bible prayerfully, and seek to discern its meaning [Would it be the Word of God if we didn’t do this?] together through what Jesus revealed about God. The stories [Are these not the testimonies of eye-witnesses?], liturgies, songs, apocalypses, and parables that make up the Bible have made their way through centuries of translations and interpretations [Were these not in the original manuscripts?]. We trust what we have, [How wonderful and irrational!] and embrace our part [How Martyr-like!] in that long ongoing tradition of interpretation and application.

In other words, the Bible is a source for understanding who we are! This is the fable of Barthian neo-orthodoxy. God does not reveal Himself but only gives revelations. God's Word suddenly comes to us and the magic happens by praying and seeking what Jesus has revealed about God. Thus, God's Word is contained in the Bible but it does not become God's Word until we experience it! Of course, we still have to plow through all those liturgies, songs, apocalypses, parables, centuries of translations, and interpretations to get to what Jesus actually revealed about God. But with much praying and seeking you eventually get to some real gems [amongst all the added noise of man]. Such crosses we must bear as “We trust what we have, and embrace our part!”

Therefore, Baptimergents final authority is not “Sola Scriptura” or “Scriptures Alone” (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1:12-14; Col 1:4-6; I Cor 2:13) but whatever they believe God has experientially revealed to them from the Bible! In contrast, historic confessional Baptists believe, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience."

The London Baptist Confession of 1689

Religion as G-D Management System

2009-12-27T00:00:00.000-08:00

In a book that only Brian McLaren could have matched and did endorse (see below), It's Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian by New York City pastor Samir Selmanovic presents their jointly held Universalist, Rodney Kingish, "Why can't we all just get along" just "Hand me another tire iron" Post-Modern worldview.

“I'm speechless in trying to describe this book. I laughed out loud in places and cried big tears at the end. It's a work of faith, a work of art, and to some, no doubt, it will be a work of damnable heresy. I think this book will change people's lives, and more: it can save lives, in the many senses of that word. All the religious pundits and broadcasters on radio and cable TV had better take notice, because this book threatens our conventional, comfortable categories and familiar black-and-white polarities. Selmanovic has the nerve to imagine our religions becoming, not walls behind which we hide and over which we lob bombs of damnation, but bridges over which we travel to find God in the other.” Brian McLaren, Author/Activist

In the Publisher's Weekly description:

"Selmanovic synthesizes his upbringing in a Muslim-atheist household and his own conversion to Christianity as a young adult to create this concise and entertaining interfaith memoir. The author vividly describes his childhood in Yugoslavia, where his Muslim father and Christian mother reveled in multicultural cooking and entertaining. Essentially raised to be an atheist, Selmanovic shattered his parents' world when he converted to Christianity at age 18 during his required army service."

Only in Yugoslavia or America could we place these mutually exclusives so close together!

"Selmanovic's story goes much deeper while still being respectful of, and fair to, all faiths and beliefs. An active member of the interfaith movement, Selmanovic actually moves beyond just creating harmony between faiths toward achieving a détente between people of faith and atheists. He challenges clergy to reclaim a space outside institutional walls and Christians to tone down conversion rhetoric. Sprinkled throughout are Selmanovic's entertaining and illustrative anecdotes, including the quite memorable Theology of Hemorrhoids."

Hemorrhoidal theology aside, Samir presents himself as the ultimate, passive, nice guy as can be seen in his video below. Is it any surprise that McLaren is so excited?

Especially, since Samir believes all religions are G-D Management Systems! Are these not the Post-Modern's ghost-like monsters and their fabled, evil "Metanarratives" created and reinforced only by power structures and are therefore not to be trusted? Brian McLaren was right, this will be seen as "a work of damnable heresy!" consistent with the Revelation 17:1-5 church!

Samir's Interfaith Memoir

Baptimergence II: A Local Tradition?

2009-12-26T09:28:00.000-08:00

Let’s continue to discern what Baptimergents believe by looking at an “Identity” statement from a “baptist” family of faith’s second paragraph.

"At the center of our identity is the person of Jesus Christ. It is through Jesus that we understand who God is and how God relates to humanity and Creation. While the New Testament weaves a together a narrative about Christ, we know that the living Christ is present to the world in the lives of those who follow his way of grace, reconciliation, and love. These followers make up the local church. At its best, we believe the church is the community of Christ’s presence in our neighborhood, and in the rest of the world."

