Quiet Riot

Okay, you three readers out there. I know I've been quiet for a few days, but just hold on to your hats. It's a war right now in my life. I have stirred up a real hornet's nest in the SBC with that Open Letter. Will update as soon as I have time. Also, pray for me as the heat I'm taking is intense. I knew that would happen, but just pray for as many as possible to become discerning about the Emergent. Pray for Ken Silva, too. He is a precious brother and worthy of the titles "pastor" and "friend."

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

AMAAAZZZIINNGGG

In my last post, I lined out for all to see just one of the lies foisted upon the church by Emergents. In it I quoted a story by Brian McLaren in which he presented a fictional pastor engaged in years of deception as the heart warming hero of the story. (The fictional pastor believed that one did not have to hear and believe the gospel to be saved and lied about hid his doctrine from his congregation and collegues.)

This is the amazing part: MCLAREN THINKS THIS IS JUST FINE!!!!!

I believe this sort of behavior, permeating the Emergents, has been made possible by the postmodern mind set that devalues truth. It makes us think that we can make up our own truth. It makes us less ashamed of being caught in a lie. And that actually dehumanizes us. Like animals we can do or say anything that satisfies our bellies.

Amazed, but not surprised,
Phil Perkins.

Brian McLaren Excuses Public Doctrinal Deception

Just 4 (yes, that's only four) days ago I wrote this to begin a post called "Rob Bell Lied":

"Surprised? One of the things I have insisted on is the dishonesty inherent in the very idea of the Emergent."

This is yet another reason to be convinced that Emergent leaders are not Christians at all. They sell their books, conferences, etc. under the guise of being biblical. Paul said, "...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Well, just this morning I happened on an story by Brian McLaren in which he wrote about a fictional pastor. This pastor has led a life of public deception. He has hidden his actual doctrines concerning hell and the atonement so that his colleagues and congregation would not hold him to account. The story is written in the first person (huuummmm) and is about what makes this fictional liar come out of the closet.

McLaren takes up the subjects of universalism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. The first is the false doctrine that all people will be saved from hell and sin by the atonement. The second, inclusivism, is another false doctrine that many will be saved even though they have not accepted Christ and His teachings, even if they have never heard the gospel. The last one, exclusivism is the biblical doctrine that only those that hear and heed the gospel will be saved.

McLaren's fibbing preacher said, "His (C. S. Lewis) words 'led by God's secret influence' always reminded me of Paul's Words in Romans 8-'Those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God'-and that always kept the inclusivist back door secretly open for me, even though most of my colleagues and nearly all of my parishioners considered me an orthodox exclusivist." (Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that? He kept his ideas about the atonement and hell a secret purposely misleading his "colleagues" and "parishioners." (Lying from the pulpit.) Read the article and you will find this is not an isolated quote. The hero has purposely lied and has now admitted it. Furthermore, he admitted the depth of his deceit when he said, "In my theological circles, universalism is one small step removed from atheism." And by the end of the story he puts his approval on universalism.

Toward the end of the story, McLaren's preacher said that his daughter had become or might become a universalist and that is okay with him. And furthermore, if she was to be excommunicated from their church for this heresy, he would go with her. He wrote, "If Jess isn't welcome at PCC, I don't want to be welcome either."

So there you have it. Brian McLaren has created a heart ripping story to make us think that dishonesty in the pulpit is actually heroic.

Cute, huh?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Won't State It Cuz They Hate It.

Emergents leaders are not Christians. I know that because they hate the gospel.

Since I have become busy in the fight to expose the Emergents, I have had to actually buy a bunch of their books and read the stuff. It's easy reading, very dumbed down. One has to read and read to get to any sort of actual point. They love cutsie, tear-jerking stories. Their points are usually so ridiculous that they have to do a lot of very artful story telling to grease the skids before they tell the reader what they are actually up to.

At first, I found they often denied the gospel. And they do. For instance, I am currently reading The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus. It is a fun read if you don't think too much. But on page 32 he says the gospel that tells us faith in Christ saves from hell is to be rejected because it is too "domesticating."

But just this morning I realized another interesting thing. For all their long-winded stories, rants, and explanations, you will never find the gospel defined or stated. Not even their version.

Emergents hate the propositionally stated gospel. Therefore, they won't state it. They impugn it and all who adhere to it in any form.

