Zits Emerge Truth Abides

Ah TOWED Ja!

2007-04-25T13:41:00.001-07:00

Not long ago, I wrote an article accusing the Emergent of being full of pot heads. I admitted I had no evidence other than the way they acted, talked, and thought (if you can call what they do in their heads "thought"). It was a really spooky thing to do, making an accusation like that without any real evidence other than the sense I got from their manners. So I made sure to make it clear that I was working on a strong impression, not evidence.

BUT........just about two days ago, I was gathering information for a friend. He wanted to know what the Emergent was. So I told him that I would get some Emergent websites listed for him and some sites that were anti-Emergent so he could know just what it is I am talking about all the time infiltrating the church. Among the Emergent sites I listed was theooze.com. When I went over there to cut and paste the url onto the email to my friend, I found this article by Gordon Duncan. He was complaining about what ought to be done with all the potheads he knew, including a lot in the "church."

Hummmm...TOWED Ja!!!!

Enjoying the vindication,
Phil Perkins. PS--I suppose this explains why no Emergent has come on this blog and denied the accusation.

So Who Are You Calling An Oxymoron?!!

2007-04-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

This just in: "postmodern intellectual." That's a phrase I just read at another blog. Al Mohler was describing Stanley Fish as a leading "postmodern intellectual."

He's right. Fish is an intellectual and he's postmodern. However, it seems absurd to me that those two words go together.

A postmodern says that we shouldn't believe much of anything absolutely. Thus, negating the need for any sort of intellectualism at all. It's like buying a bucket of coal to run your electric razor. If nothing much can be known, why be big on knowing?

Have to go now......I'm going to the store to get ice for the oven. I'm baking a bin of 3/4 inch, fine-thread hex nuts and a ham with Pinse-sol glaze for Passover.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part III

2007-03-23T18:40:00.000-07:00

Erwin McManus is a superstar Southern Baptist pastor in California, known for his love of Celtic pagan worship mixed with biblical worship and his popularity among Emergent religionists. In this series of articles, I explore and expose a number of lies he presented in his book, The Barbarian Way. I have done nine individual lies so far. We pick up with number ten.

LIE #10. The gospel is not about salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins. Page 32. Specifically, McManus states that the idea of salvation by faith for the forgiveness of sins in order to escape God's wrath "results in our domestication." If you have not read the book, the theme is in the title. He exhorts young, male church-goers to live outside the authority of the church and its leaders. He uses buzz words, "domestication" and "civilization" for evil and "barbarian" and "danger" for good. Barbarian includes a disdain for biblical authority. This he calls the Barbarian Way and he says the great men of Scripture were like this, too. Here is what he says: "So what is the good news? The refined and civilized version goes something like this: Jesus died and rose from the dead so that you can live a life of endless comfort, security, and indulgence. But really this is a bit too developed. Usually, it's more like this: if you'll simply confess that you're a sinner and believe in Jesus, you'll be saved from the torment of eternal hellfire, then go to heaven when you die. Either case results in our domestication."

The deception is really thick here. First, notice he equates the health-and-wealth gospel with the real gospel. Why? The believe-in-Jesus-and-get-rich-and-healed message never was the gospel of orthodox Christianity and faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins has always been the gospel. So why mention both as though they are of the same weight? The former is a modern invention of the televangelist thieves. The latter is the gospel of historical Christianity.

The only reason I can think of to do this is to relate the true to the obviously false so that both will be rejected. He doesn't really define the gospel, but he does go on to indicate it involves being dangerous and barbarian. It can't be seperated from those things. In this way, he plants in the minds of his readers the idea that rebelling against authority is really good. The authorities are evil.

LIE #11. Jesus' mission was not to seek and save the lost. Page 31. McManus writes, "Even then Jesus understood His mission was to save us not from pain and suffering, but from meaninglessness." Interestingly, embedded with the main lie is another even more hideous. Notice the "Even then Jesus understood..." So it seems Jesus caught onto something earlier than Erwin might expect.

NEWS FLASH FOR ERWIN: Jesus is God. He doesn't catch on to anything, because He knows all things.

McManus, here, is trying to redirect our attention. The main reason Jesus came was to be the Lamb of God Who takes away our sins. McManus wants us to believe otherwise. He wants us to forget that and concentrate on the personal fulfillment we can get. If that is the point of Christianity, why not be a Communist. Many have found that added meaning to their lives. Or a Buddhist, or a Shriner, or a Republican, or a Muslim, or...

LIE #12. "Sacrifice and servanthood" are part of unruliness and rebellion. Page 34. This is really just an example of the double talk so common in Emergent writings. On the one hand, McManus calls the young to be barbarians. On the other, one has to sound vaguely Christian to sell books through the local "Christian" book store. So put in something like this: "The bargarian way is about love expressed through sacrifice and servant hood." Yeah, that ought to do it.

LIE #13. Jesus called Peter (and by extension all the other disciples and you too, Boopy) to be a barbarian. Page 35. Look at the illogic Erwin asks his readers to embrace: "Peter found himself being called to the barbarian way." He then recites John 21:18-19 as proof. (The book has "17-19." An editorial mistake, since the quote begins with verse 18.) That passage contains Jesus' prophecy that Peter would die at a very old age and in an infirm condition and it calls for Peter to submit to His will. How that leads to a barbaric way of life, I don't know. I'm sure Erwin doesn't know either. But he bet most of his readers wouldn't catch on to the nonsense. In this day and age he is right.

LIE #14. You should ignore good rules of hermeneutics and teach the young by example to be sloppy in their interpretation. Page 45. Okay, he didn't actually say it. Instead, he modeled it. This is the kind of hermeneutics a first or second year Bible school student taking his first biblical interpretation course would get an F for if he did it. He said, "...the biblical word for witness is actually the word for martyr."

Put on your thinking caps here. Hermeneutics is just the fancy word for biblical interpretation, in case you're wondering. McManus committed two hermeneutical errors not fitting for a first year bible college student. First, he cited the New Testament word for "witness" as "the biblical word" for it. How about the other 70% of the Bible, Erwin? The Old Testament is in Hebrew, not Greek. Do you suppose it uses a word or two for "witness?" In fact, it did use several words, but when making a point pick your data and lie as if the rest of the data doesn't exist. Try that in court and see if you win many cases. Or even if you're still a member of the bar. Try that in science and see how many papers you get published. And get ready to teach at a back water school that couldn't get anyone else. Is Erwin, the real life communication wizard that he actually is, that stupid or is he lying?

The second hermeneutical mistake is even worse if you can imagine. It's called the time-frame fallacy. It is a fallacy often committed by Evangelical preachers that are uneducated, sloppy, or don't care about anything more than whipping up the folks and getting complements. This book is put out by Nelson Books, an old and respected Christian publishing house which has lost its integrity as most have. I hold them responsible as well. They knew better at one time.

The time-frame fallacy works like this: To make a dramatic pint in a sermon (or book) I can take a dramatic word in the English, find its Greek origin, if it has one, and tie it to my text to make the sermon more exciting.

The problem with that is two fold. First, it starts with human wants and the ego or employment aspirations of the preacher/writer, instead of the text of the Word of God. Second, it's often wrong in its conclusions because the meaning of a word in its historical, cultural context is what counts, not how the word came to mean what it means or what it or its cognates will mean in the future. The origins of a word are its etymology. A common example of this fallacy is the English word "dynamite." Often preachers will use that word to juice up a sermon about the power of God, the power of the Spirit, or the power of the Christian. The Greek word for the power to do something is "dunamis." (There is another Greek word that has to do with the power of authority.) From "dunamis" Mr. Nobel made the word for his invention of nitroglycerin mixed with sawdust, "dynamite." No New Testament author had the idea of "dynamite" in his mind when he wrote "dunamis." Here's the proof: They had never heard of dynamite becaue it hadn't been invented yet. So to read history backwards and say that Paul meant an explosive substance or anything like it is simply wrong. He meant "dunamis," not "dynamite."

Erwin did that same thing. The Greek word for "testify" is "martureo." The noun "witness" (one who testifies, not one who sees) is "martur." As history unfolded those that died for the faith were called God's witness. As such, the Greek word provided the root of the English word "martyr" for one who died or suffered for a cause. That was not in the mind of the writers of the New Testament. They meant one who testifies whether they suffered as a result or not. (But it really jazzes up Mr. McManus' point, and selling books, not accuracy to the Word of God is his main point, I think.)

Now I ask again, is Erwin that stupid or is he lying. I'm not asking this just to make the point that McManus is no good. (I've made that clear from the beginning.) However, I ask it for this reason: If he's lying, he's unfit as a Christian leader on moral grounds. If he's that stupid, he's unfit to teach because he doesn't adequately comprehend the subject or even how to study the primary texts.

You don't need to decide. Either possibility makes it imperative that the body of Christ discard him as a teacher until he changes.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part II

2007-03-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

This is the second installment of my article started on the mistakes, lies, biblical misrepresentations, and general false teachings by Erwin McManus in his book, The Barbarian Way. I want to make clear just what I am NOT doing. I am not spoofing him to make a point that he's stupid. He's an ingenious communicator. I am refuting him because he's lying. And his lies are subtle. The first time I read through the book, I was uncomfortable because it seemed so sloppy in the quotes and biblical conclusions drawn. I knew there were some outright lies, but for the most part it felt like the usual pop-Evangelical, anti-intellectual palaver so common in books, sermons, and the radio and TV--Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, etc. The logic seemed silly and stilted. The second time through it was obvious to me he was not sloppy. He was slanting things toward a goal. He was building an integrated lie.

This installment will deal primarily with a particular lie he tells about John the Baptist and its ancillary sub-lies. The theme lie is that John the Baptist was a "barbarian" (That's good.) and all the bad guys in the New Testament were "domesticated" and "civilized." (That's bad.) Just like your mom told you, one lie leads to another. In order to support this lie, some more have to be spun so the reader will think he knows all about John from reading Erwin. Like all false teachers, McManus depends heavily on the fact that most church goers are biblically ignorant. One read through any one of the gospels would tell the reader McManus is rewriting history.

LIE #6. John the Baptist preached the avoidance of God's wrath through repentance to only the religious class. The "irreligious" are, evidently, just fine and don't need that message. Page 22. Here our misguide to hysterical Christianity writes, "...his (John the Baptist) fire-and-brimstone message was entirely directed toward the religious, not the irreligious...He had no patience for domesticated religionists who were drowning in their own self-righteousness." (Notice the self-righteous tone of the author here!) Yes, in Erwinland only the irreligious are righteous. The rest of you are just on the way to hell, unless you repent of your repentance.

The slight of keyboard here is accomplished by equating the corrupt religious authorities of John's time with ALL religious authorities today--well, except for Erwin, of course. The point is, don't trust or submit to your dad or your pastor or your church or your denomination. They are bad, like the Pharisees. McManus and you are righteous, like John, Moses, and Paul. Your dad and your pastor are self-righteous. You and Erwin are not self-righteous. How do we know that? Well, because Erwin says so.

McManus simply lied about the whole thing. John preached the whole gospel to the whole crowd--Pharisees, Sadducees, and commoners. Read what the Spirit says in Luke 3:7-9: "So he began saying to the crowds who were going out to be baptized by him, 'You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruits in keeping with repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, "We have Abraham for our father," for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. Indeed the axe is already laid at the root of the trees; so every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.'"

The truth is that he did not even begin in Jerusalem. He started in the wilderness and the people of Jerusalem came out to hear him while he was still out there in the country of the Jordan.

LIE #7. John the Baptist was not an ascetic like we all thought for lo these past 2000 years. No, every Christian, Christian cleric, Christian theologian, pastor, priest, nun, pew-sitting believer or non-believer, and each and every choir member who ever existed from Pentecost until the advent of Erwin McManus has been seriously wrong. John was a law-flaunting, uncivilized, mouth-foaming, uneducated, out-of-control barbarian. Page 22. Erwin prattles, "He (John) was a barbarian in the midst of civilization. And frankly the civilization made him sick." This is truly a monument to the biblical illiteracy and spiritual laziness of the typical Evangelical. Anyone who can swallow a line like this is obviously due for a scriptural tune up. Such a person doesn't read the Bible much. McManus made a bet that a lot of young, naive, church-going males would be stupid enough to by his book. And his story. He won the bet.

Where in Scripture is there any indication that civilization made John the Baptist sick? No where. Where in Scripture is there any indication that civilization as a concept or a practice is evil apart from the effects of the fall? No where. One must be reminded that God told man to go out and multiply--hence, civilization is mandated by God Himself.

To further this ridiculous idea, Erwin says King Herod was "civilized" and John was a "barbarian" in Chapter 2. Herod, you might recall, had taken his brother's wife. John preached against this barbarity and Herod jailed him for it. Yet, in Erwinland, the sexually uncontrolled drunk is civilized and the tea-totalling, mostly vegetarian preacher is the barbarian. Just what sort of glasses did Erwin use to read the New Covenant anyway? Or did he bother?

LIE #8. Education bad. Ignorance good. That is, according to the example of John the Baptist. Page 22. Far from the biblical standard of studying to show oneself approved, the fictious John the Baptist of Erwinland, is into eating locusts and watching MTV as sermon prep. Again, where in Scripture are we told John had no formal training of any kind? While it's possible, it's not to be assumed. He probably did have formal training, since he was the son of a priest, Zacharias. Arguing by silence, he must not have had kidneys since they are never mentioned in Scripture.

LIE #9. No one could have anticipated that an austere man like John the Baptist would introduce the Messiah. Page 22. "To say the least, he was not the person whom anyone was expecting to prepare the way for the Messiah." That's right. In Erwinland, they don't have the books of Isaiah and Malachi. In fact, no Israelite ever had any notion of just how austere the prophets could be in Erwinland.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Barbarian Lies, Part I

2007-03-20T04:52:00.000-07:00

Mark Johnson, a friend of mine, recently asked me about Erwin McManus. Apparently, some of his friends are currently getting into McManus and Mark wants some answers. Well, here are some thoughts out of McManus' book, The Barbarian Way.

LIE #1. Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu prayer are the same and addressed to the same God. Page 14. We read, "Every devout believer--in fact, any person of faith from any religious persuasion, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or whatever--believes in prayer, but we all know prayer is supposed to be us talking to God." Actually, no. Christians do not believe in prayer. Biblically informed Christians believe in God. Since they believe in God, they pray to Him. Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims do not pray to the same God as Christians. Some pray to Allah and some to ancestors and some to various gods in the Hindu pantheon. Those are the gods they believe in. And, yes, many pagans believe in some sort of magical power in prayer. Some that call themselves Christians do as well. However, biblically informed Christians do not practice any sort of witchcraft or sorcery. They simply speak to their Father. The power is in Him, not in their prayer or some formula for speaking to a deity. Even the act called "prayer" in other religions is different than Christian prayer. Further discussion of this can be found here.

This man is a Southern Baptist pastor. Why is he equating Christian prayer to that of other religions that don't even acknowledge the Christian God?

LIE #2. There are other sources of truth beside the Scripture. Page 14. Pastor McManus has found out that another source of spiritual knowledge has emerged. How does he know this? Because he watched the movie "Braveheart." Well, there you go! He writes, "One of my favorite characters in Braveheart was the Irish guy who joined William Wallace in his crusade. Remember him, the crazy guy who talked to God?" McManus then relates that this character said God had told him that Wallace's fight was to be "fashionable." This is then seen to indicate to McManus that the fight he is calling the readers to is "fashionable" and only the "finest people" will involve themselves. Obviously a flattery to enlist the naive. At any rate, he calls the young and naive to listen to God for information they will not get from the Bible on pages 14-15.