Parsing their wording carefully, we note: Our identity…we understand…we know… At its best, we believe. This is where truth ultimately rests for this “baptist” family of faith. The “New Testament weaves together a narrative about Christ” but it is no longer a universal “metanarrative” or comprehensive explanation of historical experience or knowledge. “It has become a localized tradition for this particular “baptist” family of faith or in other words what “we know…”

Post-Modernist Emergents believe metanarratives have lost their power to convince and avoid any emphasis on them. Metanarratives are only stories told in order to legitimize versions of "the truth." So they focus on, “At its best, we believe…” as a specific local context which allows for a diversity of human experience. We saw this diversity in paragraph one’s “respect that each tradition practices that ritual differently.”

Again, the fable here is existential experience. What I know to be true, what I observe, confess, and practice is what matters. Therefore, “followers make up the local church…the community of Christ’s presence in our neighborhood, and in the rest of the world.” The existential “now” is, “We know that the living Christ is present to the world in the lives of those who follow his way of grace, reconciliation, and love.” This is true not because the entire Bible says so but because, “At the center of our identity is the person of Jesus Christ.”

Since “Sola Scriptura” or “Scriptures Alone” is not the Baptimergents' final authority (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1:12-14; Col 1:4-6; I Cor 2:13), they stand in stark contrast to historic confessional Baptists, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience." The London Baptist Confession of 1689

Baptimergence I: A Unique Tradition?

2009-12-24T22:56:00.000-08:00

What do Baptimergents believe?

We will be looking at an “Identity” statement from a “baptist” family of faith to discern what they think. Here’s the first paragraph.

“As a Baptist congregation, there are some things about our tradition that are unique. We observe the ritual of baptism for believers who publicly confess their willingness to follow Jesus. Our practice of baptism involves the total immersion of persons in water. We know that Baptism is symbol of one’s willingness to identify with Jesus and the mission of God’s kingdom, and respect that each tradition practices that ritual differently.”

Parse the wording carefully: Our tradition…We observe…Who publicly confess…Our practice…We know…One’s willingness…and respect that each tradition practices that ritual differently.

Where is authority? Apparently, we are the authority!

Our tradition is unique! Our practice…involves! We know that…! Each…practices…differently. In other words, we are one of many paths to…God’s Kingdom. We are just willing to identify with Jesus!

So say someone else is willing to commit to all the above except is willing to follow or identify with let’s say…Allah…or the Dali Lama…or the Mormon Prophets? Who are we then to say that their tradition is not unique? Remember, we should, “respect that each tradition practices that ritual differently.”

Ultimately the fable here is existential experience. What I know to be true, what I observe, confess, and practice is what matters. We know our symbols are meant “to identify with Jesus and the mission of God’s kingdom” but others may not understand our preoccupation with Jesus. As long as we keep this to ourselves and “respect that each tradition practices that ritual differently” then we are ok and they are ok.

This is exactly what happens when you drop “Sola Scriptura” or “Scriptures Alone” as your authority (2 Tim 3:15-17; 1:12-14; Col 1:4-6; I Cor 2:13). The historic Baptist confessions all start with Biblical authority. For Example, The London Baptist Confession of 1689 first sentence is, "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and his will which is necessary unto salvation."

Ultimately, the Word of God as in “Thus says the LORD” for Baptimergents has been replaced with “Our tradition…We observe…Who publicly confess…Our practice…We know.” In otherwords...Man is the center of all truth?

Tickling Our Ears with Dreams of Utopia

2009-12-24T06:22:00.000-08:00

Phyllis Tickle was recently interviewed on the most appropriately named "Ooze TV" about her vision of the Coming Emergent Council which would hold together the loosey goosey confederation of Emergents. The discussion starts about the hypenated emergents as in Presbymergents, Baptimergents, Luthermergents, Methomergents, Queermergents, etc. and moves quickly into her glorious Utopian vision of the Emergent Church Universal!

She likens Our denominations as the "Jerusalem" Church endorsing the "Antioch" Church. I believe the better analogy for her movement would be the Revelation 17:1-5 church!

Fables continue to be developed by the Emergent Church Conversation in nearly every denomination. Are they meeting just down the hall in your Church?

Remember Paul's warning in 2 Tim 4:4!

Here's the Link Burke mentions: http://http//theooze.tv/thinkfwd/phyllis-tickle-beyond-denominations-the-hyphenated-church?article2pdf=1