Rob Auld's Objections Answered

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.

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.

EVANGELIZING EMERGENTS, Part III (of III)

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)

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)

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.