Atonement attacked - Brian McLaren
The best advice anyone gave me was if there be any teaching, Christian or otherwise, that diminishes the “work of the cross” and the need for blood atonement that teaching is straight from the pits of Hell. The work of the cross is our propitiation to appease of God because of our sin.
The bible is a Jewish book and we must understand the atonement within Jewish thought.
Jesus was pierced for our transgressions and anyone who does not understand this has not had their conscience convicted by the Holy Spirit.
Why does this matter??? Read “Does Brian McLaren Have a Generous View of Hell?”
Jesusanity - What is that?
Those who visit this blog are probably aware that I have previously posted much about the Atonement and the implications of how one understands it. This issue is very important to the Church, it always has been and it always will be. Well, at least it should be. Anyway, I came across a post written by Albert Mohler called ‘Christianity vs. Jesusanity — The Postmodern Temptation‘. In that post he speaks about the postmodern (ugghhh, soooo sick of that word!!!!) attempt to humanise Jesus.
Of this is writes…
While postmodern literary theorists debate the meaning of “totalizing metanarratives,” at the level of popular piety we see the widespread substitution of “spirituality” for biblical Christianity.
This is exactly what we are seeing! The following quote is from authors Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace who argue that popular culture is on a quest “to unseat the biblical Christ”. In a book called ‘Dethroning Jesus‘ the authors recognise that there is an ongoing attempt to reduce Jesus into a dethroned humanitarian teacher…
“Jesusanity” is a coined term for the alternative story about Jesus. Here the center of the story is still Jesus, but Jesus as either a prophet or a teacher of religious wisdom. In Jesusanity, Jesus remains very much Jesus of Nazareth. He points the way to God and leads people into a journey with God. His role is primarily one of teacher, guide, and example. Jesus’ special status involves his insight into the human condition and the enlightenment he brings to it. There is no enthronement of Jesus at God’s side, only the power of his teaching and example. In this story, the key is that Jesus inspires others, but there is no throne for him. He is one among many – the best, perhaps, and one worthy to learn from and follow.
Check out the post by Albert Mohler and see what you think. I for one am glad that there are some authors willing to lay it all out and stick to good clear biblical exegesis!
Previous posts on Blood Atonement.
Atonement Praxis
Recently there has been a bit of a buzz around the blogosphere concerning the ‘Atonement’, I have even posted a few things on this very subject. And in doing some research on it I have come across certain theories called the “Eucharistic praxis” and the “Atonement Imagery”.
As I understand it, “Atonement Imagery” is not so much about the suffering of the Son but more about understanding the passion and injustice done to a man. It becomes less about the divinity of Christ, as they often refer to that as a mythical story – and more about the historical man Jesus. To understand the crucifixion primarily in this way you may fail to see the whole of Jesus, the God/man.
If the atonement is brought down to the level of praxis and community only, then the divinity of Christ could very well be lost. As a result, the injustice of the cross against a man is exalted above the Penal Substitution act and this is because the emphasis is the man being punished by God the so called ‘child abuser’. If the divinity of Him is neglected, this could ultimately result in an unbalance in the understanding of the triune nature of God because man is amplified.
Because of this — [h]e that being Jesus and the work of the cross (not the capitalised [H]e) — encourages us to be co-creative (popular in the feminized theory. An Examination of the Problems of Inclusive Language in the Trinitarian …By Thomas J. Scirghi) in the struggle against the social injustice of this sacrifice that was meted out on someone who did not actually deserve it. More importantly, once you start reducing the atonement to mean ‘atone-man-ment’, you may fail to understand the gravity of mankind’s sin and the part we all have played in the crucifixion. You cannot begin to address the first things; that being the problem of sin, by using a “Community Atonement Praxis” alone. Rather, you should start at the point of ‘in the beginning God’ and try to grasp — as much as the fallible mind can — the Holiness and Righteousness of God and that mankind clearly falls short of His image. That imagery is the starting point for vertical reconciliation between man and his maker. “Atonement Imagery/Praxis” seems to be the horizontal reconciliation of the community; reconciliation between mankind.
