The Devolution of Theology

Editor's Note: The previous post was long, so I've broken it into two parts. This is part two.

I've noticed a trend among Christians who adopt the beliefs of evolutionists. They usually aren't solid on the doctrine of inerrancy in the first place. They have nagging doubts or a general sense of discomfort with the idea that the Bible is completely trustworthy in every possible way. Over time, they allow themselves to be deceived through the pseudo-science and propaganda presented by atheists and agnostics. Perhaps there is social pressure, and they don't want to look ridiculous. They may even say they are trying to remove any possible "scientific" hindrance to the Gospel.

Once evolution has been accepted, it becomes the unbreakable fulcrum under the logical lever that dislodges Biblical inerrancy from their minds once and for all. Rather than viewing Scripture as "incapable of being wrong," they come to see evolution as "incapable of being wrong." It's a tragic mistake and an example of misdirected faith. With inerrancy conveniently removed, they begin to view the Bible as a theologically authoritative book containing culturally influenced factual errors. They then live on the scraps of whatever theological truth they can squeeze out of a supposedly erroneous document, and stop engaging critically and Biblically with their own culture. The next step (or should I say slide) is a direct departure from clear Scriptural teachings and a willingness to apply all sorts of odd hermeneutics in a way that makes the Bible remarkably similar in its "spiritual" theological emphasis to their own culturally absorbed views. In this way, deceived souls take insolent authority over the Text rather than living under the authority of the Text (they then quickly point out how humble and flexible and teachable they are - and how arrogant those "rigid, orthodox, conservative" believers are for insisting on the utter veracity of the Word of God).

In time, they deny every core component of the Gospel and replace it with whatever philosophy is currently in style. That's a classic mark of liberalism. In the end, the term "Christian" becomes a mere descriptive shell, and it no longer characterizes their conduct or thought processes. Culturally derived ethics are then artificially "Christianized" and exalted above doctrinal Truth, and the fortress of indestructible unbelief is complete. Now to write books and make false disciples!

Not every Christian evolutionist follows this path all the way through, but I've seen it often enough to call it a definite trend. Have you seen it?

For further study, see this excellent article by James Anderson of RTS in Charlotte:

"I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution"

Click here for The Devolution of Theology, Part 2

Tomorrow I'll post two short videos by Dr. Joel Klenck.

Emerging Postmodern Evangelical Liberalism

For some reason, I've been in a "prophetic and polemic" mode lately. This is not my normal M.O., but I'm going to run with it. Meekness is not weakness, and grace is not a sloppy overlooking of all that is wrong. Grace and truth work together, as truth calls a spade a spade, and then calls for a change of heart which only grace can accomplish. Nothing in grace ever departs from TRUTH in the least bit. Rather, grace deepens our hold on the truth, and truth continually drives us back to grace as we see our need afresh. In recent years, as God's grace in the Gospel has become more precious to my soul, distortions and perversions of grace have become increasingly troubling. As Paul said . . .

Galatians 1:6-10 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing 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 what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

I wouldn't want to make a career out of exposing all the things that [I think] are wrong in the modern church. That doesn't tend to be fruitful or helpful in the long run, and my natural self-righteousness would lead me to beat up on people who disagree. That's not the point here. What follows is offered, I hope, in a spirit of love and with a sharp eye on my own multiplied shortcomings. We must endeavor to stay focused intently on the Gospel, but we can't ignore error altogether. So, in the interest of better understanding the times in which we live, the modern threats to orthodox Christianity, and with the goal of tying our hearts more tightly to the Gospel, I offer these thoughts on one of today's great heretics . . .

I recently read an interview in which postmodern poster child Brian McLaren was asked why Evangelicals "dislike" him. His answer was both telling and terrifying. He said, "large numbers of Evangelicals love what I'm doing and are highly supportive," and then he went on to name three groups (including high Calvinists) who are "completely and vocally unhappy with my work." High Calvinists should take that as a huge compliment. I'd like to let Mr. McLaren know that Gospel-centered moderate Calvinists are equally disturbed by his radical departure from the Biblical message.

As a follow up to the interview and for the sake of curiosity, I listened through about two hours of material from McLaren. Among the material was this interview from the University of California's Youtube channel and this "sermon" delivered to students at Anderson University in Indiana.

