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.