LIE #3. We are saved to engage in a religion that glorifies self. Page 14 again. At the top we read, "You have been recreated to live in a raw and primal spirituality." This is a lie on three levels. First on the level of the individual believer, the Spirit says in Ephesians 2:10, "For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them." This is in contrast to McManus' vision of barbariansim for the young Christian. Second, as to God's ultimate purpose, His glory is the reason for our salvation. I Chronicles 22:10 says this about the salvific work of Christ: "He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." Isaiah 43:6-7 says,
"I will say to the north,
'Give them up!'
And to the south, 'Do not hold them back '
Bring My sons from afar
And My daughters from the ends of the earth,
Everyone who is called by My name,
And whom I have created for My glory,
Whom I have formed, even whom I have made."

Third, on the level of how God and His saints relate to the rest of the world, Malachi tells us that the point of salvation in God's plan for the nations is the glory of His name. "'For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,' says the LORD of hosts."

LIE #4. Christians who exhibit discipline, self-control, and submission to proper authorities in the church don't really love and obey Jesus. Page 15. McManus writes, "Barbarians (folks of whom McManus approves) are not welcome among the civilized (church) and are feared by the domesticated (folks of whom McManus does not approve.) The way of Jesus is far to savage (good to McManus) for their sensibilities." Parentheticals added for clarity based on the content of the entire book. Notice the three-fold drive-by smear against real Christians. First, obedient Christians are weak--"domesticated" in McManus' terms. Second, obedient Christians are fearful. They are scared of the "barbarian." Third, obedient Christians don't obey Christ. Instead, they think He is savage.

LIE #5. Jesus was a "savage" Who lacked self-control and obedience. Page 15 again, and see the same quote as point four. Jesus' obedience and self control are on display throughout the gospels. Even at His clearing of the temple, He did not show uncontrolled anger. He started by taking the time to make a whip, beat the dickens out of enough of the phonies inside to scare everyone else out of the temple and gave the a short lesson on the theology of worship, complete with at least one biblical quote while doing so. In addition, He constantly told all who listened that He did only what the Father told Him to do. This exhibits both self-control and obedience, not savagery or barbarianism.

I will continue this article in segments.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Rob Auld's Objections Answered

2007-03-02T10:10:00.000-08:00

I'm overdue on this. I recently had an Emergent get really mad at me for the evangelization tips I published for witnessing to Emergents. His name was Rob Auld. I had to censor him because his remarks were at times just insults and not arguments. I gave him a lot of chances. The only comment I censored had a number of good objections that I would like to answer. So I promised Rob I would. I want to answer these objections because they are substantial. Christians ought to have an answer for them and Emergents ought to have these objections to historical orthodoxy answered in order for them to come to the truth, as well. So here are his objections sans a number of schoolyard insults:

ROB: I'm arguing that the Bible is to be believed, perhaps not literally in all cases (Genesis, Abraham's boosom (sic) Jonah, Job etc)...

ANSWER: What in Genesis is not true? Moses presented all of it as true. He did not say, "Here is a parable. In the Beginning God created..."

Logic 101--There are only three possibilities for the veracity of a statement proposed as true by the speaker/writer. It is a mistake. It is a lie. It is true.

There are no other possibilities. Moses presented Genesis as true. If your position is true and Moses is wrong, he was either a deluded fool or a liar. Paul used the Genesis account as the reason for gender roles. If creation is wrong, so are the epistles. Check out his use of the rib-to-Eve story and the story of the fall. He took them as literal. Jesus used the same stories to justify the permanency of marriage. If you do not take Genesis literally as true, you deny Christ.

ROB: ...but hyperbole and story is the way God has chosen to communicate.

ANSWER: God uses a number of literary genre, forms, and devices, including hyperbole and story. However, you miss four important things here.

First is the simple fact that we Christians are aware of that. Since I was old enough to understand language, I knew what a parable was. Assuming Christians don't know this almost seems as though you are purposely making a straw man. In fact, I have never known anyone who read the Bible at all who did not realize this.

Second, you mention "story." You are making another wrong assumption here. Narrative in Scripture is meant to give real history. It is not an imagined story. Every writer of Scripture has recognized this. As I pointed out, the writers of the Pentateuch, the Chronicles, Samuel, the Kings, Esther, Ruth, the Gospels, etc. do not say, "This is just a story." They are relating what really happened. Hence the geographical references and the genealogies. The contemporaries of the writers realized this, too. Ask yourself this question: "If I follow Jesus and Jesus is told of in the Gospels and if I do not believe the Gospels, what do I really know of this Jesus and how can I follow Him Whom I cannot surely know?" Your assertion that you are a follower of Christ is now meaningless, because the terms of your own views render such a claim untestable. That is to say your doctrine and behavior could be anything and still fit the claim. In a word "Repent!" is now meaningless because you cannot tell what doctrines and behaviors are approved or disapproved of by your "Jesus," whoever he may be.

Third, while God has used hyperbole and parable, these forms do not stand alone. Entire books of the New Testament are doctrinal theses--Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews for starters. Hence, to simply wave your hand and erase all we can know of God on the basis that the Scripture has these two forms ignores the rest of Scripture, even if one concedes (and I don't) that we cannot know much through these two forms.

Fourth, even with the literary devices of hyperbole and story, communication is accomplished. "I could eat a horse." That's hyperbole. Yet it communicates a truth.
And only ONE TRUTH. It is not up to interpretation. It communicates with clarity. No one will ask, "Are you hungry?" They already know that. And no one will think "I could eat a horse" means "I can't hear." Everyone knows it means "I'm hungry."

So appealing to hyperbole, even in those passages where it is used, it is not an excuse.

ROB: THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE BOOK,

ANSWER: No one I know has ever said it is. It has little to say about science. However, it is not in error, either. If it errs in science, it is not the word of God. Read Deuteronomy 18.

ROB: ...AND (the Bible) IS A VERY ONE-SIDED HISTORY BOOK.(This is where the nuance and thinking comes in).

ANSWER: Bias is quite a flaw. Obviously, it is not accurate in your view. That goes far beyond nuance. To really answer this in a more specific way, you will have to tell me exactly what the bias is. At any rate its views are suspect in your schema.

ROB: The Bible tells us about the Character of God. It also tells us about the original plan God had for His creation.

ANSWER: Well, that's nice, but as I have already said, since the Bible is flawed, what is the key by which we ascertain the true and the false? If you cannot give us the key, the Bible is useless. It tell us nothing, especially since it's biased.

ROB: It (the Bible) tells us that we are sinful and need God. God wanted to reconcile and sent his Son as a Perfect example. To die for humanity so we didn't have to reap the consequences of our choices. Did we need to know more to be a Christian?

ANSWER: Yes. A lot. For starters, Jesus did not come primarily as an example, but as the Lamb of God. And it is not what we know alone. Jesus said, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

ROB: It may be helpful to know what specific issues people writing the book were dealing with. Otherwise, you can completely misinterpret what God is saying.

ANSWER: This is basic hermeneutics. We Christians use this method. The goal is to ascertain the intent of the author. Assuming we don't know this is wrong. In fact, Emergents like Robert Webber, John H. Armstrong, and Brian McLaren deny this method. And liberals like Karl Barth deny it also. So you're pointing the wrong direction on this one.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Pot Heads Doing Church?

2007-03-02T09:32:00.000-08:00

I'm not saying I know I'm right on this, but I have a suspicion. And it's just a suspicion. I want you to consider it for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I have for a long time thought that drugs and the Emergent went together. I say that for two reasons. For one thing, the Emergent has outlets that look like a head shop. John O'Keefe's old site used to sell t-shirts with drug themes and communist themes. Go look at theooze.com and see if it doesn't remind you of a copy of High Times Magazine. The other reason I have long suspected that many Emergents are religionists who won't kick the drug habit is their manner at times. Watch this video and see what I mean.

Vulgarity seems a hallmark of the Emergent heresy, too. For instance, as you listen to this video you will hear some of that, too. It all shows the spiritual bankruptcy of the Emergent. These folks are not Christians. They kid themselves.

I'm just saying what I see.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Emergent: Ignorance With A Purpose

2007-03-02T09:11:00.000-08:00

If you wonder why Emergents have discovered the new understanding that no one can understand the Scripture inspite of the fact Jesus said we could, here is a little 5-minute excerpt from a John MacArthur sermon. Go here and scroll down. Look to the right hand column. Find "Mentioned On The Air." Click the "John MacArthur: Emerging Church" link and take a listen. (Hint: It's because they love their sin.)

Sorry for the nearly-two-week hiatus. I have been writing a lot at Al Tosap.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Nudists and Postmoderns

2007-02-17T09:08:00.001-08:00

Leonard Ravenhill had something interesting to say in his sermon, "Hell Has No Exits" and it applies quite well to the Emergent.

As you know, if you've become familiar with the Emergent heresy, the BIG REASON the Emergents say it is okay to be postmodern in your thought life is that we have to "be like 'em to reach 'em," a heresy common in the Evangelical church. Well, Ravenhill took up the subject of immodest dress in the church. Naturally, he got the usual excuse, "We have to dress like them to reach them."

To which he said, "I suppose some of you boys are praying you'll get called to a nudist colony."

Just thinking,
Phil Perkins. PS--Hear Ravenhill's sermons at sermonaudio.com.

Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences III

2007-02-14T08:05:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?

1. Emergents claim to be loving and tolerant, but call you "Fundie," "pig," "hypocrit," "moronic," or worse if you simply ask them to obey the God of the Bible.

2. Okay, the challenge was for three sentences and this is only two.

3. So, here's the other one.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

A New Category, An Old Strategy

2007-02-14T07:47:00.000-08:00

One of the things I decided to do at the very first of this blog was to draw Emergents out to show their real character. I can't recall right now who I first read who said one of the hallmarks of the Emergent is anger. A good book to read by an Emergent is The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus. He seeks, seemingly, to attempt to channel the anger of young church going males and sanctify it. The theme of the book is a refusal to become self-controlled in the area of anger and rebellion. Of course, he doesn't say it in those words, that would be too obvious. Instead, he speaks of not allowing yourself to be "domesticated."

In spite of their constant drum beat of tolerance and love, the real Emergent face is one of severe anger toward God, the Bible, and those who love both. So, if you want a little taste of the true character of the Emergent, click on the "Emergent Anger" label in the category box. I just added that category--I don't know why I didn't do so earlier.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--Okay, I DO know why. I'm old and I can't remember...stuff.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part III--Something He Wants To Say Pubicly

2007-02-14T07:11:00.000-08:00

Rob insists that this be made public. I have footnoted answers. Here it is:

Phil
I think you're a coward for removing that comment and want to say so publically.

The comment stands as written and you're a coward for removing it.(1) I'm not interested in censorship of any kind.(2) This is so typical of you fundies. Make substantive arguments and they censor you. (3)

Good luck with your message and once again Congrats on your promotion to god. I'm sure you've got some great advice for him. (4)

Btw, I was wrong you are a welder. My question was what gives a welder the education necessary to teach at a bible college? (5) I don't claim to be a scholar. You do. Defend yourself.

Rob

1. Actually, I've let you get away with many more gratuitous insults than most would.

2. I find that hard to believe since your first communication to me was, "Phil, You sound like a pig. Rob." Isn't that insult lingo for "Shut up. I hate you?"

3. This is one reason you're censored, Rob. You know I offered to republish the comment if you edit out the gratuitous insults and fabrications. This is an example of just such a fabrication. And that offer still stands.

4. And that's the other reason. Gratuitous insults. If you have an opinion, say it and support it. That sort of talk is just an ejaculation of perturbation.

5. A masters degree from one of the better evangelical seminaries in the country at that particular time, Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, now called Western Seminary.

I will put up one more thing from Rob. The comment I deleted had substantive issues worth answering. If he resubmits his comment without the gratuitous insults I will publish it as an article. If not, I will glean the actual arguments, publish them, and answer them some time in the next few days. They're worth answering for the edification of others. Beyond that, I want to move on to other topics. And I'm sure most of my three readers would like that, too.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Email To Rob Auld

2007-02-13T10:57:00.000-08:00

Here is an email I just sent to Rob Auld:

Rob,
I published your last comment on The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld. I did so because there are substantive issues worth dealing with. However, after giving it some thought, I deleted it because of the gratuitous insults. If you would like to edit it and be more polite, I will be glad to publish it. Here are two examples of what I mean:

1. You accused me of lying when I held you accountable for misrepresenting my requests for politeness as threats. You said I was hiding the fact I was going to censor you if you did not add real arguments to buttress your evaluations. This is a moderated site. And the only way you could have known that I expressed any intention of censoring you was if I said so publicly. And I did so in the comment threads publicly published here, not taken down since the beginning of our interaction.

2. You again called me "mentally unbalanced." That sort of remark is not made with any sort of intent but to hurt.

So, if you think me wrong, stupid, a pig, or a plumber, say so with an argument that is logical and biblical. Then I will not censor you.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--Here is your comment in case you have not saved it in some form:

The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld, part II

2007-02-13T08:08:00.000-08:00

Rob Auld is not unusual. He is a typical Emergent. He goes into circles of believers. He pretends to believe the Scripture by saying so. When examined closely he denies the authority of the Scriptures. If you want to read all his comments on this site go back to EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS Part I and work your way forward in time. You will see that I am not stretching the truth here. At one point I shared the gospel of repentance with him and edited some of the articles and to make him feel welcome here. (He is still welcome to comment here. I just wanted to get him to open up more.) After being asked to repent and follow Jesus whole-heartedly in doctrine and behavior, he refused, so I undid most of the editing I did for his comfort because it is important for the church to know Emergents are not believers and it is even more important for Emergents to know that so they can set it right with God.

So here is more from Rob as an example of what Emergent doctrine does to the heart and mind. His words with a few explanatory parentheses are in italics. Mine are not:

closed mindedness...(and)...a mentally unbalanced state. (Things Rob accuses non-Emergents of having.)

I'm a liberal and believe that this is what God wants of me.

This is the most idiotic, condescending post I've ever read. Do some research, then come talk to me.

The Bible is our norming norm in the community of God. (as opposed to the non-norming norm?)

1. I'd like to sell my eldest daughter into slavery, what would be a fair price?
2. The Bible claims the plants were created before the sun. Plants use photosynthesis to survive, how exactly did this work?
3. The Bible says that my hands shouldn't come into contact with Pig Skin. What about the Superbowl today? (Questions to prove the Bible is bunk and not to be obeyed, even though he had already admitted that it had the right to tell him how to think--and getting really angry at me for asking if it did. It should be noted that these remarks were written immediately after the paragraph in which he said it was our "norming norm." Is there any logic in Emergent World?)

...do I think it's inerrant, infalliable (sic) etc. The answer there is no.

If your (sic) looking for literal answers... (No, Rob. Speak only in symbols. I prefer it that way. With actual answers we can't be as confused as we'd like. In fact, burn every book ever written that isn't at least 90% figurative. No one needs math, logic, history, medicine, physics, biology, mechanical engineering, architecture, electrical engineering, or the Bible anyway. Let's go back to hunting and gathering. Let's see now...where is that figurative deer to kill symbolically so that my family can be clothed allegorically and fed non-literally...I hope my arrow flies straight in a figurative sort of way...)

It (the Bible) is profitable for Doctrine, reproof etc. Okay, so the "norming norm," though having numerous errors and entire concepts that are bogus, according to Rob Auld, is good for "Doctirne." Which ones, Rob? Is there a key you have in mind to tell which ones are good and which ones are stupid? We'll need that key.

Don't threaten me. This was Rob Auld's response when I asked him to be polite enough to explain why believers are "moronic" or "pig(s)" or "plumbers" or some such insulting thing.

All you need is the scripture. This was in sarcasm, denying the authority of Scripture.

Frankly, your responses are typically Fundamentalist. This was meant as a smear. Notice, there is no supporting argument--only the insult.

You know more then anyone and you have the Absolute Truth because the Bible's on your side. This was in sarcasm, ridiculing those who rely on Scripture.

Don't worry about context and nuance (of Scripture) because you're right. Well, Rob, if you do not trust Scripture, what difference does its context or nuance make?

