Blind Guys and an Elephant

Several blind men took a bet that they could not correctly identify an object by touch. They were led to an elephant, and they began to feel around to try to figure out what it was. As they were doing this, the elephant spoke to them (because this is a special elephant, and anyway it's my story and I want him to, so there) and said "Hey guys, let me help you out - I'm an elephant."

Ignoring the elephant's words, the blind men began to touch its body. One of them touched the elephant's leg and proclaimed, "I know! It's a concrete pillar!" The elephant tried to correct the man, saying, "No, I'm an elephant. Like I already told you. Not a pillar, an elephant. That's my leg." But the blind man continued to ignore him, insisted that it was a pillar, and wondered what manner of capital adorned the structure.

Another touched his trunk, and announced that he had found a large snake. The elephant yelled "No! That's my trunk, not a snake. Listen guys: I am an elephant. E-L-E-P-H-A-N-T. Elephant!" The blind man continued to disregard him, debating whether he had found a python or a boa constrictor, and whether such a distinction really mattered for the bet anyway. "Of course it doesn't matter" said the elephant, "because both answers are completely wrong. It doesn't matter which you pick, you lose." The blind man decided to go with 'python'.

Others took their best guesses, suggesting that the elephant's tusks were spears and that the ears were old canvas tarpaulins. All along the elephant kept trying to correct them, and the blind men kept completely ignoring him. Finally the elephant let out an exasperated bellow, which the blind men thought might be the brass section of the London Philharmonic Orchestra. "Oh for crying out loud! LONDON?!? Yes, blind men, the streets of London are just overflowing with elephants. Are you even trying? No, you're not, or else you would have listened when I told you the answer. Forget this, I'm out of here." And the elephant stormed off.

The blind men submitted their answers to the bet. Since they couldn't arrive at a consensus answer, they decided that each would just answer whatever he wanted, because they all were right in some way. That way, they would all win the bet!

But no, they all lost. You know, because they were all completely wrong.

When the verdict was announced, the blind men indignantly protested, "Why didn't anyone try to tell us?"

I Hadn't Noticed

For some reason I followed a link to the latest blasphemy from the Emergent Village, Doug Pagitt's explanation of why he's jumped headlong into the 'process theology' heresy. It's the same combination of nonsense and wickedness that permeates pretty much everything that comes from there, so I don't recommend spending much time on it, any longer than it takes to utter "I am shocked - SHOCKED - that Doug Pagitt would openly embrace wickedly anti-Biblical teaching".

But, I did notice something interesting while I was there. Look at the logo in the top left. Compare it to the logo at this site. Coincidence?

Declaring a Moratorium

Today I would like to submit a modest proposal.

I believe we should declare a five-year moratorium on pretending Brian McLaren is a Christian and letting his anti-faith teachings have any influence in the church. If, after five years, no clear evidence of repentance has been displayed, the moratorium will be extended.

A little follow-up

Saturday night I posted about the severity of sin, and how a faulty view here leads to patently anti-Biblical views of the atonement and of hell. Sunday we went to church, and listened to a very, very convicting sermon on hell. Give it a listen this week (unfortunately, they only keep them up for a week, no free archive).

The intro in particular struck a chord with me, as Pastor MacDonald described the tremendous sorrow that always accompanies discussing the reality of hell. I may have been particularly sensitive to that point because I was had just read this snippet from the Rob Bell interview I linked to, where he responds to a question about whether he believes in a literal hell, and his response was still stickin' in my craw. He says:

"...I don’t know why as a Christian you would have to make such declarative statements. Like your friend, does he want there to be a literal hell? I am a bit skeptical of somebody who argues that passionately for a literal hell, why would you be on that side? Like if you are going to pick causes, if you’re literally going to say these are the lines in the sand, I’ve got to know that people are going to burn forever, this is one of the things that you drive your stake in the ground on. I don’t understand that."