And when they present themselves as Christians, we are not supposed to notice they are lying to us. Well, at least, we aren't to say so outloud.

Here is a challange: if anyone out there can provide me with any quote from a national Emergent leader that actually states the gospel in an outright statement that is not part of a denial of the gospel, could you write me? I'd like to see it. I would even appreciate an Emergent statement of "the gospel" if it is not the biblical one. And remember: I want an outright statement, not a rambling story and not a definition by denial.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Donald Miller Line By Lie

Not having done a line by lie for a while, let me explain. The point of a line by lie article is to deconstruct the deconstructors. But instead of deconstructing their literature like they do others, we will actually use logic and Scripture, rather than by simply claiming we can't know what the author meant.

So here is a line by lie post done on an article taken from Donald Miller’s own website.

DM (Donald Miller): I wrapped this book up in a bar on Hawthorne and that night I felt like I was losing it a bit. Essentially, I had begun to wonder if had misunderstood the gospel of Jesus, thinking of it in propositional terms rather than relational dynamics.

ANSWER: Yes, Paul had that problem, too. He thought of the gospel in propositional terms. In fact, you can read the four propositions he called the gospel in I Corinthians 15:1-8. 1. He died for our sins according to the Scriptures (prophetic propositions). 2. He was buried. 3. He was raised from the dead on the third day according to the Scriptures. 4. He was seen by all sorts of folks afterward, including a crowd of 500 at one time. Of course, Paul was not as smart as you. He never figured out just how stupid he was to think propositions were important.

DM: The latter (relational dynamics) seemed too poetic to be true,...

ANSWER: Tell us, Don, since the gospel is to be thought of in terms of relational dynamics, can you tell us what those dynamics are? And remember not to tell us what they are, because that would be propositional. Now, go ahead and tell us. But remember not to tell us. Okay?

DM: ...but the former (a propositional understanding of the gospel) had been killing my soul for years...

ANSWER: You shouldn’t have said that because it was propositional, but I'll answer you anyway. Paul said that we are saved by those four propositions. Perhaps if you obeyed those propositions, instead of disobeying them, you’d feel better. And in Romans 10:9 he told us that we are to confess those propositions or we will not be saved. So, yes, your soul feels like it is dying when faced with those doctrines because it is opposed to God and His truth always convicts.

DM: ...and (the propositional understanding of the gospel) was simply illogical.

ANSWER: Wow! Like I said, it's amazing just how stupid Paul was. And Jesus, too. After all, He asked His disciple to confess Him and His doctrines. You know, those things He proposed as true?

DM: If we hold that Jesus wanted us to "believe" certain ideas or "do" certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy.

ANSWER: You mean like believing that Christ was the Son of God and repenting? So, since a Christian is never to be defined by what he believes or does, is it the color or his hair? His weight, height, IQ, good teeth, bad teeth, what? Tell us. Oh, I get it; he has to be relationally dynamic, huh?

DM: In that bar on Hawthorne, I finished the last paragraph and felt a kind of sickness at the thought of whether or not I was telling the truth.

ANSWER: Aw. Don’t worry. Propositions are all tosh, remember? So "truth" is nonsense.

DM: But after further consideration,...

ANSWER: You should have had another beer.

DM: ...and after rewriting the book, I realized the formulaic version of Christianity was irrational, and for that matter, unbiblical.

ANSWER: There you go with another proposition. But I'll answer you anyway. (Mind if I use some propositions?) The Bible is chock full of propositions. Explain to us, Don, how the Bible is unbiblical.

DM: True Christian spirituality mirrors relational dynammics more than the workings of a free-market economy.

ANSWER: Neither of these have anything to do with the message of the gospel. The gospel is about God’s redemptive plan. It is proposed to us in Scripture as true, relationships and all. Which brings up quite a question for you, Don. Why are we to think that Jesus, Isaiah, Moses, Paul, Augustine, Luther, and all our forefathers were idiots to present God’s truth propositionally, but when you present your version of the truth propositionally we are to believe you?

DM: This seemed to open up an entire new world to me, a world where every thought and feeling operates as a kind of living metaphor for the workings of the Godhead.

ANSWER: Human thoughts and feelings are depraved, actually. The Bible says that the heart is desparately sick and more deceiving than anything else, Jer. 17:9. And the Bible says this in II Corinthians 10: “We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,...” Paul was busy bringing his thoughts in line with God, not creating a god and a gospel out of his own thoughts. But then he was awfully propositional, huh?