I'll thank you not to pronounce judgement over my final destination and whether I know Jesus or not. Actually, you have said you will not obey Scripture and given examples. Jesus said if we are ashamed of Him and His words, He will be ashamed of us. And He gave us two tests of whether or not we are His. One is whether or not we obey Him. Find that in John 10. The other is whether or not we obey the Father. Find that in I and II John. It is a theme of both books. Then decide for yourself.

Did you notice the haughty attitude for "plumbers?" Why did he feel he had to say such a thing? If Rob is an electrical engineer or a brain surgeon, his anscestors were blue collar. One might remind Rob, that he claims to follow (but actually doesn't) a carpenter. He is simply smarter than pretty much everyone else, I guess.

Which brings up this question: Since Emergents claim to know (believe) so little why do they look down on the intelligence of others so much? They sit in judgment on the apostles and prophets, deciding if what they wrote can be believed. Peter walked, ate, and evangelized with Jesus for three years, but Rob and other Emergents will decide if what Peter wrote is true?! Paul was commandeered by Jesus after having become a biblical scholar with one of the highest ranks in Israel. Then he actually corrected Peter. And Emergents decide if we can believe Paul?! And men like Brian McLaren or John Armstrong call believers arrogant?!

So take this as an example of the typical Emergent. They are not believers and they hate those who are because they hate the God of Scripture.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Rob Auld

2007-02-11T20:52:00.000-08:00

Here are a few new comments receieved today from "Rob." He is an Emergent with some very pointed things to say.

Phil, You sound like a pig.
Rob

Phil, You are absolutely moronic in your analysis.
Rob

Phil,You are absolutely moronic in your analysis.
Rob

Phil, Don't threaten me. Censor away, I submit you've censored quite a bit in your life. How can I leave Emergent? What is there to leave? We don't have to define ourselves along your sad denominational lines. We look to include and focus on those issues. You look to exclude and divide. We'll see whose 'more right' in the end I suppose. In the meantime, how does a plumber qualify to teach in a Bible school?

Rob

Ah there. Can't you just feel the Emergent love?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins, non-plumber. PS--Wonder if he hates carpenters, too.

Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences II

2007-02-09T13:04:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?

1. Emergents call themselves believers.

2. Emergents follow folks like Brian McLaren who says you really can't be certain of anything, Donald Miller who says we don't have to believe the gospel and if you say we do you're a heretic, and John H. Armstrong who says certitude is an idol.

3. The challenge was for three sentences, so here's another one. :)

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Proving Emergents Are Liars In Three Sentences I

2007-02-09T12:55:00.000-08:00

Oh yeah? How do you prove Emergents are liars and hypocrits in three sentences?

1. Emergents talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and whine and whine and whine and moan and moan and moan about how mean Christians are to sodomites for saying that sodomy is wrong.

2. Christians all over the western world, including America, are now going to jail for saying sodomy is a sin.

3. Emergents don't say anything in the defense of pastors and grandmothers jailed in this way for their faith.

Ta Da. That was easy. I'll have to do this more often.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Big Silva Lining In Emergent Cloud!

2007-02-08T07:18:00.000-08:00

THE CLOUD

Ken Silva at Apprising ministries made a rather depressing point the other day in this article about Emergents that are now denying they are Emergent. Obviously, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, and Donald Miller are Emergent in doctrine, whether they admit it or not.

As soon as I read the article, I thought, "Oh great! Another pack of Emerfibs to deconstruct; it never ends." Mark Driscoll seemed to start that particular trend. After being Emergent for years he said he was Emergent no longer. In less than a year, he is the star of Evangelicalism appearing with good men like John Piper. (As good as Piper's preaching and doctrine are, I am shocked at his lack of discernment.) What has Driscoll done? Well, he still has the jazz of something new, without the stigma of the Emergent. Suddenly he's doubly famous.

I suppose other Emergents are seeing his success and want some of that pie for themselves. This is disingenuous. (That means they're lying, for those of you in Rio Linda.) It's an Emerfib for two reasons:

1. Bell, McManus, Miller, and the rest know that their doctrine is Emergent.

2. Bell, McManus, Miller, and the rest know that their fame has been built by catering to the Emergent.

As Pastor Silva, points out, if it walks like a.......well...you know the rest.

Even Brian McLaren has gotten into the act. While he hasn't decided to no longer be Emergent, he has obviously lost the absolute truth debate. Now he is redefining the debate in terms of certainty. The argument is like this: "Okay there is absolute truth, but if you say you know what any of it is, you're stupid." And like the absolute truth argument, it fails. All one has to do is ask if Brian is all that certain that we cannot be certain. Two good articles on this are found here and here.

THE SILVER LINING

About three minutes after I read the article, though, a smile came to my ugly, going-to-turn-50-years-old-tomorrow face. Here's why: THEY HAVE TO LIE ABOUT WHO THEY ARE! They're squirming! Lying about their doctrine, changing how they state their doctrine because they are tired of loosing the debate--all this points not to their success, but to their failure. Otherwise, why change? Why not stay with a successful formula? The enemy has blinked.

It means folks like Pastor Silva, the Christian Research Network, thinkerup.blogspot.com., and others are having an effect. To all the pastors out there who have been vigilant and told their folks about the Emergent heresy, and to all the folks out there that have spoken to their pastors about the Emergent heresy, keep on fighting the good fight. Readjust your gunsights for this new tactic, but for now...

...this is a thanksgiving moment.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Come And Die!

2007-02-06T18:46:00.000-08:00

COME AND DIE!
Come and join a Billings street preaching team. We will concentrate in Billings going to parks, bars, and all sorts of public spaces. You can sharpen your gospel preaching skills. Learn to preach the law and the gospel as God’s tools for saving souls. We will also be preaching repentance at church parking lots all over town to church-goers.

Requirements:
1. Prayer and fasting. You will be expected to do both the day before an event.
2. Holiness of life. You will be expected to confess all sin and get rid of it before an event.
3. Preach and witness at least once a week. Week days and Saturdays we will go to the skateboard park, other parks, bars, gathering places, etc. There we will preach repentance and grace to unbelievers with boldness. On Sundays we will preach repentance to church goers in the parking lots of Billings churches.

Opportunities:
1. Preach repentance and grace in Billings and surrounding towns.
2. Sing for the Lord.
3. See folks saved.
4. Be mocked as He was mocked.

Needed:
1. Musicians.
2. Preachers.
3. Witnessers.
4. Prayer warriors to pray during events.

Contact: Phil Perkins 406-672-7450.

A Living Example/Warning

2007-02-05T06:38:00.000-08:00

Interestingly, the main feedback to my three part article on Evangelizing Emergents is from angry Emergents.

I predicated the articles on the fact that Emergents, if truly trusting in Emergent doctrines, are not Christian believers at all. Rather, they are self-deceived and need to be confronted with this fact. And that's the best-case scenario. The worst case is that they are knowingly attempting to deceive others. I started with two questions that Emergents can't answer. 1. Is there such a thing as a right answer? 2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?

This weekend a very angry Emergent ripped into me. His name is Rob. He answered both questions "yes." However, as the conversation went on it became obvious Rob does not obey Scripture at all. Was he lying? I think yes and no. If you read the comment threads on the first and second parts of "Evangelizing Emergents" and look for Rob, you will probably find that he is convinced of his position. He thought he was obeying Scripture. But read on. You will find he has no intention of giving the Bible full trust and obedience at all. Instead, he comes fully equipped with a list of reasons to impugn the Scripture and those that put too much stock in it.

So why is this important? Two reasons. First, it's a warning to Christians. If your church is looking for a youth leader and a fellow like Rob emerges from your congregation or moves in from outside, you can easily expose your kids to a very hideous false teaching. When questioned if he will obey Scriptures he might very well answer "yes." If not examined further, you can imagine the sort of havoc he could bring to your church and the split it could cause when it's discovered what you have on your hands. At worst some of your kids will be messed up and the church will split. At best, you will have to tell your kids, "Gee, sorry. Disregard what your youth leader has said for the last two years. And sorry for wasting your time coming here every Wednesday to listen to him. He's a heretic."

Second, it's a warning to Emergents or those considering the Emergent. Look at where you're really headed. It's a deceptive movement. They claim to be Christian. Rob even claimed to be mentally obedient to Scripture. Rob was not. And the Emergent is not. In fact, the whole point of the Emergent is to be postmodern--to not believe. This cannot be reconciled to a religion with a gospel that says "Repent and believe for the forgiveness of sins." "Repent" means to reshape your thinking. Stop thinking the old way and start thinking the new way--the biblical way. Postmodernism is an ideology that says, "Don't believe anything. Think any way you wish and that will be true for you."

Please take this warning if you are an Emergent or not.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Separate And Unequal

2007-01-30T19:40:00.000-08:00

In my last three articles, I stressed the importance of confronting Emergents with their need for salvation. They are not Christians. They pass themselves off as Christians and some think they are. In the Emergent we see the approval of all sorts of sin, the denial of the substitutionary atonement, the denial of God's creation order expressed in gender roles, etc. But the initial doctrinal problem from which all these other things flow is the denial of biblical doctrine and truth.

Another problem with which real believers need to come to grips is how we ought to relate to Emergents. Currently, the Evangelical church is sinning greatly in that we include Emergents in our numbers. We have no business doing that. It poisons our people and deludes the naive among the Emergents into thinking they aren't under the wrath of God.

Read what God says about unbelievers in the assembly of believers:

14Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

15Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?

16Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
"I WILL (AS)DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM;
AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE.

17"Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE," says the Lord.
"AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN;
And I will welcome you.

18"And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,"
Says the Lord Almighty.
II Cor 6:14-18.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins

EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part III (of III)

2007-01-29T07:19:00.000-08:00

HERE'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

In the first two parts of this series on evanglizing Emergents, we started with two questions aimed at pointing out the differences between normal, logical thinking and Emergent thinking and between Bible-based thinking and Emergent thinking.

The first question was "Is there such a thing as a right answer?" This question is designed to point to the basic fallacy of Emergent thought. Pretend you're an Emergent and your car develops bad brakes. Stopping is a problem. While thinking about your car you realize there is something wrong with your car. This implies your car could be right and when you take it to your mechanic, you expect to pay him hundreds of dollars to find out what is wrong. You want him to find the right answers to the questions "What is wrong with my brakes?" and "What has to be done to fix them?" However, as an Emergent, when you stop thinking about your car, and begin to think about world view questions it is like a switch is flipped. You have to stop thinking rationally and begin to think in terms that exclude right (rational) answers. Obviously, this is a trick we all pull on ourselves from time to time to avoid dealing with spiritual realities. When asked the first question, the Emergent and your hearers have a chance to realize just how stupid it is to think that way. And I'm not being mean here when I call it "stupid." It's really stupid. Even if the Emergents dares to answer "no" he's claiming there's a right answer to that question.

The second question is "Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?" Keep the "you" in there. This is to be applied personally. The main point of this question is the stop the Emergent or your hearers from excusing themselves from the truth claims of Scripture. If the Emergent admits "yes" he is in your hands. If he says "no," then you have just short circuited one of his main debate weapons. An Emergent will often quote Scripture to make a point against a believer, but will deflect Scriptural points of argument with the excuse that the Scripture is not all that propositional, inerrant, or authoritive. This takes that argument away from him either way he answers. If "yes," his excuses are gone. If "no," he can no longer legitimately argue anything from Scripture because if it is not binding on him, it is not binding on you. And your hearers will be alerted to what an Emergent really thinks.

In the second part we discussed the necessity to confront the Emergent with the fact that he is not a believer and with the reality of the gospel. This is extremely important for your hearers to hear and understand, too, since the Emergents always pretend to be Christians, and some think they are. If you can establish that, you can present the gospel, if not to the Emergent, to your hearers.

In this third article I want to go into some easy reasoning aimed at establishing the fact that the Emergent is not a believer. This will help you in your confrontation with the fact that he is not a believer and with the presentation of the gospel as something that really is true and something he has to deal with. Even if he is a believing Type III Emergent (see Part II) assume he is not saved for his sake and for the sake of your hearers. I cannot emphasize the importance of truthful confrontation enough. It will be very shocking to the Emergent and many, if not all, of your hearers to hear you say the Emergent is not a believer. However, the Emergent quotes I will give you in this article will help you establish just that fact. This is so important that when an Emergent calls me a brother, I gently tell him we are not brothers, because we believe very different things. I'm a believer in the gospel and he is not. Don't be arrogant, but don't shy about this, either. First, it is the truth. Second, it is just shocking enough to many that the debate will begin in earnest. He will not leave until some resolution is reached or until he or you have to go for other considerations. He will argue with you all the way home that evening in his head. He may even lose sleep. Pray for his conviction.

To establish the difference between Emergent thinking and biblical faith, you will need to be able to quote a number of Emergent leaders. Their own words will expose them when contrasted to Scripture.

One of my favorite quotes from Emergents is Donald Miller's "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." Then quote John 3:16. Ask who is right, Jesus or Miller. According to Miller, are we supposed to believe anything to be Christians? According to Jesus, are we supposed to believe anything to be Christians? Would you say that someone who doesn't believe anything is a believer? Ask these questions and let the Emergent slowly work through them. Even if he is stubborn and simply tries to double talk his way around it, he will demonstrate to all your hearers that he is lying to get out of the facts. And you will be laying the ground work for presenting the gospel to them.

Here are some other quotes that you may use in a similar way and a suggested question or two to follow up:

1. "Emergent doesn't have a position on absolute truth, or on anything for that matter." --Tony Jones, director of Emergent Village(1). According to John 3:16, would Jesus ask His followers to take a position on some things? According to Tony Jones, does the Emergent take a position on anything? Then is the Emergent believing what Jesus told us to believe? Then, since they are not following Christ, are they Christian?

2. "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." --Donald Miller, popular Emergent author(2). Did Jesus ask Nicodemus in John 3:16 to "believe certain things?" Who's right? Miller or Jesus?

3. "...if you’ll simply confess you that you’re a sinner and believe in Jesus you’ll be saved from the torment of eternal hellfire, then go to heaven when you die..." is a statement that Erwin McManus actually makes fun of. Erwin McManus --popular Emergent author, speaker, and pastor(3). Do you think the Bible wants us to believe that Jesus died to save us from hell? Who's right, God or McManus?

I hope this helps in your efforts to work with these people.

In any case, remember to start with the two questions, confront them with the truth of the gospel, and confront them with the contrast between the truth and the Emergent.

ONE LAST REMINDER: Confront, but confront gently as you are no better than an Emergent. You're just saved.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

(1)See http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2005/11/national-youth-workers-convention.html
(2)See http://www.donaldmillerwords.com/searching.php
(3)McManus, Erwin; The Barbarian Way; Nelson Books; Nashville, TN; 2005; ISBN 0-7852-6432-9; page 32.

EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part II (OF III)

2007-01-19T14:29:00.000-08:00

CONFRONTATIONS WITH TRUTH.

In my last post I pointed out two very quick questions to ask an Emergent. These are not trick questions. They are designed to get rid of the clutter of the debate/conversation and get right to the point. And remember these questions may be more for those listening around you than for the Emergent himself.

There are three different types of Emergents as far as I can tell. Type I is the Emergent leader. This is the fellow who has begun teaching the Emergent doctrine formally or informally. He will be very unlikely to respond to the gospel. Don't be afraid to engage him in debate. Indeed, do so. It will enlighten those around you and sharpen you. Just be ready for LOTS OF ANGER, even threats headed your way.

Type II is the unsaved Emergent believer. This is someone who is religious, but not regenerate. He enjoys the Emergent because it allows him to be "Christian," but continue in all sorts of sinful activity or denial of biblical doctrine. He is convinced this is the way to go. Hence, I call him an Emergent believer.