This paragraph illustrates so well why I can't stomach much of what Bell says. First off, you have the postmodernism shining through loud and clear (far more clearly than even the most postmodern secularist would ever dream of, by the way). The question is a simple "is there a hell", and somehow his answer is all about what people believe. Wow. This is postmodernism on steroids and crack. His response assumes that whether or not there's a hell is not an objective reality, and turns into a "whatever you think is true for you" nonsense. Somehow, this type of thinking is supposedly compatible with Christianity. Still waiting for an explanation of how.

Then you have the combo ad hominem/strawman attack. This is really a beauty, actually. Falsely assuming that there's no objective reality, Bell then claims that anyone who claims that there is a literal hell is only doing so because they really want there to be (hello, Mr. Strawman!), and then based on this attacks their character. This is beyond absurd. Compare his strawman Christian to an actual godly man such as James MacDonald or Alistair Begg, men who weep over the thought of people suffering eternally, yet still proclaim the message. Obviously, the strawman claim of them just really wanting people to burn isn't anywhere near true.

So why would such men preach about hell if they don't (yet) rejoice in the eternal suffering of others? What possible reason would they have to preach about something they don't enjoy thinking about, that moves them to tears? Could it be.... that it's TRUE? Memo to Rob Bell: God's Word clearly proclaims the reality of hell. No matter how much the thought disturbs us, it is true. For a Christian to believe God is hardly a character flaw.

Ironically, in questioning the character of those of us who believe God, Bell shines a light on his own deficiency. By attacking us for believing God, he reveals his own deliberate, overwhelming doubt. See, Bell is definitely a smart man, well-educated, certainly capable of reading with comprehension, and he's read the Bible a few times at least. There is simply no way an honest reading of scripture could leave the question of hell unsettled. The evidence for a real, eternal hell of torment is utterly overwhelming. His doubt is not an accidental mistake, but can only be intentional, stubborn refusal to believe God.

In his accusation, Bell essentially calls us sadists - we just really, really want people to burn and suffer forever, apparently. The truth is, we simply believe God and act accordingly, no matter how it makes us feel or how much the message offends (talking about hell certainly isn't popular!). Bell, on the other hand, surely must know the truth, but insists on pretending otherwise. Possibly it's because of how it feels, perhaps it's so people will like him more, maybe some of both. The end result is not unlike a doctor who sees his patient has cancer, but because he doesn't like talking about it, and the patient really doesn't want to hear it, he never says anything. Apparently to Rob Bell, that doctor exhibits great character, while the doctor who does his job despite the sorrow is a wicked sadist who just wants people to have cancer and suffer.

And with that, I go to pray for my own repentance from any doubt or ungodly attitude, then for Rob Bell. First for his repentance, and if that won't happen, then for his poison influence on the church to cease. May God grant us more faithful preachers of the Word and less peddlers of doubt.

I Don't Want Every Post To Be About Them, But....

Yesterday (via Justin Taylor) I read a retrospective of the last ten years of the Emerg* Church movement (also see the expanded interviews if you care). One story recounted there does a great job of illustrating exactly why I have a major problem with this movement. As an added bonus, the money quote is straight from the mouth of Tony Jones. Normally, when a critic of emerg* makes this claim it's dismissed as hateful nonsense, so it's great to see Jones unapologetically claim exactly what critics have been suggesting. Well, great that he's being honest about it, not so great that he actually believes it and teaches it.

Anyway, it's from a meeting between emerg* leaders Jones and Doug Pagitt and the most definitely non-emerg* and all-around awesome John Piper. They all work in Minneapolis (Pagitt 'pastors' or 'facilitates' (not sure which term they use this week) Solomon's Porch, and Piper pastors Bethlehem Baptist Church), and the emerg*s wanted to try to form some sort of coalition and work together. From the article:

But it appeared that John believed that there had to be some foundational theological agreement before any kind of partnership could be struck. Their conversation centered on the meaning of the atonement, specifically, the penal substitutionary theory. Tony and Doug did not believe that agreement on this specific doctrine was necessary for mutual endeavor. Tony used the incident to illustrate his Dispatch #7 in his recent book The New Christians:

Emergents believe that an envelope of friendship and reconciliation must surround all debates about doctrine and dogma.