DM: As a year has passed since the release of the book, I've seen more and more how, in my own life and in the lives of the Christians around me, we subscribe to false gospels that are troubling our souls.

ANSWER: “False gospels” like the one in Scripture? You know, that propositional one? Of course, if it makes your soul feel bad it can't be true, huh?

DM: ...To understand what the Bible explains...

ANSWER: Explain? You mean propositionally?

DM: To understand what the Bible explains Jesus’ gospel to be, we must look to each other, to the way a father interacts with a child, a bride to a bridegroom, a doctor to a patient.

ANSWER: Doh! (Forehead smack.) And I thought we had to read the Bible.

DM: When we let go of the idea of Jesus as a product and embrace Him as a being, our path to spiritual maturity begins.

ANSWER: Now there’s a good logical argument. If you don’t agree with Don you think Jesus is a product and you’re immature. Thanks for straightenin’ us out there, Bro.

Conclusion: Mr. Miller argues against a propositional understanding of the gospel by using propositions. He argues for his version of the truth, but fails to explain how we are to understand truth, since truth cannot be carried by language (propositions.) And he makes his argument by the use of language. Worst of all, he denies the very gospel that calls us to believe it by saying any requirement of belief is heresy, a proposition any good Christian believes in his view. But he hopes you will continue to buy his books to see exactly what he will propose next. And I'll bet he hopes you believe it.

Can anyone say “snake oil”?

Phil Perkins.

Second Open Letter To Frank Page And Kent Shirley

All three of you that follow this blog know that I have contacted the President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page. I have also contacted Kent Shirley in Colorado. He is in missions for the SBC in Colorado. Only Dr. Page has responded.
Read that first open letter here.

Here is my second open letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley:

Open Letter To Frank Page And Kent Shirley II

Dr. Page,

Thank you for your response to my open letter. In it you have stated that you know of Emergent churches that are biblical. I'm curious.

Could you please provide for our readers and me the names of three Emergent SBC pastors so I may contact them? I want to ask them what Emergent leaders and doctrines they follow that are biblical?

Could you also list for us what Emergent leaders you think are orthodox so we may read them as well? Most of us would like to judge for ourselves.

Also, you stated that the leaders and groups I mentioned were not among the ones to whom you referred, but some of them are on Kent Shirley's list of recommended reading for pastors under his authority.

What, if anything, are you going to do about that?

Awaiting your answer,
Phil Perkins.

Response By Frank Page To Open Letter

I recently sent an open letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley. Page is the President of my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. Shirley is head of missions for the SBC in Colorado Springs, Colorado. You can read that open letter here.

Response by Frank Page

Phil, Let me be as clear as I can. People love to take what I have said and apply it in broad brush application. When I encouraged the involvement of emerging churches and leaders, I was referring only to those whose message and methodologies which are biblically based. When I made that statement, I was referring to the emerging churches of which I had at that time become aware. I was referring to a group of young leaders in churches who were reaching the lost with the clear message of Christ. They are biblically sound in both message and methodology. The groups, pastors, and churches to which you refer are obviously not among the group to which I refer. I do believe that there are ways to be relevant in today’s culture without sacrificing the very clear commands of Christ.

I do not know if this helps. I hope that it does. I do not normally respond to open letters. However, in this instance, I hope that my response will make this issue very clear. I also know that I have listened to your side and that is one side of the argument. However, my statements in the above paragraph are as clear as I can make them. I stand by them. I encourage young and nontraditional leadership which is Biblically based.

In Christ,

Frank Page

Top Ten Reasons To Become Emergent

10. I have no theological training but I'm tired of manual labor.
9. I'd rather read 14 other books, than one chapter of the Bible.
8. I want to make up my own rules.
7. Noboby else will ordain me.
6. I can't spell, but I want to teach.
5. I want to be an authority in something. And since the Emergents believe nothing, I think I can handle the training.
4. I'd rather be "missional" than go witnessing.
3. I'd rather quote Burke than Paul.
2. I want to keep my bong in the living room when my pastor comes over.
1. I really want to get a tattoo on my forehead and still be in the praise band.

Rob Bell Lied

Surprised? One of the things I have insisted on is the dishonesty inherent in the very idea of the Emergent.