Type III is the church goer who has fallen into the Emergent heresy because of a lack of biblical depth. Just as they are shallow in their understanding of Scriptural doctrine, they have never really thought out the ramifications of Emergent thought. It was probably brought into their life by a bad teacher or friend as the latest Christian fad. Currently, the Evangelical church is filled with people who believe God is love and not much else. They are prime candidates for the Emergent Obfuscation. It sounds so good and so tolerant. In fact, it may not sound much different from what they may be hearing from the pulpit on most Sunday mornings. He may or may not be regenerate, but is truly deceived at this point in his life. Asking the two questions really helps this guy. Let them sink in and take their effect. It may take only a few minutes or he may go home and think it over. At this point you may need to quote a few Emergent authors to show the contrast. I will give some examples of Emergent quotes in my next post. Then the gospel can be presented to him.

Whatever kind of Emergent you are confronting, use the two questions. The Type I will argue and argue, even refuse to leave you alone sometimes. He will hate the two questions, because he knows the trouble he is in if he answers. Ask them anyway for your hearers. The Type II will just disengage unless the Holy Spirit is convicting him. He has no real ax to grind. He will just leave and go his way. The Type III will be spurred to think.

After, the two questions, you must confront the Emergent with the fact that he is not a believer. This will be shocking to him. He may get angry. He has probably never heard anyone tell him that. Do it in a very matter of fact way, not angry. You are only doing this because he needs to know so that he can repent, not to tell him off or win an argument. If you suspect he is a Type III, suggest that perhaps he is not a believer and go over the gospel. At each point of the presentation, ask him if he really believes that point is objectively true. At the end ask for a commitment to repent of all false doctrine and known sin. Either way, if he is saved or not, he needs to repent, get out of the Emergent, and start reading, believing, and obeying the gospel.

If the Emergent is a Type II and he has stuck around after the two questions, you can be sure that he is being convicted. Show him that he is not a believer by contrasting Emergent thought with Scriptural demands to believe the gospel. Then go for it. Give him the gospel.

If the Emergent is a Type I and still arguing, give the gospel anyway. If you have listeners they will hear. Remember, the Type I will get really mad. Don't you do that. Just remain calm and give the gospel as lovingly as possible.

In all three cases, remember to give the gospel and emphasize the objective reality of his sin, his future in hell under the wrath of God, and special emphasis on the objective reality of God's love for him. How real the blood was as it dripped from the cross, down Jesus' beard, and poured out the hole in His side. Remind him that it dried on ground and was walked on. Ask the Emergent if he thinks Jesus really died for him with real blood.

In any case, be sure to remember that you, the two questions, and the confrontation with truth won't save anybody. You must rely on the power of God through the gospel. Pray a lot. You will be in hard ground.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part I (OF III)

2007-01-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

TWO QUESTIONS EMERGENTS CAN'T ANSWER.

Okay, they can answer these questions. They just don't like to.

I started using these two questions with an anonymous commentor that defended Donald Miller. As you may know, Miller says we need not believe anything to be a Christian, and if you think you have to believe something to be a Christian, you're a heretic. (So, I guess you DO have to believe that you DON'T have to believe...? anything?... Right?) After some back-and-forth I finally asked this anonymous commentor these two questions:

1. Is there such a thing as a right answer?

2. Does the Bible have the right to tell you how to think?

It took at least three times to get him to answer even one of the questions. And it made him really angry. Recently I have had the chance to ask those questions in a forum where the interaction is recorded. It happened in the comment thread at Pulpit Magazine. To read it, go to the article entitled "Continuing To Fight The War On Error."

There I met a fellow who called himself "Whyte Stonne." He's 51. After some goings-on about the authority and inerrancy of Scripture--both things on which Whyte was not big (my Winston Churchill impression there!)--I asked these two questions. And asked. And asked. And asked. Four times already! Not only did he not answer them, he didn't even acknowledge the questions. Never did he even say, "I don't want to answer those questions." It's as if his eyes did not see them on the page. Three of my comments to him had nothing on them except the questions or the request for Whyte to answer the questions. Each time his answer was lengthy and without any mention of the questions. He talked about the kenosis briefly, he cyber-snooped and put together what he thought was my life's story followed by a pop-psychoanalysis of my personality, he talked about his life, he talked about some cattle man he knew from Montana, he talked about being from California, he talked about his education, my education, his financial state of affairs, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Each time I asked, he talked...about everything...but the questions.

Here is why a postmodern masquerading as a Christian (an Emergent) cannot answer these questions: Accountability--behavioral, and doctrinal.

If there is such a thing as a right answer, an Emergent cannot fall back on a supposed uncertainty to use like we used Xies when we were kids. And if an Emergent has to follow the Scripture instead of use it as a proof texting source for arguing with a believer, he/she will have to obey it. They aren't into that sort of thing. But I have found these two questions and ones like them break open the eyes so that listeners to the conversation, and sometimes even the Emergent himself, can realize just what the issue really is.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Working On A Curriculum

2007-01-11T09:42:00.000-08:00

Just in case all three of my readers think I died, I didn't. Just busy out of my head. I am working on a curriculum for Just The Bible Academy. It will be three years and very intensive with the sole purpose of equipping men to preach and serve. It will be at least two years of Greek and two years of Hebrew. The first year the student will take Hebrew. The second year he will take Greek as well. The third year, the student will finish Greek.

After the first year, all work in specific Bible passages will not be done in English--only the originals!!!! More time will be spent in the OT than the NT, roughly in proportion to the volume of the two testaments.

Practicals will include weekly witnessing and street preaching. (You will be expected to work in the vineyard, not just drink the wine.)

Other than the languages, primary focus will be on Bible survey, exegesis, and hermeneutics. There will also be training in systematic theology and apologetics. The apologetics courses will include an introduction to Western philosophy and a complete biblical epistemology.

Pray for good teachers and accountability for me.

Here are some considerations if you want to consider Just The Bible Academy:

If you want to preach like Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles, join us.

If you are tired of being told to shut up about doctrine, join us.

If you are tired of being told to shut up about false teachers, join us.

If you are tired of being told it is impolite to directly confront false teaching, join us.

If you want to be a fool for Christ, join us.

If you want to be holy as He is holy, join us.

If you know you're a filthy sinner, join us.

If you are a man between the ages of 14 and 120, join us.

If you are sure the Bible is all you need to serve God, join us.

If you want to sacrifice for Christ, join us.

If you want to take part in the fellowship of His suffering, join us.

If you want to see folks get saved, join us.

If you are sick of the compromise in the church, join us.

If you want to think biblically, join us.

If you constantly wish, "I don't ever want to be this sinful again," join us.

If you will take correction, join us.

If you will give correction when it may end in your own disgrace, join us.

If you are willing to work your brains out, join us.

If you don't care about the things of this world, join us.

If you think every day about what you will lay at Jesus' feet when you meet Him, join us.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Announcement--Radically Biblical Discipleship

2007-01-03T09:12:00.000-08:00

I am looking for one to six men that want to be discipled as Jesus discipled the apostles. Lots of time will be involved and completely holy living will be required. You will be required to witness weekly. You will learn both Hebrew and Greek. And you will study the Bible inside and out. It will be called the Just The Bible Academy.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Yep. Emerfibs, Alright.

2006-12-20T20:16:00.000-08:00

What do you call it when someone lies outright while looking you in the eyes? Or while you're reading their book you just paid $19.95 for? Like when Brian McLaren tells us that doctrinal certainty came from modern thought, not the Bible. Or when Erwin McManus tries to tell us the gospel is too domesticating.

Well, the last time I visited my cousin, Buford, I came up with something. After a long day of seeing his farm, talking old times, and eating a big home dinner we sat on the porch and I showed him some of the latest Emergent books I've been reading. After I told him some of the more creative things they contained, he rocked back in his chair, gave a disgusted "Huh!" Then he raised an eye brow and drawled, "Emer fibs. Ya know that dontcha?"

And so, on a slow summer evening in the cornpone belt, was born the descriptive term emerfibs.

Phil Perkins. PS Buford may be imaginary...or maybe not...

Blaming The Enlightenment

2006-12-20T18:47:00.000-08:00

One of the clever Emerfibs that goes all the way back to Stan Grenz is the notion that doctrinal certainty is not an Early Church idea. I agree. But for different reasons. The Emergents tell us that the idea of confidence in the correspondence theory of truth and the doctrinal certainty it implies (if you believe the Bible) came from the Enlightenment.

Bunk. Long before DesCartes, Jesus quoted Isaiah, David, and Moses as absolute proofs of all sorts of things. The idea of doctrinal certainty came from God Himself in the Garden, when He warned Adam about eating and dying. It was true. Ask Adam.

Here is a quote from Morris Kline describing just what was going on in the European religious mind as a result of the discovery that nature followed physical laws that could be expressed mathematically:

Nature is simple and orderly, its behavior regular and necessary. It acts in accordance with perfect and immutable mathematical laws. Divine reason is the source of the rational in nature. God put into the world rigorous mathematical necessity that humans, although their reason is related to God's, reach only laboriously. Mathematical knowledge is therefore not only absolute truth, but as sacrosanct as any line of the Scriptures."

Kline, Morris; Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge;
Oxford Press; 1985; page 95.

Kline is a secular writer and wrote a secular history. He is unbiased and he makes plain what Christians have known for millenia. Doctrinal certainty comes from Scriptures, not Newton or Galileo. The certainty that came as a result of modern scientific advance had to do with nature, not religious doctrine. If anything, the advancements in science came (for men like Galileo) as a result of their belief in an immutable, intelligent God. Not the other way around.

So the next time a postmodern religionist says that you are only certain about doctrine because you have bought into modern thought, ask him what he did during history class.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Should We Fight For Truth? Good News

2006-12-09T07:33:00.000-08:00

It seems that the good folks over at Emergent No (on our blog roll here) are again updating their website!!! Always good stuff over there. Here is the latest and it's a quote from John MacArthur's upcoming book, The Truth War. This is great stuff.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Back Up A Second

2006-12-05T07:38:00.000-08:00

Saturday, November 25 of this year, I made two posts about Brian McLaren. I made an important factual error. I found a three page story on Beliefnet by McLaren. It had no introductory indication that it was fictional and it was written in the first person, starting with the line, "I had been taught..." I thought it was an article, not a story. However, JP alerted me to the truth recently. So I have gone back and edited those posts for accuracy. You may see them here and here.

Thanks again to JP for keeping a sharp eye out and for bringing this to my attention.

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Fibnarratives, Metafibnarratives, And Drive-By Smearings.

2006-12-03T21:15:00.000-08:00

As all three of my readers know I think the Emergents are a bit creative in their persuasion techniques. For instance, if one has a really fine tractor to sell a farmer, one has only to tell the farmer exactly what all its features are. If, on the other hand, you are selling magazines that will never arrive for an outrageous price to the lady with the two kids screaming about to slam your nose in the screen door, you'd better get creative. You need to come up with a good story like if you don't sell enough subscriptions you will not get home from college for Christmas and see your mother who is going to die on December 26 at 10:15 in the morning of that tumor protruding hideously out of the small of the side of her neck that looks just like Abraham Lincoln at the first Lincon-Douglass debate. Yes, that should do it.

I call that a fibnarrative. And fibnarratives are very popular with Emergents. Say you're Erwin McManus and you want to tell everyone that the gospel is wrong. Well, you make up this fibnarrative, about how John the Baptist was not really an ascetic, but a barbarian, and turn it into a book for young Christian guys that don't like their dads and pastors much, call it The Barbarian Way and sell it everywhere you can. Then just when no one is looking say that the gospel is too "domesticating" on page 32 and if you believe that Jesus died for your sins you could never be a barbarian like John the Baptist and tell your pastor to shove off. (In the Spirit, of course.) Or if you're Brian McLaren and you want to reveal to the world that you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to get saved, write a fictional, first person story about just how much you love your daughter. Make it turn out that your daughter has just become a universalist. Then at the end of the article, right after you tell the bit about how you watched her drive away with her boy friend in his little beat up Honda and you saw the blue smoke drift up into the lonely sky as you bit your lower lip and held back the tears, and while every reader with any sort of a heart at all is balling their eyes out, say that if anyone doesn't like the daughter you love sooooo much just because she is a universalist, then by golly they don't have to like you either! Yes, that'll do it.

Then there is the drive by smearing. This is another persuasion technique. Where I grew up it worked like this: "Well, you know, that drunken sot Wally Botts said, such and so." That was to make everyone know that whatever Wally said, don't believe it, because he's just a drunk. That way if it's true, you really didn't say it wasn't. And if it wasn't true, then you're the hero. Anyway you hate Wally.

If you're an Emergent this technique hinges on the "fact" that anyone who disagrees with your wacked out, straight-from-Mars-Hill doctrine is a smelly, rotten dirt-eatin' turkey who deserves to die a slow and painful death. Now, quite often the person disagreeing with an Emergent is someone the reader will be likely to actually like or respect. So the technique is to quickly call them a smelly, rotten dirt-eatin' turkey and then get on to the next sentence before the reader can think about it. Like this from Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, page 178:
"Although I was taught that the Bible fulfilled these modern-Western-moderately-educated desires, I no longer see the Bible this way." Did you catch it? McLaren said his teachers are stupid. Moderately-educated. You don't want to be moderately-educated, do you? Then you just gotta agree with Brian. See?

Yep, and that's how to be an Emergent author that can write a doctrine only men on the moon would believe and get Christians to believe it. My only question is if a fella used a metanarrative to fib about something instead of just a regular narrative, would it be a metafibnarrative or a fibmetanarrative?

Huuummmm,
Phil Perkins.

Stuck In The Middle With You

2006-12-03T16:02:00.000-08:00

A very interesting comment thread has been made by an Anonymous. I will call him/her "A" for brevity. A has made some comments on my post called Donald Miller Line By Lie. A's comments and questions were so substantive and so important that I have spent a great deal of time and effort answering them. A also seems to be sincerely interested in the truth. A seems to take the Bible as authoritative, but still has some postmodern ideas common in the Emergent. A has been a real sport, answering and taking my jokes and putting up with my questions. A is worth answering. My last answer was so long and included so many important things to get out to people considering the Emergent, fighting the Emergent, or stuck somewhere in between that I decided to post my answer here:

Dear Anonymous,
Well, I thank you for your patience in all of this. I know I have put you through some paces, but not out of meanness. I pray you will see the points I was attempting to make as I now take the time to give you a more thorough answer.

Let’s take a look at Miller’s “gospel” outside of its context as a part of Miller’s work. Next, we will take a look at it in the context of Miller’s work.

Standing alone, apart from the rest of Miller’s work, it lacks a number of things that are unique to the gospel and are indispensable to it.

First, it lacks the idea of a substitutionary atonement. In I Corinthians 15 we read, “...Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures...” In your summary of Miller’s we read, “...Christ came to earth to fix it...” Not exactly an adequate explanation to anyone not already educated in Scripture.

Second, it lacks any mention of sin and God’s anger toward us, the reason for the gospel. In I Corinthians we read, “...for our sins...” In the summary of Miller’s “gospel” we read, “The relationship was damaged in the garden.” The absence of “sin” is significant. Miller is not about to tell us that we disgust God. Sin means that in both who we are in Adam and with our individuals acts of rebellion against God’s law, God is angered. His judgment is coming. As a result, many in our culture will not even get the idea of God’s anger. The gospel seems irrelevant to those who think they’re innocent.

Third, it lacks any reference to the resurrection. In Paul we read, “...and that He was buried and that He was raised on the third day, according to the Scriptures...” In Miller’s gospel we read...well, nothing about the resurrection.

Fourth, it lacks reference to the observable, objective truthfulness of the account. In I Corinthians 15 we read, “...and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.” What do we find in Miller that would indicate any sense of urgency because this actually happened and has eternal, personal, and cosmological significance and impact? In Miller we read...well, nothing. In fact, we read that we don’t even have to believe it, according to Miller, a detail which should shock you.

Fifth, it lacks any mention of the fact that it is ours by the authority of the Bible. In I Corinthians 15 we read, “...according to the Scriptures...according to the Scriptures...” It seems like an emphasis to me. In Miller we read that we don’t have to believe any doctrine of Scripture.