Tony reiterated this principal in our interview with him: “It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky. I think that’s sin, plain and simple. Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that”.

So yeah. The emerg*s wanted to work together. Before doing so, Piper wanted to know that they at least agree on the heart of the gospel. The emerg*s didn't see the point in agreeing on the gospel. Why not just set such things aside and work together? Apparently to them, the gospel just isn't nearly as important as getting everyone to work together and be friends. (The same could of course also be said of "ecumenical" ideas such as ECT.) But the real meat comes from the Jones quote. Let's see, where to begin...

"It concerns me when leaders who were formerly friends of mine back away from me and from emergent because they find my theology too risky". I object to the term risky. Risk implies that there is a chance of either reward or consequence. That is simply not the case with Jones's theology. We know what the Bible says, we know what Jones teaches, and they are far, far apart. There is no "risk" involved in accepting his theology, any more than there is "risk" in putting your head in a hydraulic press and turning it on. We know exactly where it leads. Rejecting such a foolish course of action is not fear of risk, but an absence of stupidity.

"I think that’s sin, plain and simple." In the world of Tony Jones, standing firm for the gospel is sin. Got it. I'd be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of a man who has dedicated his life to promoting the denial of sin and an "anything goes" view of sanctification - because we can't really actually understand what the Bible says, and we can't know what truth really is, so who can say that something is a sin anyway, right? - calling something a sin. Apparently to Jones, the only real sin is believing the gospel as proclaimed by Jesus, attested by the apostles, and confirmed by the Father through signs and wonders and various miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will.

"Friendship should trump doctrinal differences, and I’m quite sure that Jesus would agree with me on that.” Why should the gospel matter? Why can't we just be friends? Again, when concerned Christians claim that emerg* leads to such places, we are ridiculed as spiteful haters. So in a way, it's refreshing to see such an influential emerg* as Jones come right out and say it. (See another prime example here).

And of course, Jesus would agree with this. He has no concern for truth whatsoever, he's just interested in getting us together to hold hands and light candles and sing Kum Ba Yah. Well, let's see how this picture of Jesus just wanting us to be friends without regard to faith or practice lines up with scripture. Hmmm. Nope. Not here. Or here. Nah. Maybe... nope. What about... nuh-uh. No. No. Repeatedly and clearly, no. Well, I'm sure that somewhere in the world, there's a Jesus who agrees with Jones here. It's just not Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who Jones claims to worship.

Well, maybe Jesus thinks that what we believe is slightly important - you know, important enough to determine whether we spend eternity rejoicing in heaven or suffering in hell. But surely elsewhere in scripture there's gotta be license for what Jones wants to do, right? I mean, just because someone may deny the heart of the gospel, there's no reason we can't overlook that and be the church together, right? No reason we can't church up together and be friends just because they're totally off on the gospel. What say ye, Paul?

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Well then. It seems that maybe friendship doesn't quite overrule the gospel. Huh. Of course, this quote is from the introduction to Galatians, where Paul takes the church to task for allowing false teachers to peddle their heresy. It doesn't matter if they're friends, or Paul himself, or even an angel. If they teach something other than the true gospel, they are cursed, and the church should not tolerate them.

I end with something tragically humorous. This post imagines what the response would be if Galatians was published in Christianity Today. Of course, as Dan Phillips points out, there's exactly zero chance that CT would publish something so good, so it would be merely fantasy. And the letters don't come close to matching the histrionics the perpetually offended crowd would no doubt produce. But it is a pretty accurate snapshot of the response whenever discernment is applied. Check the comment thread on any critical review of The Shack, f'r'instance. So it's humorous in that it captures the self-parody of the evanjellybean crowd so well, which completely expresses the "doctrine doesn't matter as long as we get along!" rubbish spouted by Jones. And it's tragic that this garbage has so completely infiltrated the church.

