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.

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...

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.

AMAAAZZZIINNGGG

In my last post, I lined out for all to see just one of the lies foisted upon the church by Emergents. In it I quoted a story by Brian McLaren in which he presented a fictional pastor engaged in years of deception as the heart warming hero of the story. (The fictional pastor believed that one did not have to hear and believe the gospel to be saved and lied about hid his doctrine from his congregation and collegues.)

This is the amazing part: MCLAREN THINKS THIS IS JUST FINE!!!!!

I believe this sort of behavior, permeating the Emergents, has been made possible by the postmodern mind set that devalues truth. It makes us think that we can make up our own truth. It makes us less ashamed of being caught in a lie. And that actually dehumanizes us. Like animals we can do or say anything that satisfies our bellies.

Amazed, but not surprised,
Phil Perkins.

Brian McLaren Excuses Public Doctrinal Deception

Just 4 (yes, that's only four) days ago I wrote this to begin a post called "Rob Bell Lied":

"Surprised? One of the things I have insisted on is the dishonesty inherent in the very idea of the Emergent."

This is yet another reason to be convinced that Emergent leaders are not Christians at all. They sell their books, conferences, etc. under the guise of being biblical. Paul said, "...neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God."

Well, just this morning I happened on an story by Brian McLaren in which he wrote about a fictional pastor. This pastor has led a life of public deception. He has hidden his actual doctrines concerning hell and the atonement so that his colleagues and congregation would not hold him to account. The story is written in the first person (huuummmm) and is about what makes this fictional liar come out of the closet.

McLaren takes up the subjects of universalism, inclusivism, and exclusivism. The first is the false doctrine that all people will be saved from hell and sin by the atonement. The second, inclusivism, is another false doctrine that many will be saved even though they have not accepted Christ and His teachings, even if they have never heard the gospel. The last one, exclusivism is the biblical doctrine that only those that hear and heed the gospel will be saved.

McLaren's fibbing preacher said, "His (C. S. Lewis) words 'led by God's secret influence' always reminded me of Paul's Words in Romans 8-'Those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God'-and that always kept the inclusivist back door secretly open for me, even though most of my colleagues and nearly all of my parishioners considered me an orthodox exclusivist." (Emphasis added.)

Did you catch that? He kept his ideas about the atonement and hell a secret purposely misleading his "colleagues" and "parishioners." (Lying from the pulpit.) Read the article and you will find this is not an isolated quote. The hero has purposely lied and has now admitted it. Furthermore, he admitted the depth of his deceit when he said, "In my theological circles, universalism is one small step removed from atheism." And by the end of the story he puts his approval on universalism.

Toward the end of the story, McLaren's preacher said that his daughter had become or might become a universalist and that is okay with him. And furthermore, if she was to be excommunicated from their church for this heresy, he would go with her. He wrote, "If Jess isn't welcome at PCC, I don't want to be welcome either."

So there you have it. Brian McLaren has created a heart ripping story to make us think that dishonesty in the pulpit is actually heroic.

Cute, huh?

In Christ,
Phil Perkins.

Rob Bell Lied

Surprised? One of the things I have insisted on is the dishonesty inherent in the very idea of the Emergent.

Think about it, they call themselves a church, but invade other churches and denominations. They call themselves Christians, but deny the confessions of the faith. They call themselves "missional", but deny the reality of hell and the need for a personal savior. They claim to love, but never call sinners to repent.

I could continue, but let's stop with this latest example. Rob Bell has claimed that it was just remarkable how God grew his church at Mars Hill. However, Ken Silva has revealed the truth on that one. Read it here.

Phil Perkins.