I have just finished reading something from Scott McKnight’s blog (Jesus Creed) he has written a book called “A community called Atonement” he says this…
Not to let the cat out of the bag, but one point (that explains the title) is that Atonement is God’s work for us but it is also “praxis.”
I am reminded of the following…
In recent times some have thought that reconciliation ought to be seen in what we may term a horizontal rather than a vertical direction. Sin is thought of as something that erects barriers between a man and his neighbour, rather than between a man and his God. Reconciliation then becomes a way of enabling men to live together in meaningful community. there is , of course, something in this, for the man who has felt the healing touch of Christ upon his life is concerned with breaking down barriers which divide men.
But there must be a right order here. First comes reconciliation of the sinner with God, then reconciliation with man follows. Ephesians 2 is instructive in this connection. There, in connection with the great division of men into Jews and Gentiles, it is pointed out that Gentiles were separated from Christ as well as from one another. But the blood of Christ that brought them near to God brought them also near to one another. Peace was made between man and man, but it was the consequence of peace between man and God. (J. Denney, The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation 191
Of first things — the reconciliation should happen between the sinner and God! This is very important. The question is this…if your emphasis is on the ‘community atonement praxis’, then some may come away without being reconciled with God thinking all along that they are in good stead with the Almighty because they are co-creating a better community for everyone, not only believers. This quickly becomes a social, humanitarian understanding of the ‘atonement’.
We constantly read that the “Atonement” however you understand it, goes hand in hand with the gospel. This is very true. So, having the right view is very important. The gospel should be about man’s condition without God and how it is possible to get right with God through His Son that has provided the only way to be restored to any kind of relationship with the Father.
Dr. Gary Gilley puts it well when he says…
It does not seem to be an option to the emergent church that both social injustices and eternal redemption can be and have been attended to by God’s people. But, despite opinions to the contrary, the priority of Scripture is on man’s relationship to God. It is because men are alienated from God that they mistreat one another. The spiritually redeemed and transformed person should and will care about social sins.
But, again, the gospel is about man’s alienation from God and what He has done through Christ to reconcile us to Himself (Romans 5:6-11), not about the ozone layer and elimination of poverty. Neither Jesus nor the apostles made these latter things the focus of their ministries; it was the reconciliation of souls to God that was at the heart of their message. Once we begin to draw our gospel from the culture, no matter what culture that might be, we have altered the true gospel. Emergent leaders are not wrong to be concerned about the environment and social injustice; they are wrong to confuse it with the gospel of Jesus Christ. Dr Gary Gilley
One more thing as I hash this out. I thought I would research a Midrashic understanding of “Atonement” and I found this…
Moses and Atonement
Another example of the need for atonement is found in the story of Moses and the Golden Calf. After Israel sinned by making the golden calf, Moses ascended Mount Sinai to interceding for them. God was ready to destroy Israel; He was unwilling to even let His presence be among them. He said, “I will send an angel with Israel, but I cannot go with you or I might break out against you and destroy you.” (Exodus 33)
Because of the sin of the calf, Israel found herself unprotected. She has no covering. She is in danger from the presence of God.
But Moses says to Israel, “Perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” (Exodus 32:30). He fasts for forty days and nights, and then goes back up the mountain with the two new tablets. The two tablets are meant to replace the ones he broke when he saw the calf. He goes back up the mountain, back up into the presence of God.
On the mountain Moses implores God for mercy and requests to be shown all of God’s glory. Face to face. God replies that no man can see his face and live. Moses would be consumed by God’s glory. Instead God offers to cover Moses with his hand, hiding him in the cleft of the rock, while God passes by and declares the full meaning of His Name. He offers to tell Moses exactly who he is. He offers to reveal to Moses his essential person.