Why I love James MacDonald

Tricia and I are members of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, IL, which is pastored by James MacDonald. I'm an unabashed fan - the guy's just awesome. You can hear his messages through his Walk in the Word radio ministry, or check out some of his books, or maybe read up at his blog. I thought I would also occasionally post on random bits of MacDonald awesomeness. First up:

So we were on the Sea of Galilee, taking a little boat ride. Lots o' cool stuff happened there, but one thing in particular made me laugh. At some point the conversation turned to false doctrines and weak watered-down churches, and I mentioned something about the emergent church. At which point Pastor James said, "If I ever join an emerging church, I want to be Pastor of Candles."

Now THAT is comedy. Unfortunately, it's funny because it's pretty much true. For the record, I would want to be Pastor of Inventing New Ancient Traditions.

Schwarzenegger and the Emergent Church

Hey, did you know we just had some elections? If so, you probably heard that the Republicans got smoked. Lost the presidency, bigger deficit in the House, and thiiiiis close to not even having the theoretical threat of a filibuster in the Senate. One of the main questions that naturally arises is: where do they go from here?

The governor of California, Mr. Arnold Schwarzenegger, had some comments on this during an interview with Brian Kilmeade. (Unfortunately, the clips I could find online didn't have him saying it, only Kilmeade relaying the quote. It's part 2 of the interview, during the closing 30 seconds or so.) The Terminator says that for the Republicans to return to power, "they should move away from some of their core principles, those conservative principles, and start spending on programs Americans want." I find this response fascinating because of how it relates to current (and historical) ideas in the church. But before getting to that, there are at least two problems I see with it.

First, as many have pointed out, his prescription is largely how the Republicans got into this problem in the first place. This would be more than a post of its own (I'm sure there are a few books detailing it), but suffice to say that the mere existence of the term RINO (Republican In Name Only) shows much of the problem. These guys speak the conservative message to get elected, then govern like liberals. Unconscionably high spending is but one symptom. They just nominated the most "moderate" Republican in decades and he got destroyed. I could go on and on, but suffice to say, I don't think that becoming more liberal in a country that is largely conservative is a recipe for success.

But there's an even more fundamental problem with this idea. You would hope that these guys are conservatives because they believe that the conservative worldview is the best way to govern. They believe that these principles are the best thing for the nation, for the states, for the individual people living under that authority. They are convinced that if these principles are enacted, the country will benefit; if liberal policies are enacted, the country and its people will suffer.

Given that, here is a rough paraphrase of Ahnold's vision. "You believe that conservative principles are the best way to govern the country - best for the nation, best for the people. But you may have a better shot of getting elected if you abandon those principles. So you should intentionally do what you believe to be detrimental to the nation and harmful to people, so that you can have more power."

Am I the only one who has a problem with this? How could someone even think about doing such a thing in good conscience? If one truly holds that his view is beneficial and the opposing view is harmful, how ghastly must he be to change positions just to get into power? What Ah-nold is suggesting as the future for Republicans is utterly reprehensible (at least, it is for the actual conservatives in the party - for the RINO's it'd actually be a refreshing bout of honesty).

To see just how ridiculous this is, take one of the pet liberal causes and suggest the same thing. Think back to 2000, when the Republicans have just won the presidency and clean majorities in both houses. The Democrats were no doubt searching for ideas to get back into power. Imagine someone suggested in all seriousness: "You know, we believe that a woman has a fundamental right to abortion without restriction or negotiation. But the R's oppose abortion, and they're kicking our butts. So maybe we should switch sides on this issue, oppose abortion, and maybe then we'll win more elections." Is it even possible to imagine this conversation happening? Would it not be absurd for them to take a core value and speak/work/govern in opposition to it in order to win elections? Yet here is a prominent Republican, suggesting in all seriousness that this is not only a viable option, but their only choice. Unfortunately, there's no sign he was joking (and based on the way he's governed, he's quite serious).

