The Emergent Church Renamed

I found myself in an on-line forum a few days ago, discussing the recent movie God’s Not Dead. It is so curious to me that there are Christians who have only criticized this movie with little or nothing good to say about it. So I have been carrying on dialogue in a number of forums to try to find out why.

I am not surprised to find that the lack of support for the movie often seems to lead back to those that support emergent church philosophy. Though the movie God’s Not Dead is not at all a political movie, it seems to have bothered some of those that are immersed in the emergent church. The negative comments ranged from “every single non-Christian is painted as evil”, to “the movie isn’t realistic”, and on and on.

The discussions on line are very revealing. One person, with whom I had been discussing the movie, condescendingly told me I should pick up a copy of David Platt’s book, Radical - Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream, and there I would learn a few things. This person had been dropping a few key words that caused me to suspect she was coming from an emergent belief system, but when she recommended this book from this controversial author, I knew for certain. Further, emergent proponents always seem to love to attack the American Dream; I will get to what I believe is the reason for that, later.

Certainly this movie isn’t the main focus I want to address in this blog. Of course the movie isn’t and shouldn’t be anyone’s main concern. I use it only as a recent example to show a clear problem that I believe is facing the church today. The conversations I had with people only caused me to want to demonstrate the difference in this movement and traditional Christianity. As well, I hope to focus on the beginnings of this particular movement and the progressions that have been taking place.

The Emergent Church

I have been watching this trend for so long, now, I decided I wanted to write a bit about what I know is the beginning of the emergent church and the dangerous ideology it presents. Let me use a definition of the "emergent church" from a secular source to avoid any appearances of bias. The on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia describes the emergent church this way:

“Proponents believe the movement transcends such "modernist" labels of "conservative" and "liberal," calling the movement a "conversation" to emphasize its developing and decentralized nature, its vast range of standpoints, and its commitment to dialogue. Participants seek to live their faith in what they believe to be a "postmodern" society. What those involved in the conversation mostly agree on is their disillusionment with the organized and institutional church and their support for the deconstruction of modern Christian worship, modern evangelism, and the nature of modern Christian community.”[1]

Whatever…that sounds political to me. And though proponents would deny it, upon careful research we find politics at its roots. A professed goal of this movement is to “deconstruct” what is viewed as “modern Christian dogma” due to a “postmodern” cultural shift. Simply from this quote, I would say we see proponents would like to do away with labels such as conservative and liberal, and instead open our minds with conversation and dialogue. It sounds so noble, doesn't it?

Frederick Nymeyer author of Progressive Calvinism defines the emerging church in 1971 in a way that clearly reveals the attitude and thought of the emergent church movement we have seen in recent years:

“The emerging church seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making 'truth claims' with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.”[2]

Through this quote, we are easily able to discern some beliefs of those involved in the emergent church. "Post-Christendom"? Not a good idea, in my opinion. Apparently emergents view Christians as imperialists, much as President Obama and many on the left view America. Also revealed is the belief that the church has not approached missions with "humility and respect"; but rather, from a lofty place physically, socially and spiritually above those who are outside the circle. The church has never been at "the margins" where Jesus is so badly needed, but rather only from a place of privilege. Oh, and if we read between the lines here, Christians of the "old-school" don't witness, they control, and care more about their brick and mortar buildings than they do about missions. We see emergents are disillusioned with organized church and really, Christianity in general. I think that's a pretty fair assessment. Let's get to why.

We will find a great deal of diversity within the emergent church as its reaches have extended to several denominations and constructs of Christianity. Within it we have also seen a renewed focus on past rituals - often Catholic in nature; mysticism; an elevation of good works, and a promotion of political/social agendas. One will hear a lot about “conversation” and “dialogue” as opposed to the old-fashioned means of evangelism. I believe the term used in this case is to present a fluidity that will offer room for change. "The call for conversation and dialogue" leads us to believe that emergents believe there is something wrong with what has always been the standard. That we must leave room for discussion to learn, grow and allow for change. That negates the verse "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow", doesn't it? Conversation of course has always been involved in evangelism, both one on one, as well as in a church or stadium setting; but the meaning behind this thought regarding “conversation” is a reference that may lead to doing away with any altar call type of experiences, it would seem to me. Instead, "Let's talk" seems to be the answer.