“And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, ‘The L-RD, the L-RD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.’” (Exodus 34:5-7)
This revelation is called the Thirteen Attributes of God. For the first time in history, the full extent of God’s mercy and grace were revealed. Moses already knew God was gracious, he already knew he was abounding in loving kindness, but to what extent he did not know, until that moment when God covered him with his hand and proclaimed his Name. Only then, with the revelation of these Thirteen Attributes, was it made clear that the essential essence of God and the meaning of his Name, the L-RD is Grace.
The Thirteen Attributes are an oft-repeated refrain in the prayers of the Day of Atonement. In those prayers, the congregation readily admits that we have no worthy deeds, we have nothing to show God, we have no merit to tip the scales of judgment in our favor. We have no basis to ask for mercy except for this, “You are the L-RD, the L-RD, gracious and compassionate:
The Second Coming of Moses
In the narrative, it is only after God has revealed to Moses his Thirteen Attributes,that he makes a new covenant with Israel.
He makes a new covenant with Israel and Moses returns down the mountain with the tablets. When the people see Moses, his face is radiating brilliance from being in the presence of God. Moses achieved covering for Israel’s sin. According to midrash, the day Moses came down Sinai with the 2nd set of tablets was indeed the Day of Atonement.
The picture of Moses in his second coming is startlingly messianic. On Moses’ first trip down the mountain out of the presence of God, the tablets were broken. Like Messiah himself, the Word was broken for the sin of the people. After this initial descent down the mountain, Moses returned to the God. He went back into the very presence of God to make atonement, to effect a new covenant, to reveal the true and essential person of God. He was able to reveal the full extent of God’s mercy and grace. These things accomplished, he then returned, bearing the New Covenant in his arms. He came down from the Father in splendor, in glory, in brilliance, terrible to behold. It was the Day of Atonement.
There is much more on this subject.
I personally find that the Hebraic, Midrashic understanding of the “Atonement” to be a much more biblically based understanding coupled with a considerable amount of deeper imagery than what is being discussed in current postmodern circles.
Here is another great link called “Yom Kippur – the Day of Atonement“
Related Post
It’s all about the Atonement, again!
Carla over at ‘More Books and Things‘ has been doing an excellent job at reviewing the book ‘Stricken by God’ by Brad Jersak. She is doing this chapter by chapter.
With Mr. Jersak calling us to unite and follow Christ, the first question we should ask ourselves is… who is Christ and what was His purpose…
“With significant breadth and depth of perspective, our authors unite now in inviting the reader to follow Christ into that same victory” (of the resurrection)
-Jersak, page 53, SBG
We should all be very wary that there will be those who will preach another Jesus in the last days and because of this you will have to judge which Jesus it is that you are going to follow. Is it the one that is found in the Word of God, the one who is the Word of God in the flesh? Or is it the one that has become nothing more than a political leader fighting against the religious and political domination of his time. [Please note the small 'h' is used deliberately by these new age teachers. Concerning the dual nature of Christ, the deity of Christ is reduced as the man Jesus is being exalted, more about these doctrinal complications in a future post]
2Co 11:2-4 I am jealous of you with God’s own jealousy, because I promised you in marriage to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. However, I am afraid that just as the serpent deceived Eve by its tricks, so your minds may somehow be lured away from sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes along and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or should you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you are all too willing to listen.