In the political arena, this idea is an absolute joke. How could someone even think of abandoning core principles like that in order to be more popular or powerful? If someone could even consider this, would it not show that he doesn't really believe that position and/or doesn't consider it very important? Or if he does really believe it, and believes it to be highly significant, yet is willing to oppose it for personal gain, how utterly despicable would that person be?

But enough about politics. Hopefully it's obvious why such an idea - abandoning core principles to have better "success" - is either ridiculous or reprehensible in the political arena. But how about in the church? Would the foolishness/wickedness not be exponentially greater, since the issues at stake are of eternal significance?

And yet, this is a constant refrain within the church today. The culture is postmodern, we are told, and so the church must embrace postmodernism. People don't like truth claims, so we need to stop saying the Bible is true. People are offended by talk of sin and hell, so we need to stop talking about them. They don't want doctrine, so we need to forget about that and just tell stories (from which they can make their own meaning). We need to stop preaching the gospel and just meet their felt needs. People don't like hearing about the exclusivity of Christ, so we need to pretend all paths lead to God. And if we do these things, our churches will be full and we'll have all kinds of influence!

This nonsense is coming most strongly today from the emerg* camp - Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt, etc - who claim we need to abandon Christianity and embrace postmodernism (or a pomo/Christian syncretism). A century ago the claim was that the church needed to embrace modernism. Before that... It seems there's no worldview so anti-Christian that the church hasn't been told - by well-meaning individuals, no doubt - that it must abandon the gospel and embrace the unbiblical teaching. If it insists on the gospel, the church will fade into irrelevance. But if we just stop insisting on Biblical truth and embrace the current prevailing worldview/fad, well, the church will really be strong and be able to reach a lot of people!

So here's the question I have for them. Let's just say we do create the perfect Christian/postmodern blend they want, and we reach a lot of people with it. What exactly are we reaching them with? Because it sure isn't the gospel. And if the gospel is true, abandoning it to "reach" them just leaves them in their sin and under God's wrath. So what, exactly, is the point of doing so?

Logically, there are only three possible reasons someone would suggest setting aside the gospel in this manner.
(1) They don't believe the gospel is true. This is no doubt the case for some if not all of them. For instance, it's really hard to believe that Brian McLaren actually believes pretty much any part of the gospel, let alone the whole thing. Of course, given the pomo view of truth, it's tough to say that any of the emerg*s actually believe anything.
(2) They don't believe it's important. I guess it's possible that someone believes the gospel, but just doesn't think it's significant enough to be beyond compromise. I'm not sure how someone could actually believe the gospel - that we are sinners facing God's wrath, who can only be reconciled to God by embracing the life, sacrifice, and resurrection of Jesus on our behalf, resulting in a life of increasing holiness and faithful endurance to the end even in the face of persecution, and that all who reject the Son and persist in rebellion face eternal conscious torment in hell, but those who through God's grace embrace the Son receive eternal joy with God in heaven - then decide that it's not really all that important, and we can negotiate it away for a good enough offer. The position I guess exists logically, although I would suggest that anyone who would fit here really fits #1.
(3) They are more concerned with personal gain/power. In this position, someone is convinced that the gospel is true, that it's the only hope for people about to be on the receiving end of God's eternal wrath - but they would rather have a full church or sell some books or something. The wickedness of this position is unspeakable.

The idea that the church needs to embrace the latest cultural trend, even though it means abandoning the gospel, is presented by many as the loving way. But upon even cursory analysis, it's obvious that it's either a total lack of faith in the gospel, or an utterly wicked decision to grab personal status at the cost of their souls. There is absolutely nothing loving about abandoning or compromising the gospel. At best it's a sign that the person doing so is still lost in their own sin; at worst it's a sign that they're both lost and really hate people with unspeakable hate. When politicians talk about doing this, it's ridiculous. When people ostensibly representing the church do so, it's a reprehensible evil.