There is much talk about interfaith dialogue within this movement which is viewed as necessary to be successful in any and all action desired. It needs to be accepted by all, so "contextualization" is utilized. Adapt wherever possible, to keep from offending anyone. Talk of sin is rejected, being viewed as judgmental and destructive to the opportunity of bringing anyone to Christ. Rather, emergent believers prefer to rely on social works and action as a means to winning souls. This is viewed as much more loving and appropriate from Christians who are to love everyone. Unfortunately, that leaves out the importance of a change of heart attitude, and the love that is more importantly involved in hoping to free people from the bondage of sin. Rather than a focus on the evangelistic message of eternal salvation, the here and now is a larger part of the emergent mission. This brings me to the root of the emergent church beginnings.

The Social Gospel

 The emergent church promotes a “social gospel” that while certainly not new, (it’s been around since the early 1800’s) has made a resurgence in the church over recent years. The social gospel is defined in part by Wikipedia in this way:

“The movement applied Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, bad hygiene, child labor, inadequate labor unions, poor schools, and the danger of war.”[3]

The leaders of this movement were early progressives, liberal in their politics as well as their theology. Three who are credited with this movement are Washington Gladden, who was involved with labor workers and unions, William Dwight Porter Bliss who worked with the Knights of Labor as well as the Socialist Party, and Walter Rauschenbusch, a Baptist minister in New York City. The focus of the social gospel has been poverty, centrally and around the world; the unemployment of the poor; civil rights in regard to minorities and women, and even gun control. It would also include any dissident believed to need representation, as well as a desire for social justice for all. Basically, much of what the left wing agenda is today.

Walter Rauschenbusch, a pastor during the late 1800’s until his death at 56 in 1918, was one of those theologians that promoted this movement in its early stages. Rauschenbusch did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and neither did he believe in substitutionary atonement, stating Jesus never taught it. Rauschenbusch believed that sin wasn’t an individual problem as much as it was a societal issue. He believed a sinful nation offended God, which is in fact true. But where he carried this thought is one of his biggest mistakes. Rauschenbusch believed if we sin as a society, we should be able to fight that sin as a society, thus we find the social gospel seeking the redemption of our society rather than individual hearts. He viewed capitalism as selfish and dangerous. Instead, he wanted to see socialism introduced to our churches that would result in an early kind of “spreading the wealth around” belief. Rauschenbusch wanted to see a type of “theology” given to the social gospel to revitalize and grow the movement. Certainly we see in his beliefs, the emergent church philosophy and recent undertakings of that movement.

Those that supported the social gospel at that time, as today, were mostly post-millennials believers who believe that Jesus cannot return until the evils of the world have been corrected; i.e. Christians are here to make the world a better place until the return of Jesus. Not a bad goal! Post-millennials (also known as "Kingdom Now Theology") believe Jesus will not return until after the Great Tribulation and the millennial Kingdom, as opposed to the pre-millennials who believe He will return before the Tribulation to rapture His church. This is why we see the focus on the "here and now" within this movement. I believe this is one of the reasons we find the social gospel is a draw to those of Reformed Theology. It comes out of their desire to make the world a better place as we wait for the return of Jesus.

In my opinion, Christians' desire to better the world made it an easy target for proponents of the social gospel, but there is also an obvious political agenda attached of which we should be wary. Certainly not all who adhere to Reformed Theology support the social gospel, but I believe the revived interest and promotion of the social gospel is one of the main reasons we are seeing unprecedented growth in Reformed Theology and Calvinism in the church today. They seem to go hand-in-hand and I believe it to be an intentional means to infiltrate the church with liberal politics. Alleviating poverty and bringing aid to those in need is what we should all be doing as we wait for the return of Jesus. We simply shouldn't forget the true Gospel in the process.

The social gospel is believed to have died out some in the early 1900’s, but then saw a new resurgence during the tumultuous years of the 1960’s. It was then that tenets of this belief system were picked up by some in the civil rights movement such as Martin Luther King Jr., and it actually became the “religion” of the progressive movement, who saw alleviating poverty in our society as a number one goal of government.

The church was a great venue for social reform which soon led to ecumenical efforts such as the Federal Council of Churches (later to become the National Council of Churches) and the World Council of Churches.