This new Jesus, the man, has become nothing more than a political leader fighting against the religious and political domination of his time…
“following Jesus, is not about believing a correct atonement theology” …but a “commitment to the path of confrontation with dominations systems”
“The way of the cross is about discipleship, not believing in the blood of Jesus as a substitute for our own. I think it’s bad history because it presumes that Jesus’s death was part of the plan of God.” (p. 158, SBG)
Like the above scripture says, we are set aside for one husband… Jersak and his ilk are temple whores in the kingdom of God! I am beginning to understand the increasing relevance of the following scripture when Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God being like a fish net which needs sorting out. The good fish are kept the other bad ones will be thrown into a blazing furnace, a place where there is gnashing of teeth… Hades, Hell, you know that other not so popular place that certain teachers say doesn’t even exist (Emergents like Doug Pagitt)
Mat 13:47-50 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a large net thrown into the sea that gathered all kinds of fish. When it was full, the fishermen hauled it ashore. Then they sat down, sorted the good fish into containers, and threw the bad ones away. That is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out and separate the evil from the righteous and will throw them into a blazing furnace. In that place there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
‘Stricken by God’ is all about the ‘Atonement’ and how to understand it properly according to this new way of teaching.
Any false teaching…teachings straight from the pits of hell, whoops can I say that???…will not preach the biblical understanding of the ‘Atonement’ and/or the resurrection. Of course it wouldn’t. Why? Because, if you had even a cursory understanding of this you may be convicted of sin and find out that you need to be born again of Spirit to enter heaven…Oh, silly me I can’t say that either. Satan would not be too pleased about someone becoming born again now would he? Wait a minute…I can’t say that there is a Satan either… can I?
No sin, no problemo. This is the kind of teaching that will lead people straight into that ‘place of which we do not speak’.
Emergent Eschatology
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Where does the Emer camp sit with eschatology? Is it all about the NOW, and not so much about the near Future?
Well according to ‘The Big Event‘ the Kingdom of God goes something like this…
Imagine a world… A new vision for God’s Kingdom on earth
The kingdom of God is here and now
So what is their general understanding of the Kingdom of God?
[...]a consensus by both emerging and emergent leaders is expressed by Sherry and Geoff Maddock: “Our principle (sic) desire is to see God’s kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven. We believe this happens when God’s people are renewed around God’s mission of love and justice in the world.”[1] The conversation apparently views the kingdom as being on earth now but progressively becoming like the kingdom in heaven as Christians live missionally on earth.
Such an understanding of the kingdom of God is obviously at odds with premillennialism,[...]
[1]Sherry Maddock and Geoff Maddock, “An Ever-Renewed Adventure of Faith, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, p. 80.
@The Kingdom of Emergent Theology – Part 1 by Gary E Gilley
I venture to guess that those other Christians (you know who you are!!!) that dare think along the lines of dispensationalism and premillenialism will be criticised in one way or another.
In fact some may say that premillenialism is a theology that didn’t start until John Darby. But here is something of interest…
“One of [John] Bunyan’s contemporaries, Benjamin Keach, an illustrious predecessor of Spurgeon in the pastorate, has left a very full confession of his views on this point. He was brought to trial Oct. 8th, 1664, on two charges of Anabaptism and Millenarianism. As he stood before Lord Chief justice Hide, the representative of the [Church of England], he was summoned first to answer for his ‘damnable doctrine’ concerning baptism; which, being disposed of, the second article of indictment was taken up, viz., that he held ‘that the saints shall reign with Christ a thousand years.’ The judge pronounced this ‘an old heresy, which was cast out of the church a thousand years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance five years afer, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this rascal hath revived it.’ He was condemned and sent to the pillory.” Taken from a review in The Sword and the Trowel (October, 1891, p. 581)
Hmmmm, perhaps premillenialism is not that new after all!
Related Articles
- History and Premillennialism Part I (The Early Church) Gary E Gilley
- Eschatology in Church History by Michael J. Vlach, Ph.D.
By the way… I have just added a website to my theology blogroll called ‘Theological Studies’, it looks pretty informative. And here is another one called ‘Think of These Things‘ by Gary E Gilley, not actually a blog but it has some interesting things on it.
Emergent/cy
A popular website for the emerging reformation called ‘Emerging Grace’ posted something that doesn’t sit quite right within the emergent camp… how many times do I wanna say emergent/ing. Anyway, it’s all about Mark Driscoll and the problems he has with 3 guys in particular ( Those being McClaren, Pagitt and Bell) who are pretty much the movers and shakers of the Emer’s. This from a post called ‘The Emerging Streams Just got Muddier‘.
