A New Category, An Old Strategy

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

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

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

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

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.

David Sherwood and Emergent Bile

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 "Conversation"?

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.

John O'Keefe Line by Lie

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.