Taking a look at Miller’s “gospel” in the context of Miller’s own work is also revealing and I have already mentioned the first problem with Miller’s schema. These problems are endemic in the Emergent milieu of ideas and doctrines. Yes, though they often scoff at doctrine, they do have their own. But theirs are okay, it seems. Miller’s context for the “gospel” provides the following problems:

First, as I already mentioned, whatever the gospel is according to Miller, we don’t even have to believe it. He wrote, “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.” This is bunk. Jesus said in Luke 8:37-38, “For what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.”

So who is right? Is Jesus right when He said He required His followers to believe and confess Him and His doctrines? Or was Miller right? Remember that you said the Bible has the right to tell us how to think. What is the biblical answer? Not the Emergent, or Catholic, of Baptist answer–the biblical one? And remember you said there is such a thing as a right answer.

Second, Miller’s work includes a lot of banging on “propositional truth” and “formulaic” understandings. The Emergents play a really clever trick here, a verbal shell game. I have often seen definitions in Emergent writings indicating that a proposition is simply an if-then sentence. Grammatically, that is a conditional sentence. It is not what is referred to when a philosopher says “propositional truth.” The idea of the conditional sentence being a proposition comes from common usage. “If you marry me, then I will be happy.” Or in business, “If you pay me $25,500, then I will remodel your master bedroom and kitchen in the following manner...” These are propositions in the common sense.

Philosophers speak of “propositional truth,” or, more precisely, “propositions” that transmit “truth” in words, phrases, and clauses. In this usage a “proposition” is merely a declarative sentence that the author or speaker proposes as true, and “truth” is the quality of reflecting something of reality as accurately as is indicated by the words, grammar, and syntax used by the author or speaker, according to the understanding of the author or speaker.

The Emergent line is since the Bible has little or no propositional truth in it, we don’t really have to pay that much attention to accuracy. After all, God doesn’t. It’s more of a feeling thing or a doin’-the-right-thing thing.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is getting hard on the brain, I know. So let’s take a mental break and just ask a question. You don’t have to answer this, but just think about it for your own edification. Do you spend more time reading Emergent stuff or the Bible? Another way to ask is this: Do you tend to look at the Bible through Emergent glasses or do you look at the Emergent through biblical glasses? Don’t answer to me. Just think about it.

There...............now back to the hard work of sorting out propositional truth.

The Scripture is chock full of propositional truth. Remember a proposition is simply a declarative sentence, or statement, like, “I saw Spot run.” It does not include questions like, “Did Spot run?” or commands like, “Run, Spot, run.” If the sentence is a statement and true, then it is a true proposition.

The application to all this is simple. Poetry is mostly propositional in the Bible. It is intended by the author to be considered true. Narrative is a collection of true propositions about what happened to so and so back when... What the Emergents have done is to take the idea that much of modern poetry is non-propositional and applied it to the Bible. And since much of modern narrative, such as screen plays, short stories, and novels, is not propositional in nature, then biblical narrative is not propositional, according to the Emergents.
To repeat, all that makes a statement propositional is whether or not it is presented as true. It does not depend on being poetry or prose. It is not dependent on whether or not it is narrative. The narrative in a novel is non-propositional. The narrative in an accurate history of an era, people, or civilization is propositional.

I am not saying that all Emergents are necessarily lying about this. (The smarter ones are.) The postmodern philosophical movement which seeks to deconstruct language has lied about this as well, many times in order to negate the idea of absolute truth or any ancient writing (read Bible here) that purports to be absolutely true. It’s a trick, much like the linguistic analysis of A. J. Ayer, and as such, postmodernism is already dead in many quarters of the academy in Europe. It is dying for the same reason British linguistic analysis did: it is self-contradictory and people eventually catch on and get embarrassed by it despite its usefulness in our fight against the knowledge of God.

The long and the short of it is, the avoidance of propositional truth is unbiblical and intellectually dishonest for those that know better. Miller is shot through with this.

Third, Miller and the Emergents refuse to take the Bible as authoritative. The tool they use for this the most is their little trick about propositional truth. Another tool they use is long winded, often tear-jerking stories they use to grease the skids before they lay out a doctrine so ridiculous you’d laugh if you just thought about it for a second. Miller did that for an entire book in “Blue Like Jazz.” McLaren does it. McManus does it. I call these fibnarratives.

Fourth, Miller denies the importance of specificity and accuracy in doctrine, including the doctrine of the gospel. Miller said we “hold to heresy” if we think Jesus required us to believe “certain ‘ideas.’” In contrast in I Corinthians 15, we read, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for...” That sort of urgency for accuracy and specificity has no place in Miller’s schema.

Fifth, Miller’s schema makes for a devaluing of the spoken or written word. The ins and outs of the biblical view of this are dealt with elsewhere in this communication, but I will point out two sub-problems of this. One is the casting about to use all sorts of silly stuff and calling that evangelism. For instance, you mentioned that you have seen paintings that communicated the gospel. So...what exactly did they say? (Sorry, but you have to admit...) The other problem in devaluing the written or spoken word is that God has granted authority and the power of the Holy Spirit to those who speak the gospel to others. The biblical method is proclamation, not conversation.

Lastly, Miller has come up with a “gospel” designed to avoid the persecution that Christians are asked to volunteer for. Take a look at his “gospel.” You called it “friendly.” It is. However, it’s not very loving. It is so nondescript, so vague, so unclear that no one can get mad. It doesn’t mean anything. And, after all, you don’t even have to believe it. If you believe in the doctrine of universalism, his “gospel” will work for you. God loves us all. If you believe Jesus died as an example for us to follow, Miller’s “gospel” is fine. If you believe that Jesus was raised from the dead figuratively but not actually, Miller’s “gospel” will not contradict you. You can’t get any friendlier than that. Satan himself will not object.

Miller’s “gospel” lacks the self-sacrificing love that will tell someone to repent from their sins in order to avoid hell even if they are likely to spit on us for it. This is not the gospel that got Paul beaten most places he went. This is a coward’s “gospel.”

Dear Anonymous, you once told my I was wrong because I thought I was right. Did you think you were wrong? Does not Miller think he is right? He accuses those like me of holding to heresy. Have you called him to object? You also have now admitted that right answers are possible. By what tortured legalism is it okay to forbid the telling of the truth? Is it more righteous or loving to be silent? Paul told Timothy that in pointing out false teaching to his brothers he was a “good servant.” I Tim. 4:6. And by what odd calculus do we measure the accuracy of our “gospel” by how pleasing it is to others when the true gospel doomed our Lord to death, as well as all the apostles, save possibly one?

Also, you have made much of how one ought to “lure,” in your words, the current generation into the fold. That has never been the biblical approach. Scripture tells us in Romans 3:10 that we all avoid and hate God. “As it is written, There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God.” Paul’s method was the proclamation of the gospel. In Romans 1:16 we read, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (despite what Miller says), to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” (Miller remark added–I don’t think Paul actually knew Donald Miller but I’d never be propositional about it.)

In I Corinthians 1:21 we read, “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”

Trying to change your glasses,
Phil Perkins.

Quiet Riot

2006-11-28T10:03:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-25T08:12:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-25T06:39:00.001-08:00

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.

2006-11-24T06:39:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-23T21:27:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-23T09:34:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-23T08:26:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-21T10:53:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-21T10:18:00.002-08:00

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

2006-11-17T10:07:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-11-15T09:09:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-15T08:50:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-15T08:40:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-09T08:41:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-08T16:35:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-08T08:20:00.001-08:00

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

2006-11-05T21:24:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-05T07:37:00.000-08:00

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

2006-11-05T07:32:00.000-08:00

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

Jehovah's Non-witnesses

2006-10-31T09:25:00.000-08:00

In the past there was a time when I knew about a dozen Jehovah's Witnesses. This took place over a number of years, so I learned a thing or two.

They are much like the Emergents. Similar to orthodox Christians, and unlike Emergents, they emphasize absolute truth. But there is something very keen and very pointed that they share with the Emergents.

Both Emergents and JW's hate orthodox Christians or orthodox Christianity, at least. And both have become very adept at enumerating the faults of the orthodox and they see the orthodox as a bit unlearned or stupid. One thing I learned from my old JW friends is that in their church services (Kingdom Hall services) much time is spent on teaching and learning apologetics against the Trinity and orthodoxy in general.

There are three differences, though, that could give us pause to think.

First, unlike the Emergents, JW's will be courteous when debating and will always deal with the issues. They never lie to "win" an argument. They are wrong, but they really believe it. And while they will disengage from an argument, they will do so politely and without disparaging their opponent.

Second, because JW's believe in aboslute truth, they teach ethics other than just the admonishment "don't judge." That will never be true of the Emergent, despite the Emergents' claim to give more emphasis to deeds, not creeds. (Look for an upcoming post titled "The Deeds-not Creeds Creed.")

Third, because the JW's believe in absolute truth, they are out witnessing to their faith every weekend. And, as one would expect, because truth is of little importance to the Emergents, they have nothing much to witness about. They settle for being "missional" whatever that means this week.

The BIG question is this: If you are an orthodox Christian, bearer of the gospel truth, do your neighbors know?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS--Isn't "Deeds, not Creeds" a...uuuhhh...eerrr...uumm...watchacallit...oh, yeah--a creed?

Spurgeon and The Emergent

2006-10-31T07:51:00.000-08:00

Here is a quote from Spurgeon. It seems even in his day there were people who sought to be teachers who had little or no knowledge, but loved to talk and talk and talk. The second paragraph is scrumptiously pithy.

There is something so enticing and yet so flimsy in the modern theological school,that I feel constrained to warn you constantly against it.

Its mystery is absurdity, and its depth is pompous ignorance. There is no theology in it; it is a futile device to conceal the want of theological knowledge.

A man with an education that may be complete in every department except that in which he should excel, stands up and would teach Christians that all they have learned at the feet of Paul has been a mistake, that a new theology has been discovered, that the old phrases which we have used are out of date, the old creeds broken up.Well, what shall we do to this wiseacre and his fellow sages? Serve them, wherever you meet them or their disciples, as Job did Zophar: laugh at them, dash their language to pieces, and remind them that the best things they tell us are only what the fishes of the sea, or the fowls of the air, knew before them, and that their grandest discoveries are but platitudes which every child has known before, or else they are heresies that ought to be scouted from the earth.

I found this quote posted by Phil Johnson who applied it to the New Perspective at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/.

Trusting the truth of Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Greg Koukl Destroys Emergent Denial of Propositional Truth With Laughter and Logic

2006-10-26T00:53:00.000-07:00

Here is the funniest, and yet one of the best, arguments against those who try to lie their way out of biblical commands (like, say, Emergents) by saying "truth is a person, not a proposition" I have ever seen or heard. I will be committing this one to memory and using it until my lips fall off. Find it here: http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6869 Specifically, go the the third and fourth paragraphs.

Hilariously in Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Memory Lane and Another Praise

2006-10-25T23:24:00.000-07:00

Remember how I asked you to remember David Sherwood? (Haven't heard from him yet.) Well here's another blast from the past and it is another really angry Emergent. If you go way back to April 29, 2006 in the archives you will find a post called "John O'Keefe Line by Lie." It was about this fellow in Billings with a fake ordination from an internet mail order company. I busted him in public on his own blog. He then got mad and got John O'Keefe (an Emergent mucky-muck from North Carolina) to contact the school where I teach and complain about how awful I was to uncover the fraudulent rev. Real men, these Emergents. Tellin' mommy on YOOOUUU!

Praise Part: When visiting theooze.com earlier today to research Spencer Burke, I accidentally learned that O'Keefe, who glorifies homosexuality, Communism, the drug culture, and still wants to be respected as a Southern Baptist pastor, is looking to move back to California. He evidently is losing his church or something of that sort. Thank God for that.

Memory Lane Part: When checking this blog this evening, I found something interesting. The fake rev that I busted had been quite adamant. He did not want me to comment on his blog-ever. And he was going to sue, not me , but the school. (Not very smart, to say nothing of disobedient to Scripture.) Well, he has been watching this blog...

and left a link. Hummmm. Does this make you think of words like...oh, let's see here...

DISHONESTY, HIPOCRISY, DECEPTION, OR UNDERHANDEDNESS?

Actually, "EMERGENT" will cover it, I suppose.

Two lessons:
1. The Emergent is really about lying. Really, this is not name-calling. Just give it some time and you will see.

2. The good guys win in the end. Just be patient and keep telling the truth as best you can. The end might be after we die. And the bad guys might kill us, but God will always win.

Thankfully in Christ,
Phil Perkins.

This Should Be Fun

2006-10-25T08:35:00.000-07:00

Remember David Sherwood? Well, if I run a post that is critical of someone I try to give them notice so that they can respond. David Sherwood, however, does not have his email on his website as far as I can tell.

Sooo...I submitted this website to be on his blog roll. We'll see what happens.

Stirrin' de pot,
Phil Perkins.

Phil Johnson--Emergent Brothers and Sisters?

2006-10-25T07:57:00.000-07:00

I have long believed that the Emergent Obfuscation is not Christian and that most Emergents are not Christians. At least, not the leaders. Phil Johnson has weighed in on that in a blog post linked from the Slice of Laodicea. You can find it here: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-emerging-conversation-is-going.html

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

The Power of Negative Thinking

2006-10-25T07:33:00.001-07:00

This is from the praise department. I have gone into the Bible Book Stores here in Billings in the past and been in despair to see Brian McLaren's books on sale as if he was a brother in Christ and as if his stuff was not outright heresy. Each time I have told the young ladies at the cash register, as politely as possible, that McLaren is a liar. Each time they have been uncomfortably polite in return and promised to look into it and to report this to the owner, Mike Wall. The ladies had to be reticent, as I have usually come in the middle of the day or right after work. I am a welder/machinist, so I am sure I was quite a filthy site. They were probably hoping I wouldn't touch anything. But I appreciate their politeness nonetheless. Their conduct has always been a fine example of Christian love toward me, despite my appearance.

Weeellllll...just yesterday I was in a store next to one of the Bible Book Stores. I went to look for McLaren. To my surprise not one of his books was there. I asked the lady at the register about it. "Oh, no. We don't have him." "Why?" She explained they had concerns about him.

Praise God. And thank you to Mike Wall.

Griping for God,
Phil Perkins.

David Sherwood and Emergent Bile

2006-10-17T21:30:00.000-07:00

When I started this blog, I said I would show the readers just how angry and mean the Emergents really are. They say they are all about love. Don't believe it. Read this:

David Sherwood is the pastor of an Emergent congregation in Fort Worth, Texas. He is a shining light in the Emergent Obfuscation. I first encountered his material on John O'Keefe's blog, Ginkworld. O'Keefe featured a story by Sherwood that had as its focus a sympathetic sodomite. Presumably the reader was supposed to adore the sodomite and just hate anyone that disapproved of his sin, because if one hates sodomy, one is a bigot.

Sherwood was also kind enough to include at least one dirty word to describe Christians that disapprove of sodomy.

Here is Sherwood's response to a blog I did on O'Keefe on April 29, 2006, minus a profanity:

did you read the bi-sexual story? Or would you be more comfortable if I called someone a "godly...hypocrite, gossip, or libertine." Was King David "godly" or not? Or both...as most emergents would be willing to embrace. But alas the ethics of most fundamentalists allow for an ends justification of thier means. And thier means is always attack, and assume thier own orthodoxy is the only true one. In looking over the post which referenced my article in it, the complete lack of love in your article is such an abdication of christ-likeness that it makes the whole dialogue [or was it a diatribe?!] frail and perhaps even fraudulent as a voice of a Christian. I am glad jesus used the story of a vile SAMARITAN, and I was glad to use the story of a bi-sexual, and I am even gladder that God can use even the story of your immature tongue and heart in his grand scheme. I hope someday that you are filled with an equal measure of humility to match the venom of your pride.

David Sherwood20 years Pastoring, 2 degrees from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a man who considers his credentials as s--- compared to knowing Christ who see me not through my sins but through his blood. I pray in time...I will see you as he does.