We also see the emergent church movement using, the social gospel, has particularly targeted the overseas mission field in bringing others into its fold. Perhaps that is due to their strong belief in pro-active works, but I also see missions as the most natural venue to promote ecumenical works and even garner support for the liberal United Nations goals. Christians want to be obedient and do good works. What better place than the mission field? This has always been an important aspect of Christianity, but in the past, has simply been done without attacking America in the process, which is what we are seeing today.

Unfortunately, we have seen at the same time a movement which holds a disdain for the belief that the United States is a “Christian nation” founded on Biblical principles. The belief that we have been blessed with riches because we are a Christian nation, must be downplayed and forgotten. If America is viewed as somehow superior to any other nation, then Christians will be ineffective in reaching the needy of other countries. This thought is alienating in their view, and the excuse is used that this only denies a close relationship at the community level, focusing on too much power between the church and the culture. "How can the church reach the poor when we live with such wealth?" This is where contextualization also comes into play. The church must attack that wealth. And if Christianity is at the center of society, then in the emergent view it is neglecting the outer realms of humanity where it actually needs to be. Lame excuse? Yeah, I would say so. I personally believe there could be an ulterior motive by those troubled with this label. If not intentionally, in ignorance then, they join the mantra of the left.

Emergent proponents (as noted in the prior quote by Nymeyer) also often see America as an "Imperialistic" nation trying to control the world. Americans are fat, lazy and greedy, only putting themselves first. They see the “American Dream” as something evil, and the bashing of that term (and thereby the belief) is relentless. John Piper has video after video lamenting selfish Americans, retirement, and the American Dream. Richard Stearns in his book The Hole in Our Gospel also does a pretty good job of blaming the American Christian for all the ills of the world. It is here we see the liberal agenda in this movement (which is the social gospel) come to life.

Stuart Murray– author of such books as Church After Christendom and Planting Churches in the 21st Century – is a consultant for starting emergent churches in the UK, but his books are also widely read in America. Murray reveals the beliefs of those promoting a social gospel best in the following quote saying this about “Christendom”:

“a commitment to hierarchy and the status quo; the loss of lay involvement; institutional values rather than community focus; church at the centre of society rather than the margins; the use of political power to bring in the Kingdom; religious compulsion; punitive rather than restorative justice; marginalization of women, the poor, and dissident movements; inattentiveness to the criticisms of those outraged by the historic association of Christianity with patriarchy, warfare, injustice and patronage; partiality for respectability and top-down mission; attractional evangelism; assuming the Christian story is known; and a preoccupation with the rich and powerful.”[4]

Wow! That’s not how I see the Christian church or “Christendom”. And remember, Murray with the books he has authored, is a key player in advising, beginning and planting these emergent churches that are actively promoting the social gospel.

New Calvinism

Some say the emergent church has died out; that no one even mentions it, talks about it, or writes about it anymore. That I suppose could be true, but perhaps it has only been renamed. Just because the emergent church isn’t talked about doesn’t mean it is no longer active.  What we have seen spoken of recently is “the post-modern world” as an excuse for a need to change God’s Word. We have seen “New Calvinism” broached in discussions and dialogue. We have seen talk of “Christian hedonism” – now there is an oxymoron if I ever saw one. Hedonism defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is:

“Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure.  The ethical doctrine that only that which is pleasant is intrinsically good.”[5]

Christian hedonism as defined by John Piper (one who lays claim to the New Calvinist title) is “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him.”[6]

I don’t think it’s about us. Another term being thrown around at this time is “antinomianism” i.e. a belief that we are saved by faith alone with no regard to works, including moral behavior. While that is true, this belief takes it a step further in expecting no change of lifestyle that would come with repentance of sin. The end result is an anything goes type lifestyle.

Because of this, I believe we are seeing an acceptance of sin in the church and a failure to want to talk about sin, repentance, and the old fashioned altar call. This is why I believe movies like God’s Not Dead, which promotes the need for repentance, won’t be accepted by what I still call “the emergent church”.

On the other end of the spectrum, there is a great deal of talk about sin. There are some who like to joke of their previous past life of sin. They talk about it so much, that it simply hardens the heart of those listening. It even becomes sociably accepted. And there is no call to change one's behavior. After all, Pastor talks like that. Pastor did that; it must be ok for us too.