I have to admit that I was impressed as I observed this iconic leader of the Emerging Church. It was obvious that he is a very gracious and gentle person. He is thoughtful about the sensitivities of others and careful not to offend. He is eminently considerate in his approach, which is a good thing. He's also matter-of-fact and realistic about his critics and the controversy he's created. This gives an appearance of humility that is engaging and heart warming.

Beneath all of this sweet personality lies something deeply troubling: unmitigated floods of bad theology. In classic liberal style, rather than building on the rock solid truth of Scriptural precepts, McLaren proposes his unbelief in the form of subtle questions which imply that orthodox Christianity has completely missed the point of the teachings of Christ. But these "questions" are nothing less than denials of what is taught in Scripture, and they are based on reasoning that resonates with fallen humanity's natural way of thinking - not with the Word of God. Orthodoxy insists on the hard Biblical doctrines, like wrath and hell and judgment - things which are hard to reconcile with the reality of God's infinite love. But they are nonetheless taught by Jesus Christ and the Christian Scriptures. Rather than submitting to Scripture and gaining insight by adjusting his ideas accordingly, McLaren simply avoids the possibility that human ideas of "love" might be off the mark. It must be Christian orthodoxy itself that is misguided, not fallen humanity's thinking about God. In his quest for relevance, McLaren and his Emerging Church friends have jettisoned the Biblical Gospel. They have gone completely off the deep end and leapt headling into heterodoxy - all the while wearing a gentle smile. It's a sad thing to see. Sadder still is the long line of so-called Evangelicals following in their footsteps, sliding gleefully down the slope of unbelief into a powerless, humanistic gospel, heading directly toward the gateway of soul-shredding heresy. The saddest thing is that many will pass through the gate without even realizing it.

McLaren makes no secret of the fact that his real focus is social transformation and the redemption of broken societal institutions - not the salvation of individual souls. Embracing universalistic syncretism, he wants to save "the world." It's the system that's broken and needs to be fixed, moreso than your heart and my heart in abject rebellion against our Creator. After all, says McLaren, "God so loved the world . . ." (Oh, is that what John meant?) Apparently, principles of Biblical interpretation are just another part of the outdated orthodox machinery, so we can throw those out with everything else that stands in the way of the "Kingdom." No more silly notions of conforming ourselves to the Bible. We can mold Scripture into any image we choose, so let's go ahead and make God the way we've always wanted Him to be!

Some folks who are weak on Biblical inerrancy and the sufficiency of Scripture are bolstered and kept straight by an allegiance to solid creeds and traditions. Others, who reject every creed as "man-made", are nonetheless deeply grounded in Biblical truth because they simply love the Scriptures. But men like McLaren have neither a high view of Scripture nor a solid tradition to serve as ballast. They are led astray by every wind of doctrine, and the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. McLaren has left both the Scriptures and the orthodox creeds behind in his pursuit of a new and improved form of indistinct Christianity.

Here's a catch phrase I've heard McLaren repeat numerous times: statements change your state, but questions put you on a quest. So, leave all your statements of absolute truth behind and launch out on a search for . . . more questions? If there aren't any truthful statements to be found, what's the point in asking all of these questions in the first place?

I suppose McLaren wouldn't get along too well with Jesus Christ. Read the Gospels - they're chock full of statements. If the things Jesus taught about the human heart are true, then what we need more than anything else is a change of state. Our Lord fully intends to change our state AND put us on a quest. Mere questions do not feed needy souls or comfort the hearts of penitent sinners. If Paul warned against doctrines "contrary" to the Gospel, he must have done more than ask questions. He must have made exclusive, definitive statements of TRUTH which had to be sharply separated from other statements that were not TRUE.

But alas, I have questions of my own. I question the relevance of any "church leader" who doesn't believe the Gospel of God. Paul described the Gospel this way: "Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures . . . (I Cor. 15:1ff). McLaren replaces this Biblical definition with his own idea of the Gospel: "The Kingdom of heaven (or at least his version of it) is at hand." This definition is wide enough to park a bus in, and McLaren takes full advantage of the space his definition affords. He reinterprets the approaching kingdom as an indication that God is more interested in large, overarching social movements than He is in the salvation of individuals. Verses, extended passages, and entire pages are falling out of my Bible as I write this! And McLaren is dancing on them with his eyes closed and his heart ablaze with "love." Now we can all smile, write poetry, and talk about a Kingdom of God that just happens to perfectly resemble a one-world utopia.