There. Can't you just feel the love?

"Emergent Church" Is Neither Emerging nor Church

2006-08-02T15:12:00.000-07:00

One of the things that fascinates me most about Emergents is just how enamored they are with the special language they use--metanarrative, missional, Emergent, process information, etc. Being thoroughly soaked in academia from different times in my life, I am aware just how seductive a new-fangled word or phrase can be. It is new. Your parents have no idea what you are talking about. And all the guys in your dorm are dazzled. The folks at your church hear you say this really cool stuff and smile. Some are trying to act as if they understand you. Others, though, are saying in their heads, "Yeah,yeah,yeah, you're going to college. We get it, fella."

This is shear delight to young egos. To be able to stop a debate with a single word because the other guy has no idea how to answer what he does not understand is the closest a Christian can come to Nirvana. Never mind that you have as big a bag of ignorance under your hat as the next guy. No one wants to ask "What?" lest his own spill on the floor for all to see.

Such is the case with "Emergent Church." The first time I heard the term, a student asked what I thought of the Emergent Church. With age comes wisdom, so I fessed right up. "Dunno. Wazzat?" But I was quite sure that with such a spiffy new moniker, the tenseness I felt at the question was pure cortical intimidation.

Don't be fooled by the name. It contains two lies. That's right-- one per word. Efficient, huh?

First, the claim to be emerging is grossly wrong. What is emerging is a semi-formal movement. The ideas, though, are older than anyone reading this. Much older.

Let's go back to three points in history and see if believers have been confronted with a callous disregard for truth as objective, assertable, and ascertainable.

Martin Luther was a believer who dealt with what he called the dislike of assertions. We call these propositional truth today, or declarative sentences not used in a work of fiction.

Luther said that those not comfortable with confident assertions of faith were not Christians. I concur. To the Emergent mind the thought of definite, assertable doctrine or any kind of propositional truth is wrong unless it is simply proposed as in a mental chess game. Statements will be made like this: "I believe xyz." This is good so far, depending on what xyz is. You are also allowed to say something like this: "I believe that to me xyz is not necessarily so, but abc is." That much is allowed. But it is definitely a no-no to say something like, "No, xyz is wrong. Abc is right." And that is true whatever the xyz or abc is. It may be the most basic biblical doctrine or it may be the approval of sodomy, ala Brian McLaren. "Jesus is Lord" and "Jesus is a bald Irish gnome with bad breath" are to be treated equally. Disagree if you must but only if you couch your words in plenty of assurances that you are not sure. NEVER imply that someone is really wrong or lying. That is unloving.

Let's listen to Luther on the subject:

Luther on Assertions and Assurance

Luther on Assertions and Assurance
[N]ot to delight in assertions, is not the character of the Christian mind: nay, he must delight in assertions, or he is not a Christian. But, (that we may not be mistaken in terms) by assertion, I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, defending, and invincibly persevering. Nor do I believe the term signifies any thing else, either among the Latins, or as it is used by us at this day. And moreover, I speak concerning the asserting of those things, which are delivered to us from above in the Holy Scriptures. Were it not so, we should want neither Erasmus nor any other instructor to teach us, that, in things doubtful, useless, or unnecessary; assertions, contentions, and strivings, would be not only absurd, but impious: and Paul condemns such in more places than one. Nor do you, I believe, speak of these things, unless, as a ridiculous orator, you wish to take up one subject, and go on with another, as the Roman Emperor did with his Turbot; or, with the madness of a wicked writer, you wish to contend, that the article concerning “Free-will” is doubtful, or not necessary.
Be skeptics and academics far from us Christians; but be there with us assertors twofold more determined than the stoics themselves. How often does the apostle Paul require that assurance of faith; that is, that most certain, and most firm assertion of Conscience, calling it (Rom. x. 10), confession, “With the mouth confession is made unto salvation?” And Christ also saith, “Whosoever confesseth Me before men, him will I confess before My Father.” (Matt. x. 32.) Peter commands us to “give a reason of the hope” that is in us. (1 Pet. iii. 15.) But why should I dwell upon this; nothing is more known and more general among Christians than assertions. Take away assertions, and you take away Christianity. Nay, the Holy Spirit is given unto them from heaven, that He may glorify Christ, and confess Him even unto death; unless this be not to assert - to die for confession and assertion. In a word, the Spirit so asserts, that He comes upon the whole world and reproves them of sin (John xvi. 8) thus, as it were, provoking to battle. And Paul enjoins Timothy to reprove, and to be instant out of season. (2 Tim. iv. 2.) But how ludicrous to me would be that reprover, who should neither really believe that himself, of which he reproved, nor constantly assert it! - Why I would send him to Anticyra, to be cured…
Unless you consider all Christians to be such (as the term is generally understood) whose doctrines are useless, and for which they quarrel like fools, and contend by assertions. But if you speak of necessary things, what declaration more impious can any one make, than that he wishes for the liberty of asserting nothing in such matters? Whereas, the Christian will rather say this - I am so averse to the sentiments of the Sceptics, that wherever I am not hindered by the infirmity of the flesh, I will not only steadily adhere to the Sacred Writings every where, and in all parts of them, and assert them, but I wish also to be as certain as possible in things that are not necessary, and that lie without the Scripture; for what is more miserable than uncertainty… The Holy Spirit is not a Sceptic, nor are what he has written on our hearts doubts or opinions, but assertions more certain, and more firm, than life itself and all human experience.

Check the above link for my source on this and to read more.

Now let's look at Jesus' experience with Pilate. In John 18 we read of Jesus' interrogation by Pilate. Pilate is on the spot. If Jesus is guilty He must be executed. If not, He must have His freedom and good name restored. Oooooh, not so fast. That would only be true if objective truth obligated Pilate to any certain course of action. If, on the other hand, truth was fuzzy or did not count, then "obligation" would become a meaningless word, like abracadabra or Willy Wonka or unicorn. Imaginary and fun, but nothing important. So he says, "What is truth?" This disregard for the importance of truth allows the next thing to happen. John writes, "And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, 'I find no guilt in Him. But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?'"

The early postmodern Pilate said his xyz truth: "I find no fault in Him." That's pretty clear. Let Him go and announce His innocence. Instead, he announced the truth and let the Jews decide.

And the God-man was murdered.

Even so the anti-truth people in the Emergent can say the truth or a lie. But what is important in their minds is that truth does not matter that much. So we can worship any way we want. And we can live any way we want.

The last believer we will consider is actually the first believer to encounter postmodern thought, Eve. Who was God's antagonist? Satan. "Indeed has God said..."

Kind of reminds me of Brian McLaren's proposed moratorium on talking about homosexuality because he is not sure if God really said it was bad...indeed has God said... Yeah. We really need to study a long time to find out if the Bible condemns homosexuality. God was not really clear, huh?

Postmodern thought, while sold as new-fnagled, is really ancient excuse making with a new name. Eeemmmmeerrrgeeent......... Wow.

Second, the Emergent is not a church, but an antichurch. I'm really old. I remember a time when my dad and mom dragged me to a church that taught us stuff. This stuff was true and you'd better believe it or else. Or else you'd go to hell. Or else you'd miss God's blessing for your life. Or else you may experience judgment. Or else you may fall into all sorts of sin and shame. The Emergent teaches that you'd better not believe or else. Or else we will call you arrogant. Or else we will call you a hypocrite. Or else we will call you unloving because we are way more loving and open minded and humble than you could ever be, you fundamentalist, you!

Remember what Luther said about the postmoderns of his day? "...he must delight in assertions, or he is not a Christian."

WHY I AM NOT MISSIONAL Part Two (evangelistic vs. missional)

2006-07-23T12:12:00.000-07:00

In my last blog entry I said I am not "missional" because "missional" is unbiblical. In the understanding of some, the term means basically the same as lifestyle evangelism without the evangelism. (Of course, for most churches, lifestyle evangelism is a sanctified excuse not to actually say anything anyway, but that is another metanarrative.) Worse still, in the view of some Emergent leaders (I quoted Brian McLaren) the idea of missional is an outright denial of the gospel itself. See my last blog entry.
My second reason for rejecting “missional” as a useful term is that it is a trick. Let me illustrate it with two other terms. The first was one coined by Ronald Reagan or one of his speech writers. In the 1980 presidential election, one ace Reagan’s opponent, Jimmy Carter, had over him was that Reagan was seen by many Americans as war happy, likely to push the nuclear button. In those days the scary term used in our stand off with the Communists was mutually assured destruction. Reagan, however, introduced the term “window of vulnerability” to describe the chance that the US may become a victim of Russian nuclear superiority. The term was so clever and so clear in the mind of anyone who heard it that the news commentators, the majority of which who actually opposed Reagan, began using the term. From that point forward, Jimmy Carter had lost the foreign policy debate. The new term gave a clear mental picture of what Reagan wanted us to worry about.
The second term is more recent, “homophobic.” By the introduction of that one term, pro-sodomy politicos have silenced the majority of Americans who are not pleased with that particular practice. Never mind that most Americans oppose murder and robbery, too, but are never called murderer-o-phobic or thief-o-phobic. Nevertheless, the emotive content of the term “phobic” overcomes all common sense and most, wincing at the threat of being accused of being mentally unbalanced, simply scurry away.
Similarly, “missional” is being used to great effect by the Emergent Obfuscation. The emotive content is very positive for most Christians. We all are in favor of evangelism. Most, however, have not yet realized just how deceptive the Emergents are. So then, this Christian will stick to biblical vocabulary.

Phil Perkins.

WHY I AM NOT MISSIONAL Part One

2006-07-02T08:53:00.000-07:00

Following is an article I wrote to my church concerning a preacher that came through and seemed to be Emergent:

Last week, we had a fill-in preacher at our church. He lectured us on being “missional” and defined the term as having to do with the mission of the church.

Here are two questions we should ask ourselves as a church body:

First, where did this new term come from? Since we all know that the earthly mission of the Church is to spread the gospel, why the new moniker for such an old idea? Well, to quote the heretic Brian McLaren, “The term, as I understand it, attempts to find a generous third way beyond the conservative and liberal versions of Christianity so dominant in the Western World.” (McLaren, Brian; A Gernerous Orthodoxy; Zondervan; page 115, emphasis added.) McLaren is referring to the biblical view that the mission of the Church is to evangelize the world and the liberal view that the mission of the Church is to seek left wing social outcomes.

He goes on to explain, “The conservative version is preoccupied with the ‘personal Savior’ gospel…” (ibid.)

Thanks to Mr. McLaren for saving us from the Savior. Thanks to him we now know better than to preoccupy ourselves with Christ and His work on our behalf. I really had no idea how generous it is to withhold the gospel and salvation from eternal hell. How stingy we are going door to door with the gospel, doing VBS, and all such horrible things! What scandal!

Second, should we allow new ideas into our pulpit? “Missional” as used by last week’s speaker is simple human charity—fixing roofs and cars for those in need.* This is a good thing. It’s just not the mission of the church.

While some feel a need to be up to date, God calls us to be throwbacks. According to Jude we are to fight for the faith once delivered to the saints. Our computers, cars, and lifestyles may change, but the laws of nature do not change, math does not change, and Jesus’ blood is still powerful and He is still risen.

And THAT is our message and our sole earthly mission.

Phil Perkins.

*NOTE: This is not McLaren’s definition of “missional.” His definition is very foggy. He vacillates between orthodox language and heretical language. And when he uses orthodox language he uses it heretically. If one is unaware of this trickery, one can read just portions of his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, and find him orthodox or heretical depending on which portion of which page one reads. At any rate the end of chapter five has a rather revealing quote: “More important to me than the hell question, then, is the mission question.” (Emphasis his.) So whatever “missional” means it has little or nothing to do with salvation and the gospel.

I Was Way Long

2006-06-15T19:48:00.000-07:00

Sorry for being away for so long. My wife and I have had a hectic time these past few weeks. We both run businesses and both have lost employees and have had to keep really long hours. However, my promised blog on Brian McLaren and why he thinks it's wrong to be right is coming. Also, I am almost done doing an analysis of Scott Birkhimer's article on Alex Trebec. He is being nice enough to preview my analysis for me. Also upcoming is an article on the effeminate nature of the Emergent and what that means for its followers.

Phil Perkins.

I WAS WAY WRONG

2006-05-25T10:15:00.000-07:00

I was way wrong about something and I need to correct it ASAP. So here goes. I listed Dan Kimball as a heretic in my last blog on the basis of what he wrote in this article:

http://www.theopraxis.net/archives/2006/01/scripture_answe.html

The problem is DAN KIMBALL DID NOT WRITE IT. He is simply mentioned it. Instead, a fellow named Scott did. He contacted me to correct the error. So, this is that correction. Since it has been a number of months since I read it and since the name I remembered in connection with it was Mr. Kimball's, in haste, I fouled up.

I will do an analysis on that article and properly attribute it this weekend.

I apologize to both Scott and Dan Kimball. And thanks to Scott for the heads up.

Phil Perkins.

"Paul" Line by Lie

2006-05-24T12:54:00.000-07:00

I recently did a line by lie answer to a fellow on his blog. He seems like a likeable guy and I'm not sure if he is as sold on the Emergent as some or if he is just enamored with the fancy language of postmodernism and all the judgmentalism it seems to give permission for on the part of its adherents. Since, I have hope that he will still repent or hope that maybe he is a Christian gone astray, I will leave him anonymous and just use his first name. I will pray for his repentance.

Here is that Line by Lie.

Paul,

I wish you well in your studies. I especially wish you spiritual prosperity and a repentant life in the Lord.

If you are new to the Emergent, then there are some things you may want to consider. I will simply answer some of what you have said. I am going to write this quickly as I am busy. The ride will be rough, but you need to consider some things about the Emergent.

PB: Postmodernism is not a fad. It's not simply the way immature or young people think.

ANSWER: This is true. It is not a fad. It is as old as unbelief. Satan is the first one to articulate the Emergent heresy. “Indeed has God said…” Pilate said, “What is truth.” Paul said, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

PB: It's a new culture;

ANSWER: Hey, you just said it is not a fad. Now you say it is a new culture. Decide. Christians are called to clear thinking. I wrote an article on this at don’tadddontsubtract.blogspot.com, Called “A Theology of Truth…” It was posted in April.

PB: a worldview; a lens through which people (primarily in emerging generations, but also older people as well) think and process imformation.

ANSWER: This is a common Emergent line. It is gobble de gook and scientifically it gets an F in psychology. First of all, I don’t think through a lens. I perceive through a lens, actual or metaphorical. While perception effects thought, the processing of information is not changeable, generation to generation. It is the same for everybody. Information processing is broken into two fields, perceptual psychology and cognitive psychology. These two fields of psychology, along with neurological and behavioral, are the only aspects of psychology that are actually a science. Analytical and talk therapy are not science. They are a scam. But that’s another metanarrative.

This “process information” is a catch phrase in the Emergent. It is silly.

PB: Dan Kimball…

ANSWER: Dan Kimball, it should be noted, is not a believer in any but the most wildly (not biblical) inclusive definition. Jesus said that the mark that a sheep was His is that sheep’s predisposition to obey His voice. Mr. Kimball, on the other hand, scoffs at any one that looks to the Bible for answers. See this article: http://www.theopraxis.net/archives/2006/01/scripture_answe.html

In this article Kimball ridicules Christians following the propositional truths of the Bible thus: “Saying, ‘The Bible has all the answers,’ defines a rather odd relationship between a person and scripture.” So in his view Paul the apostle was a real dunce (odd in Herr Kimball’s rubric) when he wrote things like, “You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul must have been a real stoop to the much more intelligent Kimball when he said, “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus.”

Of course, Paul was not Emergent. He was just an apostle.

