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.
- To convict of sin
- To prevent a lawless society
- 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 19th
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 16th
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
[5] The American Heritage Dictionary; Dell Publishing, 1972
[8] Frederick Nymeyer - Progressive Calvinism
Other Sources
~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.