In my reading this evening I came across the fact that Mark Driscoll spoke at a southern baptist conference this weekend. The reports I read so far indicate that Mark has confirmed the southern baptists’ fears concerning the emerging church, and maybe thrown a few old friends under the bus.
From conference attendees:
“He talked about how Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell are basically sell outs when it comes to Scriptural integrity. He presented a strong case and held nothing back. Interesting stuff. Without a doubt, this is the most direct, I’ve heard Mark address these issues.
He specifically cited their views on the Atonement, views on homosexuality,rabbinical study, their influences, and theology. There were some very vivid conversations and references to the virgin Mary and McClaren’s new organization, “Deep SHIfT“.” (Travis Johnson)
Travis Johnson was the one reporting the low down on Driscoll’s take on the 3 guys aformentioned and the 3 streams of emergent. This is his brief point by point break down of the conference.
- the difference between the three streams of the emerging church (the relevants, the Emergents, and the confessional contextual calvinists).
- how that Brian McClaren, Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell are basically sell outs when it comes to Scriptural integrity. He presented a strong case and held nothing back. Interesting stuff. Without a doubt, this is the most direct, I’ve heard Mark address these issues.
- He specifically cited their views on the Atonement, views on homosexuality, rabbinical study, their influences, and theology.
- There were some very vivid conversations and references to the virgin Mary and McClaren’s new organization, “Deep SHIfT“.
- Most importantly, he spoke of how there is a generation of people on the scene now who have no historical knowledge of the Church and how we must engage them.
- If we fail to do so, the Church will continue to compete for an ever shrinking circle of angry children of liberal or fundamentalist religious people.
- Rather than embracing syncretism or sectarianism, we must practice the art of subversion.
- We must follow Paul’s example in Acts 17 and “Go and see” the world. We must understand our culture and speak effectively to it whil remaining faithful to the message of Jesus.
Nice!
Meanwhile the Pyro guys have noted that there are definitely two ‘Different Gospels‘ which are becoming all the more self evident as time goes by. Crazy but true … they have noticed that the line in the sand is being drawn, however cautiously.
Praise God I say! I wonder if we are witnessing a post-emergent move about to happen, as Phil notes…
However you look at it, this has been a seriously hard week for the Emerging/Emergent conversation. I’m thinking of trying to trademark the name “Post-Emergent,” because I think it’s going to be really, really useful very soon now. @Pyromaniacs
I hope you’re right Phil!
Pehaps we can call those who post- emerge — Po-Emers or PoMers — still holding onto that whole ‘PoMo’ theme so they don’t feel quite so outed!
Violent Act or an Example of sacrifice? Penal Substitutionary Atonement under attack!
I have just been emailed something written by Roger Oakland about the Emerging Church and their view on the ‘Blood Atonement of Christ’. I thought I would share it for you as it speaks about the movers and shakers of those within this movement and how they have come to re-understand the cross of Christ.
Roger Oakland says this about the ‘Blood Atonement’…
The heart and core of the Christian faith is the gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. This foundational belief is under attack by many who are considered to be leaders of the Emerging Church movement that is sweeping the world and “re-inventing” Christianity.
The heart and core of the Christian faith is based upon Jesus Christ’s shed blood at Calvary as the only acceptable substitutionary atonement for mankind’s sins. The Gospel message requires this foundation. The Bible says the wages of sin is death—thus every person alive should receive the penalty of spiritual death because none of us is without sin, since we are born with our sin nature intact. Satan hates the Gospel message. He understands what the Gospel means, and his agenda is to deceive mankind from understanding and believing so they can suffer eternally with him.
The new way of thinking about the ‘Penal Substitutionary Atonement’ stands in stark contrast to what the bible explicitly tell us about the work of Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.