We have seen changes in the church throughout history. Of late, we have seen the pendulum swing from charismatic movement, into the prosperity gospel, to the recent emergent church which evolved, to "missional living", and now to New Calvinism.  There can be no doubt New Calvinism was birthed out of the emergent movement and uses much of the same principles, rituals and procedures. As long as we see the social gospel and an attack on American ideals, along with a degree of new age mysticism and a return to some Catholic liturgy and rituals, the emergent church is still very much alive, whatever one calls it.

Certainly we have seen a resurgence of Calvinism within the church body. The younger generation, those that are in their twenties and thirties, seem to be those targeted with this message. The thing that is holding all of this together, in my opinion, is “Kingdom Now” theology. “Kingdom Now”, as I mentioned earlier, is the post-millennial belief that we are to make the world better before Jesus can return. This is why we see the return to Calvinism. It is unfortunate in my opinion, this generation has even taken Calvinism, outside of its bounds of moral law.  Reformed Theology typically taught three important uses of the law.

1. To convict of sin
2. To prevent a lawless society
3. To be held up to the believer as a mirror so that he might see himself in its reflection as a standard for a believer’s life.

As complicated as all of this is getting, I am actually trying to keep it simple, for a more in depth study of New Calvinism, I highly recommend Rev. Tom Aicken’s article.  Rev. Aicken is a Reformed pastor, and besides the fact that this article is an excellent critique on New Calvinism, it also shows that even those of the Reformed doctrine see problems with this new movement, which is why I wanted to include it here.

In regard to the missional aspect of this new movement which I mentioned earlier, I would like to explain my concern with that as well. There has been a new and popular, almost trending activity in the way of overseas missions. Now of course missions have always been a big part of our church history, especially American church history. This is a very important part of Christianity. But missions within this new movement tend to focus on temporal, social issues, as opposed to a message of eternal salvation. We are commanded in Scripture to bring the Great Commission and I do not want to take away from that, but I feel the priority in regard to social issues, even over the message of the cross, has been misplaced. Moreover, missions have always been in the church, just not mission work that includes an attack on the very means that allows the work of those missions in the first place, and that is the "American Dream". It is with that that I have a problem. There are those within this movement that take the view that the most important thing a Christian can do in his mission work is make the world a better place, and that has sometimes brought the neglect of calling sinners to repentance, rescuing lives from the pit of Hell and building God’s eternal Kingdom.

The American Dream

Why these emergent pastors see the need to continually bash the “American Dream” is simply beyond me.  Certainly we can see, and probably correctly assume this “need” springs from the progressive roots of this movement which I have attempted to show is clearly there. In that regard, why should we be surprised? It’s the same thing the liberal left does!

The book I mentioned earlier Radical - Taking Back Your Faith From the American Dream by David Platt, is a classic example. Taking back our faith from the "American Dream"??? Really?! Our faith would be lost if not for the "American Dream"!! It is the "American Dream" that allows us to express our faith in the way we see fit. Our nation was founded because of a desire for freedom of religion. That is and always has been the "American Dream". We continue to have our faith because of the "American Dream"! The "American Dream" is about freedom, not money! Surely these people can see there is no other nation better equipped to offer aid to the poor than America! Certainly there is no other nation on earth that brings more relief to the underprivileged around the world. It takes money to support humanitarian efforts, and the best way to money is capitalism! We are also the most generous nation on earth – without argument! It is our freedom that allows all of this.

Furthermore, aside from all that, these people that are so quick to attack the "American Dream" are, in fact, LIVING the “American Dream”. If they choose to be missionaries in some foreign land, they are living their dream! Being able to choose to live and work as we desire is the "American Dream"! I, for one, am sick and tired of this attack. I am disgusted by this phony premise. This is the same lie of the left – along with the left’s lie that America is an Imperialistic nation only out for ourselves, seeking control of the world. This couldn’t be more incorrect as we have proven throughout history to be the ones that are always there to bring aid when needed. And we have taken control of no land or nation after offering that aid! Instead, we have worked to bring their freedoms, which is what enables a sharing of the Gospel.

