Ah TOWED Ja!

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?!!

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

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

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

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.

Pot Heads Doing Church?

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.

Nudists and Postmoderns

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.

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.

Big Silva Lining In Emergent Cloud!

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.

A Living Example/Warning

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.

Yep. Emerfibs, Alright.

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

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.

Fibnarratives, Metafibnarratives, And Drive-By Smearings.

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.

Donald Miller Line By Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DM: But after further consideration,...

ANSWER: You should have had another beer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANSWER: Explain? You mean propositionally?

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

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

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

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

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

Can anyone say “snake oil”?

Phil Perkins.

Top Ten Reasons To Become Emergent

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

Emergent On Sale NOW! Half (a bubble) Off

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

Huuummmmm,
Phil Perkins.

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

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

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

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

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.