I have some questions for McLaren: didn't Jesus say, "... the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel." ??? When did He ever say, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand, and this is what I mean by the Gospel." ??? McLaren confuses categories here, and the result is stark error. While liberal Christians are trying fix the irreparably cracked foundations of the kingdom of man, our Lord is commanding everyone to flee from this deteriorating world of sin and enter HIS KINGDOM through belief in the Gospel.

Do I dislike McLaren? No, actually I find him enjoyable and easy to listen to. He seems like he would be a fun guy to hang around with. Some of his criticisms of the modern church are accurate. As a person, there's nothing about him to dislike. He's charming . . . dangerously charming. But I do hate and despise the damnable deceptions he's enthusiastically broadcasting throughout the world in the name of my God. I pray that He may discover the true and living God of grace and truth in the Biblical Gospel.

One final statement: men like this need to stop marketing their books to Christians and start writing for the benefit of agnostics. Those guys have no problems with man-centered, relativistic religion. Genuine disciples of Jesus do, and they will not listen to any voice that contradicts that of their True Shepherd. He alone we will follow. When you realize that Someone died for your sins, you aren't so quick to relinquish your hold on the Gospel of grace. And once you've seen Jesus through the eyes of a forgiven and redeemed and thankful heart, utopia doesn't even warrant a glance.

IMPOSSIBLE: The Sermon on the Mount, Part 3

Let's continue our look at how the theme of “the righteousness of God” is woven into the text of the Sermon on the Mount. In the previous post we looked at the beatitudes. There are three other key texts where the theme of God's righteousness is mentioned.

It is in the sermon’s thesis statement:

Matthew 5:20 “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

The thesis is simple: to enter God's Kingdom, one must have the highest possible kind of righteousness. God’s righteousness is a surpassing righteousness. It abounds beyond the very best of human virtue. The Lord goes on to give examples of how the outward, Pharisaic ethic falls short of the real standard:

It condemns murder, but inwardly burns with the anger that leads to murder.
God’s righteousness condemns anger (the root of murder), and murder (the fruit of anger).
It brings sacrifices to God, but leaves relationships in a damaged condition.
God’s righteousness values relationships above religious rituals.
It seeks legal victories, but ignores the possibility of reconciliation
God’s righteousness seeks reconciliation and brings peace.
It carefully avoids adultery, but cannot avoid the adulterous desires of the heart.
God’s righteousness deals with sin at the heart level.
It justifies divorce as a legal option, and ignores the consequences brought on others.
God’s righteousness considers how our actions affect others..
It multiplies religious promises, but doesn’t bring integrity to everyday speech.
God’s righteousness produces words of truth that are backed up with action.
It commands a love that extends to friends only.
God’s righteousness employs boundless love to make friends out of enemies.

Note that every single example deals directly with relationships in everyday life. We may be able to put on a facade of moralistic spirituality when we are isolated, but in close proximity to other human beings we quickly find we have sinful hearts.

God’s righteousness can be seen again in the sermon’s hinge point of Matthew 5:48-6:1

“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”

Here Jesus identifies the problem with Pharisaic righteousness: impressive as it may be in the eyes and opinions of men, it falls short of the glory of God. The righteous standard is GOD HIMSELF, not the Pharisees (Mt. 5:20), not the tax collectors (Mt. 5:46), not the Gentiles (Mt. 5:47, 6:7-8, 6:32), not the hypocrites (Mt. 6:2, 5, 16), not the masses (Mt. 7:13-14), not the false prophets (Mt. 7:15-20). Two things are clear from this: first, righteousness is something to be practiced; second, it is to be practiced for God's sake and not for the approval of other people.

The theme gets a final mention at the sermon’s summary call to action found in Matthew 6:33

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness . . .”

Our Lord has been speaking about righteousness throughout the message, but here He defines the source of the righteousness He has been describing. It is from God; it is HIS righteousness. And how do we get it? By making it our first and primary pursuit, above our daily necessities, trusting God to provide the righteousness we need.

In essence, the sermon's opening thesis says, "Abandon your own righteousness - it's not good enough." The hinge point says, "Stop putting on a show - God is not impressed." The call to action says, "Seek the righteousness only God can give you - it's what you need most of all."