In regard to what I have shown here, can’t we see now why there is a need by these groups to attack America and the "American Dream"? There will be no success of the ecumenical movement that seems to be desired by the emergent church as long as America is a super power. There will be no uniting of nations into a one world government as long as America is strong. Until, Americans, and other nations, are finally and fully misled with what America really stands for - and that is a Christian nation that stands for freedom - America will remain a strong, and sovereign nation. America must be attacked by a distortion of who we are in order to bring America down to an equal place around the world.

To be fair, Kevin DeYoung, pastor of University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, and a member of The Gospel Coalition (a New Calvinist organization led by Tim Keller and Don Carson) wrote an interesting response to David Platt’s book Radical. Even as a Reformed/New Calvinist, DeYoung had legitimate concerns and criticism of Platt’s book. However, DeYoung still couldn’t write his critique without mentioning the desire this movement has to attack and do away with the “American Dream” saying:

“We need to find a way to attack the American dream while still allowing for differing vocations and that sort of ordinary Christian life that can plod along for fifty years.”[7]

Good to know we are all just plodding along.

Continuing Common Threads

While, I do not want to continue to mention names of emergent church pastors, and proponents of this movement, (I will leave that for the reader to discern) there is one that cannot be left unmentioned due to his unprecedented success in bringing the social gospel to fruition.

Rick Warren, senior pastor of the mega-church Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, came to fame with his Purpose-Driven books: The Purpose-Driven Church and The Purpose-Driven Life. With the publishing of these books and the widely, and readily acceptance of an ill-informed audience, Warren was off to success in influencing a generation with the teaching of the social gospel, though it was yet realized as such. Later he revealed his P.E.A.C.E. Plan which is very well explained by T.A. McMahon with the Berean Call, so I will refrain from doing it here. While I don’t agree with every aspect of McMahon’s paper, I highly recommend reading his article regarding the influence of Rick Warren in the emergent church and the recent revival of the social gospel. Needless to say, the social gospel grew exponentially with the onset of Warren’s work.

Though it has yet to be revealed in Warren’s movement, the social gospel has never been effective (at any time in history) in the goal of bringing about the desired change in society. The end result of attacking and seeking to replace the true Gospel is doubt that creeps into the hearts and minds of believers. This “doubt” instead ends up with believers believing and supporting a false gospel. What occurs is best revealed in the following quote from Frederick Nymeyer, whom I mentioned earlier, and who was a staunch critic of the social gospel. Ironically, though Nymeyer was a Dutch Calvinist (certainly not to be confused with Calvinism of today) he actively spoke out against the social gospel. He was also known to be a libertarian thinker. Though I do not hold to either of these beliefs, I do not let these facts dissuade me from quoting him. Calvinism at its roots and early libertarianism were both different than what they are today - the latter simply becoming social liberalism on moral issues. Further, I want to make it clear that there are those of the Reformed faith, (then and now) that do not support or agree with the "New Calvinism" movement. What I like about Nymeyer is his desire to show the incompatibility of socialism with regard to Christianity and his concern for making that known. He did it well. Perhaps he was better able to see the harmful nature of it due to the generation in which he was born as opposed to the youth of today. It is my belief that he could not have been more accurate in his following statement regarding the social gospel.

“The Social Gospel may be the most crucial of all problems besetting Christian churches at this time, for when a Christian's ethical certitudes are revealed to be defective, as it always turns out to be in the Social Gospel, then he ends up abandoning confidence in valid, Biblical faith. In practice what happens is that when Social Gospel action fails to produce valid results, the person promoting such programs does not abandon the Social Gospel and return to the true Gospel, but plunges deeper into further Social Gospel actions with progressively more frustrating results.”[8]

Finally, I believe the social gospel we see today is little different than liberation theology often described by detractors of that “theology” as “Christianized Marxism”. Liberation theology as defined by Wikipedia is:

“a political movement in Roman Catholic theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in relation to a liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions.”[9]

This certainly isn’t restricted to Roman Catholicism, however. If it isn’t the same as the social gospel, certainly there are some very similar attributes in both “theologies”.  In fact, Dr. Tim Keller who co-founded the Gospel Coalition which I mentioned earlier (and of whom Kevin DeYoung and John Piper are members) actually promotes this theology in his book Generous Justice, and quotes from Gustavo Gutierrez who is credited with beginning liberation theology. Furthermore, Keller readily admits that he has been influenced by social activism with a liberal political bias throughout his life. Keller is also given credit by some for the new “missional living” movement…new only due to proponents perceived intentions. It is simply a facet of the liberal social gospel and/or liberation theology renamed.