Think about it, they call themselves a church, but invade other churches and denominations. They call themselves Christians, but deny the confessions of the faith. They call themselves "missional", but deny the reality of hell and the need for a personal savior. They claim to love, but never call sinners to repent.

I could continue, but let's stop with this latest example. Rob Bell has claimed that it was just remarkable how God grew his church at Mars Hill. However, Ken Silva has revealed the truth on that one. Read it here.

Phil Perkins.

Emergent On Sale NOW! Half (a bubble) Off

Here's a conundrum: Why is it that Emergents wail so loudly about the commercialism in the Evangelical church, and still sell their books, t-shirts, cd's, conferences, and speaking engagements through all the same venues? They're working hard to get their market share, don't you think?

Huuummmmm,
Phil Perkins.

Taxes and Religion For Stupid People

A lottery is a tax on stupid people.

Yes, lottery money is government money. And while most taxes are collected by the threat of jail or property confiscation, the lottery is a voluntary tax, collected by lying to people. And the lie is both obvious, and one that we all want to believe. We want to believe that giving the clerk a fiver will result in our becoming an instant gazillionaire, just like the guy from Omaha whose mug is on the billboard, holding up that check the size of a small car.

Emergent is a religion sold to the gullible.

No, their leaders aren't stupid. They're counting on you for that. Emergent followers want to believe that they can make up their own truth. They want to live without the strictures that God's written word places on us, and still be somehow Christian. So, when they're fed stupid statements like, "there is no absolute truth," or "the Bible has very little propositional truth," they want to believe it. Heaven without holiness. We WANT that.

Think about it,
Phil Perkins.

Truth Is A Person, Not a Proposition, Part III; OR Just How Stupid Was Jesus?

Jesus was a real dolt according to the Emergents. They say He taught in John 14:6 that truth is not propositional when He called Himself "the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Seemingly, though, the Messiah did not listen to His own teachings, in the mind of Emergents. You see, He taught that truth was not propositional with the propositional truth stated in John 14:6.

Furthermore, he continued on to teach in the form of language with all its propositions, like the one in John 17:17 where He proposed, "Your word is truth."
Which only indicates just how confused Jesus was according to the Emergents, because Jesus is here indicating that truth is God's Word, as pointed out by Greg Koukl at Stand To Reason: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6869.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Truth Is A Person, Not A Proposition, Part II

Emergents are telling us that truth is a person, not a proposition because Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Let's work that logic out to all three ways He described Himself, if we take this passage as literally as our Emergent friends would like us to.

Jesus=the Way.

Jesus=the Truth.

Jesus=the Life.

Therefore, by the law of co-equals, truth is life. Yet, we know that the demons believe and tremble. Obviously they have the truth, but are dead.

Second, by the same law truth is the way. I'm sorry, but a way is communicated by language. That means propositions.

Phil Perkins.

Truth Is A Person, Not A Proposition, Part I

Let's see if I can get this right. Some Emergents are saying truth is not propositional because Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Let's explore that logic.

So, how do we know the truth is a person? Because the proposition, "truth is a person," is true, based on a literal (not figurative) understanding of the passage ripped from its context. So, by a propositional truth, we know that truth is not propositional.

Hummmmmmmm. Who's been drinking the bong water?

Phil Perkins.

The Reason Apostacy Comes In

Do you remember the popular bromide, "Evil prevails when good men do nothing?" Well, I'm here to tell you that is twaddle. Men that do nothing aren't good. They're cowards. Evil prevails when there are not enough good men.

The following is from a comment I posted on a believer's blog. He is typical of so many in the evangelical church. He poses as a loving and scholarly believer. As such, he is unable to pronounce aginst any false teacher, even the Emergents. However, his reaction to those that do is strong. He condemned Calvary Chapel's Chuck Smith for banning a number of heresies, including the Emergent.

I think he illustrates the problem. The problem is not the Emergent coming in. It is the cowardice and lack of biblical zeal for God's word in the pew and in the pulpits. Here is how I answered his response to one of my comments. Look for what he says and contrast that to the biblical condemnation of allowing apostates into our circles. His comments are in italics for your ease.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mike,

In all honesty, the attitude that we should be tolerant to everyone is an error. Tolerant of saints that need teaching and correction. Tolerant of unbelievers, not matter their lifestyle. Even tolerant of false-teachers in that we do them no harm. But to give place and approval to false teachers is simply against the stipulations of both new and old covenants.