True righteousness is something we hunger and thirst for (Mt. 5:6). We don't come to God already possessing it. Instead we come with a need for it, and God fills us (Mt. 5:6). True righteousness is in Christ (Mt. 5:10-11), it is something that exceeds outward moral perfection (Mt. 5:20), it is something that imitates God and is practiced for His sake (Mt. 5:48-6:1), it is something that we must seek after and obtain from God (Mt. 6:33). This all sounds rather similar to the themes found in Romans, the Corinthian letters, Galatians, Philippians, Hebrews, etc. - really, it's laced through the entire New Testament, and even the Old (though less prominently). Do you see it? Far from a mere ethical teaching, the Sermon on the Mount is ultimately a denunciation of self-righteousness and an admonition to seek the higher, better, true righteousness of God – not merely as an active approach to life, but as that which we EAT, and DRINK, and as that which gives us life and FILLS US! The righteous ethic is a heart-level application of God’s Law. It’s an ethic that is tailor made to bash the living daylights out of the self-confident belief in our own ability to do good apart from the One Who IS our only righteousness. The phrase, “HIS righteousness,” summarizes both the ethic and the message of the Sermon on the Mount – and of the Gospel itself. It implies that there is a higher righteousness, that it isn't from us, and that we can get it only from Him Who is its origin and source.

Perhaps someone will ask, "where is faith in all of this? Where is regeneration? You've made a case for imputed righteousness, but what about the other pieces of the Gospel you preach? Are they in this sermon, too? And aren't there other important themes to talk about???" Stay tuned, the next post in this series will address some of these issues. Parts of the Sermon on the Mount which are virtually ignored by many of its most vocal "followers" are directly tied to the Gospel of God's sovereign grace, a Gospel which they have ironically rejected. What a joy to discover the true glory of God in this foundational text - a text which has been abused and misinterpreted to teach man-centered ideas of universalism, liberalism, political socialism and liberation theology! All of these are a result of overlooking (or ignoring) the obvious, as fallen men continue to suppress the truth in UNrighteousness . . . but may our Father reveal Himelf to our hearts as we study on.

The Wittenburg Church Door

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is only a tongue-in-cheek bit of fun, based on my experiences and observations of theological trends. If you're offended by this, please try to lighten up. If you've abandoned sound doctrine in favor of modern trends and worldly fads, repent.

The year is 1517. In a historic act of Biblical courage, Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to the Wittenburg Church Door . . .

Terrified peasants rejoice at the good news and run into the safety of the cathedral.
An angry Roman Catholic theologian rips down the 95 Theses and uses them to make a paper hat. He puts the hat on his head and stands outside the cathedral windows looking in. Later, Luther's friends put the 95 Theses back on the door.
A Calvinist goes through the door and tells everyone inside, "God sovereignly planned long ago for you to be here. You are here by His pleasure and will."
An Amyrauldian Calvinist stands up and says God made it possible for everyone outside to come in also.
A Hyper Calvinist opens the door and walks through it. He leaves the door open, waiting for God to close it for him. He turns around and tells the crowd outside they are probably not invited to come in.
A second Hyper Calvinist who is standing outside slams the door shut and boards up the church entrance.
An early Arminian takes the boards off the door and then cuts the door in half, beckoning everyone to enter. He takes the other half of the door to the local morgue and encourages the dead people to get into the church at any cost.
Later, a militant Arminian breaks the door down and stands on it, declaring that he is free to enter or leave the cathedral at will and no one can stop him. He then clarifies his meaning by saying this happens "by grace alone." He goes to the morgue to see if some of the dead people are just sleeping.