PB: Dan Kimball defines postmodernism as "an emerging and developing worldview and culture

ANSWER: I have already corrected this new-and-emerging idea from the Scripture, so let me give a witness from my own life. I am almost 50. Trust me. The idea of churchies (my term for the religiously disobedient) thinking they were smarter than their predecessors because they refused to make up their minds about anything was around when I was a kid. Case in point—Tony Campolo. So you don’t even have to go back to Scripture to find that the eshewal of truth is not knew.

PB: (still quoting Kimball) pursuing what is beyond modernity. It holds there is no single universal worldiew.

ANSWER: This is another common Emergent line. Now there is no single world view? Oh, I see. Before, oh let’s say April of 2001 (pick your own date if you wish) there was only one????Where have you been? Read any history ever in your life? What was World War II about? Were the Nazis fighting the democrats and the Communists because we all agreed, but were bored so we decided to have a fun war? How about the Cold War? Have you ever read the Bible? What does it say about other world views? Does it not command us to avoid them and to contend against them? I would have to assume that there were some to contend against.

PB: (still quoting Kimball) Therefore, truth is not absolut

ANSWER: This reasoning is self-denying. “Truth is not absolute,” is a statement of absolute “truth.” If it is not absolutely true, then some truth IS absolute. If, on the other hand, truth is not absolute, then the statement “Truth is not absolute,” is an absolutely true, meaning that some truth is absolute. Complete nonsense.

I personally cannot think that to a man as articulate as Kimball the nonsense of such a statement has not occurred. He has either decided to suppress the truth in unrighteousness or he has decided to purposely lie to others to sell books and so forth. If, on the other hand, he cannot understand something so simple as the folly of the the-absolute-truth-is-there-is-no-absolute-truth crowd, then he is mentally not up to teaching anyone. I think he is simply lying for the convenience of power and money or so that he himself does not have to obey the truth or both. I do not believe he is stupid.

PB: and many of the qualities embraced by modernism no longer hold the value or influence they once did. It can still be defined as we like; since it is still forming and developing."

ANSWER: Good move. Keeps all his loopholes open.

PB: Thanks a lot, Dan! So we can define it how we want? It's true that postmodernism is hard to define, and I won't seek to create my own definition (yet). For a good, concise explanation on three understandings of postmodernism, see an article entitled "The Three Postmodernisms: A short explanation" by Brian McLaren.

ANSWER: It must be noted that while quoting McLaren for a definition or things concerning the Emergent is legit, he, too, is a heretic. Recently he has denied eternal hell, approved of homosexuality, and denied the substitutionary atonement.

PB: However, I will make a few comments about my understanding, and the way in which the church must (not might, must) respond to postmodernity.

ANSWER: Romans 1:16, “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” Was God wrong? Was Paul wrong? I respectfully have to say I don’t think that any of us has a better idea, and my uncle worked at Ford.

PB: Relativism is a reality.

ANSWER: No, it’s a denial of reality.

PB: However, it is not that postmoderns think there is no truth! ANSWER: Right, they have simply lied to themselves and others. That is the dishonesty. Whenever they face a truth that is bothersome, they will do xies by saying, “There is not absolute truth,” as if it was an absolute truth. This is intensely dishonest.

PB: They are simply tired to the way Christians (and others?) militantly preach our views without any regard for other beliefs, and the lack of listening ears that Christians have to others. It's a reaction to our modern approach that Christianity is the only true religion

ANSWER: Christianity is the only true religion. Do you deny this? If so, you are not a Christian in the biblical sense of one that has left even father and mother, brother and sister to follow Him. Repent.

PB: and that there is no reason to even hear what others have to say.

ANSWER: There is no reason to listen to heresy, other than politeness or to study the heresy to warn others of it and its proponents. Jude said, “Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties.” John said, “…guard yourselves from idols.” Paul said, “Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the false circumcision.”

Of course, none of those fellows were Emergent. They were just apostles.

PB: Postmoderns are still seeking the truth;

ANSWER: Then why do they deny its very existence? Decide on a line and stick with it.

PB: their reaction to modernism has just been extreme enough to send them to the other end of the spectrum.

ANSWER: First, modernism is not the same as Christianity and modernism did not introduce the idea of absolute truth. God did that way back when He said, “There will be light.” Guess what? There was real light, not relative light. Absolutely.Of course, God was not Emergent. He was just God.

Second, they decide their reaction, no one else. James said, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.” We are not allowed to blame others for our own sin.

Third, if you are surprised by the hatred of the world, then you are ignorant of the Scripture. Paul said, “Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” That’s a promise you don’t hear quoted too often.

Fourth, if you are looking (as many churchies are) to avoid persecution, you are an embarrassment to Christ. He said, “"For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Notice, that He mentions shame of His teachings as a reason for His shame of you.Of course, Jesus was not Emergent. He was just…………God.

PB: Postmodernity is not something that people will simply grow out of. It is a worldview; it is their culture, something that has been ingrained in them from birth. Furthermore, we cannot (and are not called to) "convert" them to modern ways of thinking.

ANSWER: Now, Paul, I agree with all that, except the idea that converting them to Christianity is converting them to something modern. Jude said, “I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.” That is a connection to 2000 years ago and further. Nothing modern about that.

PB: We need to speak the truth to them,

ANSWER: I agree. That would be the Gospel. Absolutely.

PB: but in ways that they understand.

ANSWER: All the ones I know speak English. The ones that repent do so because they understand and obey. The ones that get angry do so because they understand and hate God for His demands.

PB: Mark Oestreicher describes in The Emerging Church four phases he went through in his thinking about postmodernism:1. We've got to do something to fight this postmodern thinking in young people.

ANSWER: No, we don’t. We are commissioned to give them the Gospel. We cannot convert them. We are called to gospelize them and God will do the converting of His chosen and the hardening of those He is preparing for destruction. Paul said, “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy…So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires…What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?...And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.”

That’s not Emergent. That’s Romans.

PB: (Still quoting MO) 2. Wait a second; postmodernism isn't all that bad, but it's still a generational thing.

ANSWER: The denial of truth is evil. And it is generational in that it has happened in every generation.

PB: (still quoting MO) 3. Wait another second; there seem to be sixty-year-olds who are more postmodern in their thinking than some thirty-year-olds. Maybe it's not a generational thing.

ANSWER: Exactly! The denial of absolute truth started in my life the first time I smacked my brother right in sight of my dad and then lied to him, hoping that my denial of truth would have to be agreed with by someone that knew better. Unfortunately, he was not Emergent and he was not kinder to my hinder.

PB: (still quoting MO) 4. Hey! This whole postmodern thing -- it's me.

ANSWER: Then repent and obey the truth.

PB: (still quoting MO) We have to accept that people are postmodern. It's not something that we can change, nor is it something that we can ignore. May we accept that people think this way, and seek to reach them, just as we do on mission fields all over the world.

ANSWER: Yes, and no. Yes, they are in sin. That’s the truth and I accept it. No, we are not to leave them in sin. We are to evangelize them.

PB: (still quoting MO) 3. While we must accept postmoderns for who they are,

ANSWER: No, we are to accept no one for who they are. God does not do so. That would be to leave them unconverted, in their sin, and on the way to hell. If we love them we will call them to repent. We will not sooth them in their unbelief. Proverbs says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy.” Kiss them on the way to hell, in love, of course.

PB: (still quoting MO) we still have one important thing in common. All people, no matter when they live(d) or what their culture they are from. Whether we are modern or postmodern (or post-postmodern?), our basic needs and desires are the same. We all want to love and be loved; we all desire to be accepted, trusted, and loved by a group of people; we all want purpose in our lives; and we all want spiritual fulfillment, a connection with God, and to fill the void inside of us that only God can fill.

ANSWER: In biblical terms that means we are all self-centered. What MO has described is selfishness. Love me. Assure me. Connect me to God without repentance. Christ said, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow Me.”

PB: (still quoting MO) This is our hope for the church -- that postmoderns, like all others in human history, are seeking the truth, the truth that Christians have to offer. We have exactly what postmoderns are looking for (even though we rarely act like it!),

ANSWER: This continues the unbiblical view of human nature rife in the modern church. Namely, that man is looking for the truth. That is a lie. Paul said we already know and are trying to deny it, Romans One. Christ said, “No man is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me take him.”

Of course, Jesus was not Emergent. He was just the Way, the Truth, and the Life. …..oh wait. I just remembered. There is not absolute truth. How stupid of me. My bad.

PB: (still quotiong MO) we just need to translate this truth into languages that they understand.

ANSWER: Wycliffe, and New Tribe Missions. I have given to both of them. Great organizations they are. Living in MT, all the Native
languages need someone to translate into some languages out here. If you come here to translate after seminary, I will help you raise funds. There is Crow, Cheyenne, and others.

PB: I'd love to hear your definitions of postmodernism, because clearly I (nor anyone?) has it down yet.

ANSWER: Actually Paul had it down just great. He called it “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.” But then he wasn’t Emergent. He was…well you know.

Hoping you repent in the love and TRUTH of Christ, Who is absolutely the only way to God,Phil.

Phil McLaren Interview

2006-05-20T09:13:00.000-07:00

I promised a transcript of the Phil McLaren interview with KURL Radio here in Billings. The interviewer is Bill Schuyler, host of “Super Jammin Hot Hits ‘n’ Hymns in the AM with Schuyler.” As previously noted we do not know when the actual interview will be aired.

Here is that interview:

Bill: Dr. Phil McLaren. Thank you so much for being here.

Phil: Thanks for having me, Bill. And you can just call me Phil.

Bill: Thanks. How was the flight in?

Phil: Good. The weather was warm and the crowds at the airports and on the plane were upbeat. Lots of college kids going home from school for the summer.

Bill: Nice small talk. Now let’s get right into one of the subjects that the listeners are just dying to hear about. Just how close are you to your brother, Brian?

Phil: Half-brother. Theologically or personally?

Bill: Both.

Phil: Well, raised in the same household puts you really close. We were both born early on. I really didn’t know Brian until a week after he was born. I was at summer camp. So right up front we had some catching up to do. He was really messy and sometimes he even smelled bad. And he didn’t really get any better in that department for a very long time. In fact, he seemed to regress at four after only modest gains in neatness during his first three years.

Bill: Did this alarm your parents?

Phil: Yeah. Mom, especially. I remember she didn’t say anything directly to him. She just hinted and then grumbled a little. Finally, one Sunday afternoon, when Brian was seven, she really got on him about it. Pointedly. I don’t remember what she said exactly, but I remember what he said.

Bill: Yeah, what?

Phil: He looked straight up at her and said that just this once he would stoop to offer an opinion on such a sensitive subject. He said that in his mind if someone in the family thought that their sort of behavior was better than someone else’s, they were being a little arrogant, really.

Bill: Wow! Brian was postmodern at seven, huh?

Phil: Well, I never thought of it that way, but now that you mention it, I think I might see it. You might be right.

Bill: So what did your mother do?

Phil: Slapped him a good one.

Bill: I take it she was not Emergent.

Phil: Plymouth Brethren.

Bill: You mean Plymouth Sistren?

Phil: Only in the TNIV, I suppose.

Bill: So, Dr., are you Fully Emergent?

Phil: Oh boy! Am I ever? The fact is, I can’t think of one doctrine.

Bill: You mean you can’t remember one right now that you believe.

Phil: No, I just can’t remember one at all. You know it’s been so long since I even thought about doctrines or spoke with anyone about one. This is really embarrassing.

Bill: How about the Doctrine of God? Do you believe in God?

Phil: Well, that depends on just what you believe “believe“ means. If by “believe” you mean “I think this might be true, but it really makes no difference to me one way or the other and I’m sure not going to change my life for it,” or if you mean “this is just my guess for today,” then, yes. I believe right down to my socks! In fact, I am a firm believer.........in that sense. If, however, you mean that I actually think something and that those that don’t think the same thing as I do are mistaken, then, no. That would be arrogant, hypocritical and way too left-brain for me. I believe that would be wrong. I really believe that.

Bill: Wow! That’s deep.

Phil: Thanks. I know.

Bill: Speaking of deep, thoughtful things just when did you get your doctorate and what is your field of study?

Phil: Thanks for the question. I got my doctorate in Emergent studies from Fuller Seminary.

Bill: Okay. Help me understand this. You wrote your dissertation on Emergent studies. Was it on a particular doctrine in the Emergent?

Phil: (Laughing) No, Silly. We have no doctrines in the Emergent. (More laughter) Where have you been? The only thing we really believe is that those who believe things are really arrogant and hypocritical. We’re right on this, you know. I believe that with my whole heart. In a very humble way, of course.

Bill: So you wrote a dissertation on nothing?

Phil: No, Bill. Not nothing. It was on the fact that we believe nothing. It sounds like a subtle difference, but the devil is in the details, you know.

Bill: Huh?

Phil: Yes. It’s even deeper than that. You see it is not so much that we know nothing. It is in the deep, profound way in which we have ceased to know things that make ours such an intelligent movement.

Bill: Okay, you’re way over my head there. Tell the listeners about your church in Southern California. What is the facility like and how do you worship? Is there a prayer labyrinth? Incense?

Phil: Well, Bill, here’s one place where I have to disagree with my half-brother. Real Emergents don’t want any formal religious trappings--even architectural. We are in a house church. Not that it’s a little church or anything. It’s a double-wide with a deck in the back and a prayer labyrinth that goes past both bathrooms. Three services on Sunday, two on Two-Fer-Tuesday, and then there’s Saturday afternoon.

Bill: Wow! That’s really authentic of you.

Phil: Yeah. On the last Two-Fer-Tuesday we got into a deep discussion on just how much the church has been affected by the effort to market religion to our particular culture. Anyway, back to the worship, the 70‘s style dark brown paneling adds to the vintage Christianity feel. If Paul had a double wide instead of a tent, it would have been that one.

Bill: Any zoning problems?

Phil: No. Not until the fire. The old paneling and Rayon curtains don’t mix with incense and children’s church, you know.

Bill: I can imagine. I suppose you got rid of the incense, huh?

Phil: No. We’d never do that. Think vintage, man. We added the sprinklers

Bill: That must have cost a bundle.

Phil: Not really. We just get two of us to go through the trailer and sprinkle water like the Catholics.

Bill: Neat! Did the congregation take to the new worship form easily?

Phil: It started out as a preventative. We sprinkled all the rugs, curtains, and paneling just a bit before service to prevent another rub with the FD. Then one Tuesday evening service, we were running a tad late, and a few folks were in early. It seemed only natural.

Bill: Wow! The leading! So, tell us about your facility. Rumor has it you added a new feature for folks after they exit the prayer labyrinth.

Phil: Yeah. That was another natural thing. The labyrinth ends at the back deck and it seems in the confusion brought on by stumbling through incense smoke in a dark maze, some congregants would stumble out onto the deck and into an old hot tube sunken into the surface of the deck. We had a number of ideas put out at business meeting and nothing seemed to work. Finally, Brother Finnegan mentioned that he had a wrong shipment dropped at the Long John Silvers where he works. It turned out that a truck of mayonnaise was left instead of tarter sauce. Well, after some quick fiberglass patch work on the hot tub and a high lift jack for one corner of the deck, we had our brand new Mayonnaise Meditation Pit.

Bill: Really?

Phil: Yeah. It was kind of like being in one of those sensory deprivation tanks, you know, where you float in body temperature salt water. Nothing to feel but you and your thoughts…………..and the next guy out of the prayer labyrinth if you don’t watch out. (Both laughing) Seriously, we thought of it as quite a worship innovation.

Bill: I’m sure. Still using mayo?

Phil: Well, there were some problems. Right off, the pump motor that swirls the water all around made an awful noise moving the mayo. Sister Schuller just about killed herself getting out of there when it finally blew up. It sounded like a twelve gauge went off and that was it for the pump. Slipped in the mayo on the wood deck and got twenty-one stitches in her chin when she hit the edge of the deck on her way down and over onto the dirt. Mayo, dirt, and Penelope Schuller madder than a hornet. It was like a visitation from an unholy trinity. Then there were the flies. And after a week or two you couldn’t even smell the incense. You can imagine the mixture of new fiberglass and old mayo. We switched to extra virgin olive oil and added rubber traction mats. After enough people get in and out a few times, it turns a gray-white color. And then you can think of it as old mayo that doesn‘t smell bad. Who defines condiments anyway?