One cannot get away from the ties these emerging and evolving movements have to a liberal, socialist agenda. Regardless of what it is called or labeled – emergent, emerging, social gospel, missional living, or New Calvinism, I believe there to be some very clear threads that are interwoven throughout the emergent/social gospel movement that has brought us to what we see influencing American churches today – New Calvinism.

Those threads are:

• A social gospel from the 19^th century, reinvented and re-inspired
• A resurgence of some Catholic rituals, contemplative prayer, and new age mysticism.
• An increase in overseas missions without the true Gospel being brought forth, but rather a focus on meeting physical needs and uniting/equalizing the rich with the poor
• A connection to liberal politics i.e. goals, platform, and policies; as well as advocating, advancing and working with the United Nations
• Liberation theology as defined above
• An attack on America and the American Dream
• An attack on conservative Christians, traditional Christianity and their beliefs
• An increase in the growth of a Calvinistic doctrine (far removed from the Calvinism of the 16^th century)
• A luring away of the topic of sin
• Watering down of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ
• Replacement theology which has led to no support (politically or spiritually) for the nation of Israel.

And while all of this can seem overwhelming with the many directions the church seems to be taking, there is a need to identify and define each of these doctrines. Suffice it to say, what I have noticed is within what we now call the "New Calvinist Movement", we see all of the aspects of which I am most concerned. It appears the New Calvinists have adopted, in some form, each of these beliefs or doctrines:

• Reformed Doctrine - Embraces the 5 points of Calvinism and predestination. Reformed Doctrine is synonymous with Calvinism, though in these modern times, it has been taken far past what Calvin or even Spurgeon taught. There is a distinct political narrative that has infected Reformed teaching of today, which I hope to have clearly shown.
• Replacement Theology - the belief that the church has replaced Israel
• Kingdom Now Theology, also known as Dominion Theology - God's Kingdom is here now. Christians are to make the world better until Jesus returns. There is no rapture/only at the return of Jesus, after the 1000 year millennial reign - if there is a belief in the 1000 year reign at all.
• New Covenant Theology which neglects to believe in a literal translation of Scripture, or that God deals with man through dispensations. Further, it is my belief that this has been twisted enough that it almost appears to give a license to sin.
• Missional Living - Missional Living though something every Christian should live by and should be a standard of our faith, has been used and manipulated by a liberal left agenda that pushes United Nations goals, as well as a disdain for America. While in theory of course missions are important to Christian life, this segment of the church seems to have been infiltrated with a liberal, progressive agenda and a social gospel message. Because of the very nature of the mission field, it has been an easy target of the UN seeking a platform for their liberal message.

Calvinism's New Place

Why Calvinist/Reformed theology? The magazines are full of articles about how Calvinism is taking over Christianity. One of the major news magazines declared Calvinism to be one of the top trends in Christianity, today. I think there are several reasons why this theology is gaining ground. Let me address a few that I believe to be crucial. But first, I want to explain some of the Reformed doctrine.

Calvinism has five distinctives in two different areas. The first, is what has come to be known as TULIP:

• Total depravity – born into sin
• Unconditional election – God chooses whom He will
• Limited atonement – only God's chosen.
• Irresistible grace – nothing you can do about it.
• Perseverance of the saints – once saved, always saved.

The other is the five Solas:

• Scripture alone
• Christ alone
• Grace alone
• Faith alone
• God’s glory alone

These last five that I listed are traditional tenets of Christianity; or at least they should be. These are the truths that are necessary to every believer's life. Incorporating these into this theology ensures that the doctrine comes from a Christian belief. But the principles of the TULIP acronym is what allows differences and distortions.

One, God’s election, (choosing only those whom He wills) has always been highly controversial among Christians. It is a debate that will never be concluded this side of Heaven. It seems to present well with the younger generations, however. It is simply what many want to believe. It fulfills a sense of wanting to fit it, and needing to belong. We all want to be accepted. But the younger generations, of whom many have grown up in day-cares and public schools, especially seem to have this need. This doctrine pulls millennials in and gives them a sense of belonging.