An Open Theist says God did not know about the cathedral or the door until they happened, but now He is glad they are there. He builds a robot and programs it to respond to every person's movements. He calls the robot "G.O.D."
A Universalist stands outside and tells bystanders that the Wittenburg Church door is no different from any other door in the world, but the important thing is to choose a door and go through it. He also assures those who want no door at all that this is a perfectly good option.
A "Free Grace" Antinomian stands on the church steps and tells everyone that they need only believe they are inside the cathedral, and they are. Anyone who says they have to actually enter the cathedral is a deceiving, graceless legalist.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer hits the "Free Grace" Antinomian over the head with a hardcover copy of his book, "The Cost of Discipleship." After that, Bonhoeffer disappears and everyone wonders where he went.
A Calvinistic Antinomian decides to go up the cathedral steps with a fire hose. He tells everyone inside to pretend they're in an amusement park. He then turns on the water and blasts every sacred thing in sight until it is completely waterlogged. He believes his insurance company will pay for the damages.
A Charismatic reads the first thesis and gets so excited he bursts through the door and dances around the cathedral shouting at the top of his lungs. He knocks over several candlesticks in the process. When someone tries to draw his attention to the other 94 theses, he declares they are unimportant and starts dancing again with his eyes closed.
A Reformed Charismatic walks to the microphone with the 95 Theses in hand. He shares a dream he had about the third thesis, and all of his friends start hopping and singing for sheer joy (with their eyes wide open).
A Pentecostal jumps over three pews and starts swinging from a gold chandelier. He appears to be completely unharmed when the chandelier falls to the ground and crushes him.
A Oneness Pentecostal notes that there are not three doors, but one. He ignores the three windows above the door.
An Independent Fundamentalist preacher stands up and delivers a fiery sermon about the fact that the door is wooden and rigid. Two of the three points in his sermon are about the splinters one might expect to get from handling such a door. In conclusion, he burns some "false doors" on the church steps.
A KJV-only preacher stands at the door demanding that everyone who tries to enter must use a secret password. The password is "Thou."
A Fundamental Baptist preacher tells everyone they must take a bath and wear nice clothes if they want to come inside the cathedral. He also convinces several bystanders to place one foot inside the door and assures them that they are now "eternally secure" inside the cathedral no matter what they do.
A Neo-orthodox theologian stands in the doorway with one foot on each side of the threshold. He declares that he is both "within" and "without" the cathedral at the same time.
Two Southern Baptists get into a shoving match with the Neo-orthodox theologian. One is trying to push him out of the cathedral, while the other is trying to push him in.
A Liberal Theologian sits on the church steps and writes a long article about the many possible interpretations of the word "door" as it is used in Scripture and church history. None of these interpretations has any resemblance to the actual Wittenburg church door, but they do sound quite scholarly and lead many intelligent people away from the door.
A Neo-evangelical pastor passes a survey around to everyone standing outside the church. He then places silver wallpaper over the door, sets a welcome mat in front of it and launches a full scale remodeling project using the survey as a blueprint. The sign over the church door now reads "Wittenburg Creek Community Church - home of the High-Bells."

A Postmodernist rips the door off its hinges and burns it in the town square. Later, the pastor of a prominent Emergent Church scoops up the ashes and forms them into a statue resembling Gumby. Several thousand seekers come to his "campus" each weekend to enjoy the image he has made. The pastor calls this "reinventing" the Wittenburg door and insists that this is what God had in mind all along. He goes to Starbucks and starts a long, confusing conversation with his friends in which they "imagine" a Wittenburg Church door that is covered with pink velvet and has a "doggy door." Afterward, they visit their favorite tattoo parlor to get the word "relevant" inked permanently onto their foreheads.

Meanwhile, a few bedraggled peasants, bearing old rugged crosses on a narrow road, flee into the church to find refuge in the living and true, eternal, gracious, sovereign God.

Compatibilism - a Term for Biblical Balance and Paradox

It's always encouraging to find examples of thoughtful Christians humbly embracing paradox in a way that gives honor to God and holds to His Word in an uncompromising way. Recently, Barry Wallace did this on his blog, Who Am I?

Check out this post on Barry's site for a great discussion of "COMPATIBILISM" - a Biblical approach to the dilemma of human responsibility and divine sovereignty.

Compatibilism differs strongly from Neo-orthodoxy's dialectical theology and the Hegelian concept of THESIS-ANTITHESIS-SYNTHESIS. If we take the Scriptures seriously, the dialectic method of producing a "synthesis" becomes unacceptable. Dialectical theology requires us to take something away from each side in order to find a working alternative somewhere in the middle. This forces us to deny some of the things God has said in His Word. Such an approach should never be called paradox. It would be better described as reducing Biblical truth to the lowest common denominator (a.k.a. "liberalism"). Compatibilism, on the other hand, assumes that everything taught in the Word of God is completely true. It refuses to reduce any of God's revelation. It resists the temptation to rip pages from the Bible to make our own paper-mache truth. Instead, it declares the human mind incapable of reconciling all that God has said. This conclusion exalts God, and in this way theological paradox becomes the best friend of orthodoxy - not a path to liberalism.

God is TRUE, and every man IS a liar until he surrenders to the Truth of God.