When you read the following from teachers who are considered to be masters at higher cristicism…
The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it. Alan Jones, Reimagining Christianity (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley and Sons, 2005), p. 132.
And this from Alan Jones…
The other thread of just criticism addresses the suggestion implicit in the cross that Jesus’ sacrifice was to appease an angry God. Penal substitution [the Cross] was the name of this vile doctrine.
You gotta ask yourself… why are they re-wording the Word…
I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, not statements coming directly or somewhat directly from God.… I realized that whatever “divine revelation” and the “inspiration of the Bible” meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority. Marcus Borg The God We Never Knew (New York, NY: HarperCollins, First HarperCollins Paperback Edition, 1998), p. 25.
These movers and shakers say that there is one main bunch of people who are the BIGGEST PROBLEM for them being able to move forward into Ecumenical Unity. In their own words, it is the fundies who are the ones that are the divisive ones, fundies just can’t get over the substitutionary atonement…
Were you to talk to that fundamentalist preacher, he doubtless would insist that you must believe in the “substitutionary” theory of atonement—namely, that Jesus suffered as a substitute for us the punishment due us for our sins. But can you imagine a modern courtroom in a civilized country where an innocent man would be deliberately punished for another man’s crime? … Substitutionary atonement … came a long way down in history in many a penal system. But now it is a precivilized barbarity; no secular court would tolerate the idea for a moment; only in certain belated theologies is it retained as an explanation of our Lord’s death … Christ’s sacrificial life and death are too sacred to be so misrepresented.. Harry Emerson Fosdick, Dear Mr. Brown, op. cit., p. 136.
Funny thing to think that God’s court should even be considered to be a secular one anyway, what’s with that??? I was under the impression that it would be a theocratic one, one ruled by Christ Himself when He comes again! Secular, I think NOT!!!
Related Posts
Yom Kippur - Life in the blood
Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
All this talk about the blood atonement that is bantered about lately curiously falls around Israel’s holiday of Yom Kippur. (See ‘What’s with the blood‘ and ‘Stricken by God‘). The need for a blood atonement has always offended people, from a Christian perspective it is called the offence of the cross. I wonder if Adam and Eve were offended when God sacrificed an animal to cover Adam and Eve’s sin? The blood atonement is an affront to mankind, full-stop.
Trying to skirt around the horrid nature of atonement and obviously the disagreeable reality of the blood that is needed to bring back man and reconcile him with his creator, is a failure to see ones fallen nature and ones sin in all its horridness, brutal, barbaric and diagreeable reality. One needs to clean it up so one does not see the truth of the matter! Clean it up, make it not so brutal, happily 
look away from that nasty mess, put on the biggest rose coloured glasses imaginable and think of happy thoughts. (See ‘re words‘ and ‘That cursed Fig Tree‘)
Anyway, after emailing a very hard working friend of mine he mentioned this word - hilasterion - to me, which is the greek word for propitiation found in this verse…
Rom 3:25 whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God,
What does this word relate to? It relates to the mercy seat, the lid that covers ‘The Ark of the Covenant’. The blood of atonement was to be sprinkled on this Ark, and now we have the completed fulfillment of this by the blood of Christ mentioned throughout the NT. It is in fact one of the main themes of the NT, if not THE main theme.
To deny this bloody sacrifice - it is, what it is - is to deny the whole works of the cross and the fulfillment of the law required of God. To deny it is to come under the works of the law again. Rememeber …
Rom 3:25-30 whom God set forth as a propitiation through faith in His blood, as a demonstration of His righteousness through the passing over of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God, for a demonstration of His righteousness in the present time, for His being just and justifying the one that is of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It was excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through a Law of faith. Then we conclude a man to be justified by faith without works of Law. Or is He the God of Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also, since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
By faith we are justified. The law points to our sin, the law points to the blood needed for appeasement, penal substitutionary atonement and reconcilation because of our sin, the law if followed without the faith that Christ has fulfilled the law makes us guilty of every law even if we commit just one thing against the law of God.