"Total Depravity" - with the moral decay we are seeing around us, this fact is easy to accept. It is an explanation for all that we have had to endure. And it is a traditional tenet of Christianity.

Along with the above points, growing up with the blessings provided by their parent’s hard work and the American Dream, it is easy for millennials to say that they have no need for material possessions. Having never been without, many have not learned to appreciate what they do have. Parents have sacrificed time with their children in order to give them material possessions that they, themselves, never had. I think it is easier for those of the younger generation to be angry at that loss of attention, and because of that feel they need to reject material things.

Along with these draws for the millennial generation, Reformed theology does not teach a literal translation of Scripture. This fits well for those who have been taught “science before faith".  

Further, Reformed theology holds the key to the break down of Scripture we are seeing today. Much of the Bible is allegorical, Calvinists claim. This is a mandatory way to interpret Scripture if replacement theology is to be successfully taught and believed. Scripture cannot be viewed literally. Quite simply, the only way Israel can be denied as God’s chosen people is through an interpretation of Scripture that is not literal. In order for this generation to so easily turn its back on Israel, Scripture must not be interpreted literally.

Reformed theology is a belief system that fits many needs for today’s generations. But more importantly, it is entirely necessary to fit the political narrative that is influencing the church today.

Ironically, Calvin's ideas of democracy, capitalism, a strong work ethic, and patriotism that so greatly influenced our nation's beginnings have been left far behind. What we have instead, is earnest believers desiring to do the right things, but being unmistakably influenced by a political agenda they are naïve to.

What we have ended up with in "New Calvinism" is simply the very political "emergent church" renamed.

With this movement that includes a return to Reformed Theology in the way of New Calvinism, we have seen a decline in moral values, (unfortunately pastors such as Mark Driscoll – pastor at Mars Hill in Seattle - has taken us there [10]) we have also seen attacks on our American way of life and the nation that we love.

Most concerning to me is that there is the recent, rapid and dangerous decline in support of Israel. As I said earlier, along with the New Calvinist message also comes a message of Replacement Theology. Though there are some within the Reformed church that will dispute this statement, it appears to me to be only a matter of semantics. The following quote is from a Reformed site and shows little difference in the definition, but rather only a disdain for the term “Replacement Theology”.

“How does “Replacement Theology” misrepresent and malign many good Christians? Reformed or Covenant theologians simply do not hold that the church replaced Israel. Reformed theologians believe that God “pruned off” many Jews in judgment for their disbelief; then God grafted in Gentiles by faith. There is no replacement. Grafting-in keeps and cherishes Jewish roots and does them no harm. This correct view promotes a continuity of God’s faithfulness to both believing Jews and Gentiles from the Old Testament and on into the New.”[11]

What the author of this quote fails to see is that with his belief, he still leaves out the national aspect of the land of Israel - a nation given boundaries by God. He only presents the argument of those who are finally saved are now one, whether Jew or Gentile. The Christian is indeed grafted in to Jewish roots and covenants, but this allows for no regard to the national boundaries which God obviously intended and created, and which is clearly spoken of in prophetic Scripture. God had/has a purpose in creating individual nations. Those of this movement ignore those boundaries and the national right of Israel to exist. I have even seen it taken to the extent, that Christians will support the Palestinians over Israel's right to the land. Case in point, Jimmy Carter. But this belief has now trickled down to ill-informed youth in the church being fed what has been propagated by this movement.

The Bible verse Genesis 12:3 that states, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:” which is speaking of the nation of Israel, has no place within this New Calvinist/Reformed trend. We are definitely seeing God slowly remove His hand of protection and blessing on our nation as we find ourselves turning our backs on Israel and the true message of God’s Word. It is becoming more and more apparent how the Bible verse that every nation will turn against Israel (Zechariah 14:2) will come to fruition. I simply couldn’t understand how that would include America; how America could turn against Israel. I do now, in light of the growth of this ever-growing, multi-faceted movement that believes the church has replaced Israel in Scripture, whether some agree with the terminology (Replacement Theology), or not.