You said,"when you show up and tell me I\’m in \”error,\” \”not biblical,\”..."

ANSWER: Well, I just quoted the Scripture for you. Do you have an answer? Is my logic wrong, or did God say we should let false teachers in? If I am wrong I will take correction. I am committed to that principle and follow it rigidly, to the point that if I have taught something wrong publicly, I retract it publicly. I am a teacher and had occassion to do just that in class last week.

You said, "...and that I claim to be \”more loving, open minded, or kind than God Himself,\” I don\’t appreciate it."

ANSWER: The logic is simple. Smith has obeyed God's command for separation from apostates. You have criticized him for being too harsh. Therefore, you have criticized God, whether you intended to or not.

You said, "You don\’t know squat about me, my background or my theology."

ANSWER: These things are of no weight in a discussion of this sort, except your theology. And your theology should be made biblical. It is deficient in the separation-unto-holiness department, as is true with most of the Evangelical church. (I don't know if you call yourself Evangelical or not, so I'm just guessing here.) That is, most of us have lived wrongly. Chuck Smith seems odd, but the fact is that most of us Evangelicals have been sinning for a very long time. Smith simply has righted a wrong and so he looks funny to us. Your Chesterton quote goes to this point. He said, "The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice."

You said, "You may be a brother, but if you expect a different response, then ratchet down your rhetoric."

ANSWER: You mean like "demonize?" Or "...Calvary has erred in making blanket condemnations...?" Oh wait, you said that, huh? I don't think I was outside the parameters evident set in the examples of Paul, Jesus, and the prophets and apostles. They spoke frankly without perjoratives to believers in error, and spoke with perjoratives grounded in fact to and about unbelieving false teachers.

You said, "Your entire arguement hinges on the assumption that ALL Emergents are \”false teachers.\” Because there is no \”official\” Emergent Church, headquarters, leader or creed, this CANNOT be substantiated."

ANSWER: Did Hymenaeus and Philetus have a building and a doctrinal statement? Non-sequitor.

You said, "The truth is, as I said in Part Five of my series, some adherents are dangerously close to false doctrine."

ANSWER: (How does he know since they have no headquarters, leader, and creed?--added)I don't know who you have in mind, but they are much more than close. Donald Miller has called anyone who takes a creed a heretic. Brian McLaren has denied both hell and the substitutionary atonement. John O'Keefe is a potty mouth that pushes Communists, sexual perversion, and the drug culture. Mike Morrell came up with what he calls "biblical" panentheism. A local Emergent apostate here in Billings, MT is teaching that Jesus is the TAO. Rob Bell and Tony Jones are active in pushing contemplative prayer on the youth in churches under the nose of uninformed parents. McLaren, David Sherwood, and O'Keefe have all actively worked to normalize sodomy in the church. I could go on. I have read a lot of their own writings.

You said, "However, others (some Emergents) are not (close to false doctrine.)"

ANSWER: How many Emergent types do you know that don't read, take seriously, and spread the teachings of Spencer Burke, McLaren, Bell, Jones, and that whole apostate bunch?

You said, "If you\’re comfortable with generalizing the entire movement and everyone in it (whatever it means to be \”in it\”), that\’s your prerogative. I, however, believe that kind of whitewashing is unwise and unbiblical."

ANSWER: Paul said something about lumps and yeast didn't he? I'm not comfortable with being lukewarm to truth.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you imagine Paul or Jesus making arguments like that?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Open Letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley

I've been Southern Baptist for about ten years. Not by my design, but by God's. It was the closest church in our neighborhood that had acceptable doctrine. Unfortunately, starting in the southeast, the SBC has been infected with young Emergent pastors passing themselves off as orthodox. And now the president of the Southern Baptist Convention and the missions director in the Grand Junction, CO area have embraced the Emergent, as well.

Over the last weeks I have contacted them by email. Kent Shirley from Colorado has not answered. Dr. Frank Page, the president of the SBC has answered, but his answers seemed evasive. And he has not answered my last email. I have tried to give the president the benefit of the doubt. But I think it is obvious from his emails that he is not interested in seriously considering a change. So I have composed an open letter for the both of them.