Bill: We still have some time for this last subject. Tell the listeners about the newly discovered Gospel of Bob.

Phil: Well I got the idea for the New Gospel of Bob in the olive oil. Bob, you know. Think about that for a moment. Just another natural thing.

Bill: You mean you didn’t actually find it?

Phil: Hey, it’s Southern Cal and we’re postmodern. I placed a call to Dan Rather’s producer and she set me up with a way to find it.

Bill: Well, that’s our time for today. When can we expect you back, Dr.?

Phil: We're having a huge conference this fall in Billings.

Bill: Wow! At the Metra Arena?

Phil: Casa Village. It’s the trailer park on Twenty-fourth.

Bill: Thanks for being here, Dr.

Phil: Thanks for having me. And you can call me Phil, Bill.

Sorry for the Delay

2006-05-14T15:13:00.000-07:00

I want to apologize for the delay. My family and I have had a bug and we have had a spate of graduations and weddings to attend.

I promised to get the transcript from the Phil McLaren interview done last week. That will be coming this week. It will not air for some time so you will still be well ahead of the curve on that news. And the interview was a real treat. Lots of goodies in it. Wait till you hear what they installed at the end of the prayer labyrinth at his church. It is astonishing.

I also promised to do a Line By Lie article on Brian McLaren. That will be either late this week or early next.

Phil Perkins.

Jim Bublitz Quote

2006-05-03T13:38:00.000-07:00

Just got this from the Slice, posted by Jim Bublitz:

"Whatever religion or doctrine condones or makes allowances for sin is not of Christ. The Doctrine of Christ everywhere teaches self-denial and mortification of worldliness and sin. The whole stream of the gospel runs against those things. Scripture emphasizes the 'holy' and the 'heavenly' (not the sinful and the worldly). The true gospel has not even the slightest tendency to extol corrupt nature, or feed it's pride by magnifying it's freedom and power. And it rejects everything that undermines or obscures the merit of Christ, or tries to give any credit to man, in any way. And it certainly never makes the death of Christ a cloak to cover sin, but rather it always speaks of it as an instrument that destroys it!"

Amen.

Emergent "Conversation"?

2006-05-03T05:28:00.000-07:00

If you have been following, you know that this is a brand new blog, just a few weeks old and my plan is to expose the Emergent Heresy and the true character of its leadership. This is going to be easier than I ever thought possible.

In my opening blog I said I would show what these folks are really like by letting their character hang out. I said this:

I will give you, the reader, a good dose of just what it is like to deal personally with these indefensibly dishonest people. For now, I will not tell you just how, but stay tuned the first lesson in Emergent anger and deceit will be coming in the form of their reaction to my blogs. Already, I have been threatened and lied about by Emergent leaders--one local and one national. I will expose them publicly.

I have found that easier that I thought. One of them has already threatened a law suit—not against me, but against someone I dearly love. An associate of John O’Keefe has threatened a lawsuit in writing against, not me but, someone I love dearly unless I stop refuting him on the web. He is still trying to comment on this blog, which is interesting since he and his friends have gone to such lengths to silence me. (And they will not.)

So much for the “conversation,” huh?

To quote my faithful brother in Christ, Mark Johnson, who was quoting someone else you may recognize, Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 1 Corinthians 6:1. But then, the Emergent are not all that big on Scripture.

Exposing the indefensible,
Phil Perkins PS—Mark, if you're reading this, you might want to start writing. Your emails to me are always so succinct and cogent. Start a blog. You're a good man and you really know how to write.

Coming This Week Interview w/ Brian McLaren's Half Brother on Newly Found Gospel

2006-04-30T10:57:00.000-07:00

Wow! This is awesome!! I cannot believe my luck this week. Brian McLaren's half brother, Phil McLaren, is coming to Billings. He is going to do an interview for KURL Christian radio in Billings. We do not know when it is going to run, but we will be there and my readers will be the first to get it--in transcript. He will be discussing another newly discovered gospel. This new gospel will have profound new implications for the theology of the Christian church and for the Emergent one, too.

Can't wait,
Phil Perkins.

John O'Keefe Line by Lie

2006-04-29T06:39:00.000-07:00

John O’Keefe Line by Lie.
I had a recent e-spat with a national Emergent leader named John O’Keefe. He writes for theooze.com and is a mover and a shaker in the Emergent Obfuscation. Mr. O is typical Emergent and calls his blog Ginkworld Inside the Mind of Punk Monkey. Yeah, and he’s actually a full grown man in his forties. One has to wonder if the drinking of bong water is somehow involved in all of this.

He recently sent an email to the administration of my school. He was REALLY UPSET with GREAT CONCERN AND PAIN. (Yikes! This must be really bad.) I was to be severely bad-boyed because I was so mean. It turns out that a fellow in Billings was running around lying and I, being the intolerant bigot that I am, asked him to stop it–oh, the HUMANITY!!!! (He had sent away for "this card that said I was a reverend.") Undoubtedly, with credentials like that the man is NEVER TO BE QUESTIONED–EVER!

Weeell... I did. Go to wordofmouthminintries.blogspot.com to see that e-spat.

Anyway, Mr. O, being the man he is, tattled on me. He told the school that I was a REALLY BIG MEANY and that I should be DRAWN AND QUARTERED as soon as was convenient, certainly by the next morning. Naturally, this caused some angst at the school until they found out the truth. Now a lot of folks at the school are getting informed as to the Emergent Heresy. So John meant it for evil but God meant it for good.

So I sent Mr. O an email asking him to clear this up a bit. Again, in true manly fashion, he declined to deal with me directly. Instead, he waited a few weeks and blog-whined about myself and a message board that evidently asked for straight forward, biblical answers, something that will cause any Emergent type to develop a permanent facial tick.

Just in case John happens to accidently push the delete when he gets a load of my answer here is how I answered him line by lie:

To Zac and John,
This is really addressed to John, but Zac may enjoy reading this as he has been smeared by John, too. My name is Phil Perkins, I am the second guy, the prof, in John’s story. I am really just a welder, but that is another story. I live in Billings, MT and I recently gave a talk on three contemporary sources of apostasy to my church. One of them was the Emergent. I was asked if any Emergent churches were in Billings. Didn’t know...so I Googled. That is how I found Carlos Shelton–"the planter" in the story.

I’ll start by simply answering some of your questions. This may seem harsh, but there is a point to be made if you’re open.

JO: at what point does a conversation breakdown?

ANSWER: Evidently, when you are faced with the truth and run.

JO: does it happen when the first insult is voiced?

ANSWER: No, I just asked you to explain yourself when you insulted me...behind my back....to the school.

JO: does it happen when one person twists what the other person says to meet a personal agenda?

ANSWER: No, I put up with that, too.

JO: does it happen when one side simply refuses to even hear what the other has to say?

ANSWER: Now John, you know we can hear each other just fine. Heck, I even heard the stuff you did not want me to hear, the fibs you told my school.

JO: does it happen when one person calls into question the honor of the other?

ANSWER: Your honor would not be called into question if you had been honest. I gave you that chance when I asked if you had read the conversations about which you complained. If you hadn’t and had just trusted someone, then you could have simply acknowledged a mistake. We all make mistakes. It would be no big deal. That would be that.

JO: at what point can we say, "this conversation is over" because we know it is going no place?

ANSWER: Oh, it was going someplace, alright. You just didn’t like getting caught and neither did Carlos.

JO: which leads us to the idea that if you leave the conversation and the other person is still talking [or insulting] does that mean the conversation is still happening?

ANSWER: Now there you go again, John. You know I have not bothered you at all since you refused to answer my email.

JO: if one person leaves a conversation, does that make the other person "the winner?"

ANSWER: Usually.

JO: does there have to be a winner in a conversation?

ANSWER: That’s the way it usually ends up if you have been busted fibbing about all sorts of stuff. You go away embarrassed. I did when I was a kid...lots of times. Not fun, huh?

JO: at what point does a conversation become a monolog?

ANSWER: When you run and start fibbing on your blog where you hope no one will answer you.

JO: i ask this, because this week i had two such experiences.

ANSWER: I suspect you ask this because in both instances you met up with real believers and they challenged you with logic and Scripture. In my case, not only did your gossiping to my school administration not work, but I will now have the chance to address the entire faculty and speak to them about the Emergent heresy. You will be case in point when it comes to the dishonesty that permeates the leadership of the whole movement. We will work hard to warn our students about you and others like you.

JO: i received an email a few weeks ago from a friend letting me know that there was a college professor attacking a church planter in his area.

ANSWER: The "attack" was simply three things. First, the "planter" claimed to be ordained. He is not. Instead, he has (in his own words, now) "this card that said I was a Reverend." Cute, huh? The card is from a mail order diploma mill called UCMI. It is a joke. Ucmi.com is their website. Check it out. He is not ordained by any church or denomination as far as I know. If I am wrong, this is your chance to correct me and I will apologize forthwith. Carlos indicated he was not ordained outside of the UCMI card. The second, thing I asked about was the apparent contradictions between his doctrinal statement and his endorsement of Emergent and Brian McLaren. His doctrinal statement was conservative (with a definite twist or two) and it left no room for the disregard of Scripture McLaren and the entire Emergent embraces. The third question was a sincere one. He did a blog that first seemed to object to sodomy, then seemed to excuse it. I was not sure of his position and asked. He got mad and it took quite a few exchanges before he made a clear statement. And his final position was orthodox. I see by your approval of David Sherwood you DO excuse sexual perversion. Nice.

JO: the only reason the professor was picking on the person [this was the only reason brought to my attention and the professor only mentioned it in five questions he had emailed me] was because the professor did not like the planter ordination, and he had concerns on how the planter "received his education."

ANSWER: I said nothing about his education. That quote is dishonest and you would know it if you read the blogs. I don’t care if he is ordained or not. It is the dishonesty. According to Paul a man that is double tongued is unfit for service.

JO: which was interesting to me because the professor teaches at a small baptist college - baptists have historically ordain people who believe God is calling to ministry, and seldom, if ever, has an education requirement been attached to the ordination.

ANSWER: Yeah, we Baptists are a real piece of work, huh? However, in your email sent to the school administration in which you were tattling profusely on the big meany in Billings you said this:
"I am the Lead Pastor with a growing, engaged and Christ-centered Emerging Community of faith, and we are connected with the SBC (Southern Baptist Convention)..." Wellllll, you’re a wacko Baptist, too? Hmmm. Then you said, "...I have to be honest..." I’ll hold my breath.

JO: \this person [and it was not the planter, but a concerned member of the community who knew me and knew I would be a peaceful neutral party] asked if i would "play the middle guy"

ANSWER: Oh, so THAT’S why you gossiped to the school. You were REALLY being nice to me. Gee whiz, I just can’t believe I missed that one.

JO: and see if i could address the issue of ordination between the professor and the planter.

ANSWER: No, John. It’s not the paper. It’s the dishonesty.

JO: needless to say, my emails to the professor have fallen upon deaf ears...

ANSWER: You told the school that you weren’t able to email me. Pick a fib and stick to it, John.
I will publish your email soon on zitsemerge.blogspot.com. so everyone can read it.

JO: the professor, for what ever reason he has, has taken to want a fight with me.

ANSWER: That is not the truth and you know it. I simply sent you the email and you have not answered. And that has been weeks.

JO: i am uncomfortable with any conversation based on anger and hurtfilled speech between members of God’s kingdom.

ANSWER: Ahhh. Pot calling Kettle...come in please.

Now here is a transcript of the email I sent you:

John,
This is Phil Perkins. I will be glad to publicly dialogue with you and/or Carlos Shelton any time and any forum, perhaps at our school. All you had to do was ask the school for my email address. However, you now have this one. Please feel free any time. And give it to Mr. Shelton as well.
At any rate here are five questions:
1. Did you read all that was written between Mr. Shelton and myself?
2. Did you check out Mr. Shelton's credentials?
3. Do you approve of the practices of UCMI, such as calling the 120 hours of tapes an M. Div.? (That is where Mr. Shelton got "this card that said I was a Reverend.") Put another way, do you approve of a man like Mr. Shelton getting a card from a mail order company and calling it "ordination?"
4. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton telling the entire church it "can burn in its false assumption of humility and self-delusional self-righteousness?"
5. Do you approve of Mr. Shelton and friends calling me vulgar and derogatory names? I especially want to know if me being called after a profane part of one's anatomy caused "concern" and "pain." Show me the email you wrote about that, please.
Sincerely,
Phil.

Now explain to me and your readers just how you thought this was out of line, especially in light of the fibs you told about me to the school and the names and vitriol spued by Carlos when he was busted publicly. Go to zitsemerge.blogspot.com for further documentation if you think that I have fibbed about Carlos, or go to wordomouthministeries.blogspot.com if it is still there.

I have called you to account, but remember that Jesus REALLY shed REAL blood. He did so as the REAL Son of God because we are REALLY sinful, headed for a REAL hell for eternity. The Lamb was REALLY raised the third day. (The Middle Matzah was found.) I do not know if you will ever be willing, but please repent and be saved. This is the message never heard in the Emergent and denied by you, John, in your blog of late March, 2006 and in your lifestyle.

In eternal view of Christ’s blood and loving forgiveness,
Phil Perkins.

Apostacy--A Little Dab'll Do Ya

2006-04-27T19:18:00.000-07:00

Yesterday, I was looking to get in contact with an author of a really great text book--Bruce Waltke. I don't know him; I just wanted to talk to him. His Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax is an awesome work. I was hoping to find out if an abridged version was in the works. At any rate, calling around the country I ended up talking to an extremely intelligent, articulate lady at a book store. I told her I was in the market for a good introductory Hebrew text. She was very helpful and mentioned three, giving all the pluses and minuses of each.

Then........I blew it. I told her I wanted one that was not published by Zondervan because Zondervan has been pushing all sorts of Emergent stuff. She did not like that. It was on--politely, of course. After she expressed her disappointment in my lack of good sense, I asked her if she approved of all the apostate things flowing from theooze.com and Brian McLaren.

She said that she did not take it as far as McLaren. We decided that we were both at work and had other things to do. Fwooo. An excuse for both of us with the added benefit that neither of us was lying.

Still...what did the Bible say about a little lump with leaven? Hmmmm.

2006-04-22T16:11:00.000-07:00

The point of this blog is to refute the Emergent. I do so for a number of reasons. First, Christians are to oppose , expose, and eliminate false teaching at every chance. Second, we are to love our neighbors, especially those of the household of faith. Therefore, we cannot let them go unwarned. Third, I teach Greek and Hebrew at a great local Bible college and, sadly, some of the finest youngs students around have asked me about the Emergent Church. I cannot let them down. Fourth, we will win. All who oppose God will suffer His judgment.

It seems Brian McLaren, Dan Kimball, theooze.com, and others in the Emergent Obfuscation have been pulling unsuspecting Christians into an apostate movement that is neither emergent nor Christian.

At times I will simply argue points. Other times I will expose the real nature of the Emergent. Sometimes I will make great fun of their language. This is extremely easy because they cannot talk in a coherent way--the natural outcome of dogmatically holding tightly to the irrational. Case in point: their silly hatred of propositional truth--about which they are constantly making..................drum rolllllll.............REALLY BIG PROPOSITIONS. Still other times I will take on an author line by lie. (No, that was not a typo.)

Lastly, I will give you, the reader, a good dose of just what it is like to deal personally with these indefensibly dishonest people. For now, I will not tell you just how, but stay tuned the first lesson in Emergent anger and deceit will be coming in the form of their reaction to my blogs. Already, I have been threatened and lied about by Emergent leaders--one local and one national. I will expose them publicly. O boy, I can't wait.

Phil Perkins--PS. To John O'Keefe the invitation to debate any time any forum is still open.