Jas 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all.
Don’t try to white wash it!
Related Article
Faith Undone - A new Messiah awaits!
Roger Oakland recently sent me an email about a new book he has written… Here is the blurb:
FAITH UNDONE
The emerging church - a new reformation or an end- time deception
by Roger OaklandPublished by Lighthouse Trails
Note from Author:
In the not-too-distant future, most evangelical pastors will have to decide whether to support or reject the spirituality behind the emerging church. If this movement continues unfolding at the present pace, mainstream Christianity will be completely restructured, and the biblical gospel of Jesus Christ will be considered obsolete. If I believed for one minute that this movement was just another passing whim or the discontent rumblings that so often occur with young people as they search for answers to life, I would never have written this book.
But sad to say, the emerging church is far more than a fleeting fad and much more than the complaints of a group of young leaders. It is indeed a new way of being Christian and its objective is to usher in a new reformation throughout the world.
Those who refuse to embrace this direction will be considered spiritual oddballs that are hindering a unified one-world spirituality that is promoted as the answer for peace and that is prophesied about in the Bible. I know these sound like preposterous concerns. How could a movement that seems so unorganized and mismanaged do so much damage? The answer to that is the reason I wrote this book. For behind this new kind of worship, this new kind of church is a strategic apostasy and maneuver by the prince of this world, the enemy of our souls, to literally take apart the faith of millions-it will be nothing less than faith undone.
Chapter by Chapter Overview can be found here at Roger Oakland’s website.
This would be a great book, and one well worth the read.
This also brought to my mind what it means to have a ‘Faith Undone’.
Interestingly, a ‘Faith Undone’ is classic deconstructionism at work (or is it deconstructionalism, is that even a word?).
Deconstruction was a word that made it into high-popular culture, a word that Jacques Derrida gave birth to. John D. Caputo has taken that philosophy and is the one person that has blended that philosophy with theology within the post-modern emerging church.
In a post called ‘A weak theology — A weak God‘ I wrote the following:
I have found some interesting quotes from people who have analysed Caputo’s work, and from my understanding, the outcome of ‘Deconstructionism’ and its theological and doctrinal implication is something that we as Christians may have to deal with in the not so distant future.
What does Derrida and others who now favour deconstructionism and Post-stinkin-modernism as the way forward for our world offer at the end of it all? What precisely is it that Christians may have to deal with in the not so distant future?
What is the desired outcome?
According to Caputo after total deconstruction, you are only left with the undeconstructible!
And what may that be?
The undeconstructible is the subject matter of pure and unconditional affirmation –”viens, oui, oui” (come, yes, yes) — something unimaginable and inconceivable by the current standards of imagining and conceiving. (Pdf file - Jacques Derrida by John D. Caputo Syracuse University)
Where does this lead?
It is of no surprise, that according to Caputo, Derrida would start talking about religion, a religion that is without religion. He even spoke of the Messiah! Caputo understands it this way:
Deconstruction, it turns out, is not nihilism; it is just high standards! Deconstruction is satisfied with nothing because it is waiting for the Messiah, which Derrida translated into the philosophical figure of the “to come…, the very figure of the future, of hope and expectation.
For we pray and weep for something that is coming, something I know not what, something nameless that in always slipping away also draws us in its train. (Pdf file - Jacques Derrida by John D. Caputo Syracuse University)
Yes that’s right, Caputo is one individual that is giving insightful theology to the emerging church. A theology in a new form that post-modernists love. Caputo is just one of many who will tear down the church to build a ‘Faith Undone’. This will ultimately leave the church wanting and expecting a new kind of Messiah and the old Weak God outside of His own House knocking to come in.
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock: If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will enter to him, and I will dine with him, and he with Me.
Do you hear Him?