Open Letter to Frank Page and Kent Shirley

As a Southern Baptist, active in preparing the next generation of youth to hold fast that which was once delivered to the Saints, I am dismayed to learn that you have actually embraced the Emergent/ing. They actively seek to replace that clear message once delivered with postmodern deconstruction. I beg you to reconsider.

The end result for the SBC will be like the liberal Protestant denominations. There will be no next generation, a fact I think is self-evident.

Dr. Page, you have said that you welcome Emergents and their influence into the SBC. You appreciate their "contributions."

Which ones exactly? Their derision of doctrine? Their licentious approval of sexual perversion? The introduction of Eastern Mysticism by Rob Bell to the youth? Brian McLaren’s well-known denial of the substitutionary atonement? The work of Tony Jones to introduce Contemplative Prayer to young people? Shall I continue? This is only the tip of the tip of the iceberg. We can take up the "biblical" panentheism of Mike Morrell, or the profanity of Mark Driscoll and David Sherwood, who also glorifies sodomy.

It is said that to "reach" the postmodern unbeliever, we must take on his language and way of thinking. Not being a young man, I have befriended or known drunks, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, pimps, prostitutes, and atheists. Would you apply that logic to these groups? Should I get a harem so I may effectively witness to a pimp? Get drunk for a drunk? Deny the Lord to win an atheist?

Emergents either deny the truth, deny its importance, or deny its knowability in order to communicate it well to those that think the same. You don’t see a logical (never mind biblical) problem with that?

It is further said that the Emergent/ing pronounce against many of the evils in the modern Evangelical church. So do atheists, Mormons, JW’s, and Jay Leno. Shall we welcome Kingdom Halls into the SBC as long as they "support the Cooperative Program" and have "biblical methodologies" as you say? I have Mormon neighbors. Shall I give them your number?

It is also said that a new strain has emerged from the Emergent called the Emerging and they are much better. Emergent Lite. They believe in truth, they just do not know much about it or are not willing to say it much because that is offensive to postmoderns. Paul, on the other hand, counted on the power of a set of propositions he called the gospel to save. And he didn’t seem to avoid the offense of the cross. He was beaten most places he went. Remember that from the book of Acts? Are the Emergent/ing folks smarter than Paul? They’re certainly not braver. Not saying the gospel is a better way to convert others than saying it? Can potential converts simply surmise it from our pasted-on, ultra-loving smarmy face? Perhaps we can be "missional" and hint at it while we smile a lot, do good works, and read a short article by an Emergent author glorifying the latest doctrinal or behavioral aberration from Spencer Burke.

Paul demanded that believers confess Christ. Out loud. In public.

As much as possible in light of these things, I want to show deference to you, Dr. Page, for two reasons. First, we are to be submissive to those in spiritual authority. Second, perhaps you were not as aware of the poisonous nature of the Emergent as I.

In reference to your authority it is obligatory for an overseer to uphold the standard of truth. You have not.

Is it of no concern to you that you share in their evil work simply by letting them in? Perhaps you remember II John 10-11. "If any man comes to you, not bearing this doctrine, do not receive him into the house and do not speak to greet him. For the man speaking to greet him has fellowship in his evil works."

Apparently it is just fine with you that John O’Keefe openly glorifies the drug culture, Communism, and homosexuality and has been able to remain an SBC pastor for some time now.* Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy entreats us to stop telling folks about Jesus as personal savior and to stop worrying about saving folks from hell. Instead, we are to be "missional," a term currently in vogue with mollifiers in our SBC colleges and seminaries.

In regard to the possibility of ignorance, you could be excused for not knowing of the Emergent. However, being in your position it is your business to know these things. Of all SBC-ers, you are to be the most diligent watchman on our SBC wall. You are not.

Doctrinal compromise to show exaggerated numbers may boost our reputation in many quarters, but it damns the next generation.

What do you think will come of any church or movement that takes on the doctrine of those who deny doctrine? Do you really expect that the children of those who deny that we can know truth will be able to enunciate the doctrines of their parents or even ascertain that which cannot be spoken? On what basis do you think they will build their churches in their generation? Have you forgotten that Christianity is a confessional religion? That means doctrine taken as absolute truth expressed propositionally. Am I right to assume (by outward appearance) that this problem matters little or not at all to you as long as the numbers reflect well on you during your watch? After all, your picture will remain up at SBC headquarters along with a shining record of growth, right?