Summary

Hopefully I have shown that though this movement loves to attack all conservative political endeavors, it actually has its roots in liberal politics and is still by its very nature “political”. If we believe that those who seek to destroy America (And yes, there are those who do.) wouldn’t attempt to infiltrate our churches, we our foolish. Of course they would!

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within..."

        ~Josef Stalin c. 1947

Our faith is the foundation of our nation. It needs to be destroyed to bring America down. If America is destroyed, the richest, most generous nation which is also the one most pro-active in spreading the true Gospel is the most important thing that will be lost.

Of course those that want America destroyed would target a generation that has not been taught to understand the importance of our Christian roots and foundation; nor the importance of maintaining the label of "Christian nation". Certainly that must be removed, or at the very least minimized. Revisionist history being taught in our public schools has simply made that easier. This doesn’t mean it is only the younger generations that are being fooled. There are those from every generation that have been deceived. And I don’t believe each and every one intends this for evil…but evil is sometimes in the consequences.

For me, it is troubling that there are some within this movement that can’t even find anything constructive to say about a movie like God’s Not Dead. Again, as I said earlier, the reviews that I came across about the movie is what led me to writing about all my past discoveries of the emergent church. God’s Not Dead is simply traditional, evangelical Christianity! Shouldn’t there be some redeeming grace found in that aspect of the movie by every Christian? Again this post isn’t about the movie, rather this post is about Christians who couldn’t seem to support the movie and what I believe is the reason why – the detractors simply don’t seem to like traditional Christianity. The movie is only the most recent example of true Christianity, as opposed to those who seem to want to change it. I simply can’t understand how a Christian that should support the spreading of the Gospel would only find fault with this movie. Some persuaded by the emergent church simply cannot seem to accept that old fashioned Gospel message. I find that odd. Further, I can’t understand that some in this movement continue to attack that which is the very means by which they get their funds – the "American Dream". It is beyond my comprehension, and in light of all that I have read about the beginnings of the emergent church and this social gospel, I believe there is much more to it than what anyone will admit or claim or even that some really comprehend. And I believe a great divide within Christianity is only one of the end results.

We are already seeing decline and discord within the Christian church. We are seeing a move away from righteousness, to almost anything goes, as long as you have enough "love". We used to believe it was love that would inspire us to guide others to give up harmful lifestyles.

We are also seeing a move away from support of God’s chosen land and people, and for me that is one of the most dangerous things of all. God promises blessings to those who support Israel. I believe it to be rather frightening to see God’s hand of protection removed from our lives, wouldn’t you agree?

Further, the fact that the salvation of lost souls has taken a back seat to man’s view of bettering the world is beyond disheartening. Where have we come?

I do not seek to attack anyone or any doctrine. I only hope for this to serve as a warning as to where this diverse movement (in all of its facets, renaming and new theology) will take us.

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” ~Galatians 6:7 

Feel free to comment or email me with any questions or comments.

 

King James Bible - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.                                                                     

King James Bible - Jude 1:4
For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.                                                                                                      

King James Bible - 2 Timothy 3:5
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.                                                                                                                                                      

King James Bible - Galatians 1:8
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.                                

King James Bible - Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.  

Resources

[1] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

[2] PBS - http://www.pbs.org/now/society/socialgospel.html

[3] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel

[4] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church 

[5] The American Heritage Dictionary; Dell Publishing, 1972

[6] Rev. Tom Aicken - http://www.freereformedchurchlangley.org/the-new-calvinism-a-critical-assessment

[7] The Gospel Coalition - http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2010/05/25/getting-to-the-root-of-radical/

[8] Frederick Nymeyer - Progressive Calvinism

[9] Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
[10] Marsha West - http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/mwest/120927

[11] Rev. Brian D. Warner, M.A., Wheaton College Graduate School http://replacementtheology.org/77-rt/24-rt

Other Sources

~The Berean Call - http://www.thebereancall.org/print/book/export/html/7062
~The New Calvinist - http://www.newcalvinist.com/  

~The King James Bible

 

*Disclaimer: I have quoted several people in this article. I purposely used many resources from the Reformed faith to “take it from the horse's mouth”, so to speak. This in no way means I am advocating any particular belief system that any individual may hold.