Don’t be foolish. God will not allow any church to long linger while ashamed of "Me and My words." He will be ashamed of us! Wood, hay, and stubble stack high, but burn hot. We will join the Laodiceans in God’s spittoon, later to be thrown before the stench of our disobedience becomes too vile for God to stomach. God will call real saints who will obediently bring every thought captive to His lordship. They will tread upon our dust, evangelize those whom we ignored for lack of a message, shame our cowardice with the suffering we refused to endure, and teach the doctrines we trivialized while we await our certain, final, and dreadful judgment.

Praying for your repentance,
Phil Perkins.

*Recently I learned that O’Keefe is making a move. So perhaps that problem has been addressed. If so, I thank you.

Donald Miller On Heresy

For all the hee-hawing in the Emergent Obfuscation about how stupid it is to call something heresy, Donald Miller seems to be somewhat out of step with his own movement. According to his website he calls Christians that believe the gospel heretics. Read it here:
http://www.donaldmillerwords.com/searching.php

Miller said, "If we hold that Jesus wanted us to 'believe' certain ideas or 'do' certain things in order to be a Christian, we are holding to heresy." I suppose that would include believing the gospel and repenting from sin.

So, if you're in a Reformed church that emphasize the creeds and requires the confession of Christ as God and Savior or an Evangelical church that urges the confession of Christ, you're "holding to heresy." Didn't know that didja.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Postmodernism Watchtower Style

Wow! Just this Tuesday, I posted an article on this blog about how the Jehovah's Witnesses were similar to and different from the Emergent. One thing I credited the JW's with was the fact that, since they believe in absolute truth, they have a message and go out "witnessing" to their message.

Well, low and behold! Just this afternoon, shortly after the Republicans came to our door and asked us to vote for them, there came two ladies. My wife said, "Here come some more, Honey. Maybe they're Mormons." I said, "No. They're too old and they don't have the little badge that says this guy with the peach-fuzz mustache whose voice changed last week is my elder. They're either Democrats or JW's."

JW's.

Scripture is clear; if someone is wanting to speak of spritual things we are obligated before God to tell them the truth. So, I relunctantly decided to speak to them and witness to Christ's deity. (Wow, am I a jerk! I have no right to be relunctant. I was just plain lazy.)

Here's the ironic part: After opening up the Scriptures and proving that the Watchtower had lied to them (I said "fibbed") the talker lady told me that we all have a right to our own opinions.

Now that is a really dumb thing to say if you're on someone else's door step telling them their religion is wrong and yours is right, but get this: Faced with irrefutable proof, she was wanting to leave quickly before she heard any more facts. And her excuse was that the truth didn't matter.

I politely told her that she did not have the right to just any opinion since God was going to judge her some day and that if she went to the next door, having spoken to me, she would know better. Therefore she would be lying and God would hold her responsible for that. Meanwhile, she was hoping I didn't notice she was backing up in mini-baby-steps down our driveway, trying to pretend that she didn't hate my guts for saying such a thing.

So there you have it. Even the JW's have emerged into just another epistemological zit.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

What Ted Haggard Tells Us About The Emergent

Ted Haggard aint Emergent, right? Yeah, that's right. So?

Evangelicalism has something deadly in common with the Emergent Obfuscation. What sort of gospel did Ted Haggard preach? Was it what was once delivered to the saints? He claimed that he was intent on emphasizing the positive, not negatives like sin and judgment. For a really quick verification of that listen to his answer when he is asked in this interview if he thinks sodomy is wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMAInacGOEo. The interviewer couldn't get a straight yes or no answer if she paid him. Notice he speaks of traditional values, not biblical values. Also, notice how natural lying seems to be for him.

This is not the gospel. It's apostacy and it is so pervasive in Evangelicalism that it has become accepted by most of us.

This is the common thread between Schleiermacher, Barth, Tillich, modern Evangelicalism, and the Emergent. All, in their respective times and cultures, tried to remake the gospel (a new kind of Christian I guess you could say) to fit with their time and culture. We call it contextualization. John called that loving the world. And hating God.

The end result is that sin is not properly hated. Grace is not fully appreciated. And judgment comes.

One difference, though--Haggard tried to hide his sin. The Emergent applauds sin.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Two Whores and a Harem

Read this if you like. I wrote it on my other blog. http://dontadddontsubtract.blogspot.com/2006/11/two-whores-and-harem-or-why-im-not.html