The “Eschatology” on “How to Change the World” – Un-rebel Yourself and Become a Grandpa!

View Full Album

I read these sweet winged words on Cobus van Wyngaard’s blog today.

To me, eschatology mean that I believe that the world can change, no matter what the odds! And I’m willing to believe that at least some of the people I know are changing the world right now.

This “Emperor has no clothes” syndrome could have been funny if it hadn’t been so sad. The fact of the matter is that these guys are probably not even capable of changing a baby’s diapers let alone the world.

Do these guys read their Bibles? Had they taken the time to study God’s Word they would have noticed that the world they are trying to change is going to wax worse and worse as the time for Jesus Christ to return draws nearer. Agh! but Cobus and his buddies have stripped, unshackled, freed and emancipated  eschatology of trivial and insignificant things like the parousia of Christ. Do I hear them singing “We are the new generation of Mighty Men who are going to change the world?” Ah! the Emperor is not only naked, he is also singing.

What does God say about the world in his Word?

Re 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him

Re 13:3  And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Re 13:8  And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Unholiness of the Renovaré Brotherhood’s “Holiness.”

View Full Album

Adherents to the Emergent Church have an uncanny ability to tell their congregants what to do without explaining what they really have in mind. They have the knack to use biblical terminology very skilfully and expertly but often fail to elucidate the biblical meaning of the words they hit to and fro like a little ping-pong ball. “Holiness” is one of these words. I encountered this again in one of Stephan Joubert’s regular contributions on e-church under the title “No Steroids for Holiness.” Although it may be a very clever post-modernish title it wreaks of heresy from the very outset, especially when one takes into account who it was who coined the witty little maxim. But allow me to use Stephan’s own words:

You can’t cheat your way to holiness. Or can you? Presently, I am at the Renovare Conference in St Antonio, Texas where the theme is: The Jesus Way. Yesterday evening I listened to one of my spiritual heroes, Eugene Peterson. In his fine presentation he stressed that there are no spiritual steroids for holiness. You have to live a holy life, one day at a time. (Emphasis added)

Have you noticed the little ink spots in Stephan’s declaration of holiness?

What is Renovare?

Here are a few facts about “Renovare”

• Renovaré is a movement within the emergent church that was started in 1988 by Richard Foster, a Quaker theologian. The Quaker’s theology is based on the belief that everyone (believers and unbelievers) have an “inner light” which can lead them to truth while they wait and listen to its subjective leading, particularly with the assistance of contemplative practices such as “the silence” and “centering prayer.” Paul Lacout, in Quaker Faith and Practice, described a “silence which is active” causing the Inner Light to “glow.” Their complete reliance on the leading of the inner light has just about ousted the objectivity of God’s Word and its clear-cut doctrines. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Stephan Joubert pledges not to return to the Bible and the church but to advance forward to God (the inner light that guides all of mankind into the Truth).
• As soon as you begin to tamper with biblical doctrine heresy becomes your way and not as the Renovaré brotherhood claims “The Jesus Way.” The Quakers’ assertion that believers and unbelievers have an “inner light” substantiates their equally heretic belief in Universalism. George Fox and Robert Barclay as well as other respected leaders in the Quaker movement hold to the lie that all people are already saved from sin or will eventually be saved from it, the reason being that the Light is within everyone and nobody will therefore be cast into hell. Then there are those within the Quaker movement, such as the Quaker Universalist Group who believe that it is unnecessary to have any faith in Jesus Christ. People of other faiths or no faith at all have no need of salvation because they already have Light within them. Calvinism has a similar pet heresy. Although they do not believe that all men will eventually be saved, thanks to Calvin’s doctrine with regard to the reprobates, they too proclaim that all the elect will be saved without faith. Saving faith, they say, is given as a gift  after the elect had been infused with the inner Light of God by the Holy Spirit (monergism as opposed to synergism).

What does the Word of God teach us about the Light?

John 3:19-21  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (Emphasis added)

Isaiah 8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Emphasis added)

• Richard Foster, the author of the Renovaré study Bible, endorses many Universalists and pantheists. Here are some of the revealing things they have said in their books:

“The Inner Light, the Inward Christ, is no mere doctrine, belonging peculiarly to a small religious fellowship, to be accepted or rejected as a mere belief. It is the living Center of Reference for all Christian souls and Christian groups - yes, and of non-Christian groups as well” Thomas Kelly: A Testament of Devotion.

"It is a glorious destiny to be a member of the human race, … now I realize what we all are …. If only they [people] could all see themselves as they really are … I suppose the big problem would be that we would fall down and worship each other … At the center of our being is a point of nothingness which is untouched by sin and by illusions, a point of pure truth … This little point ..is the pure glory of God in us. It is in everybody. Thomas Merton: Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander

Asia, Zen, Islam, etc., all these things come together in my life. It would be madness for me to attempt to create a monastic life for myself by excluding all these. I would be less a monk. Rob Baker & Gray Henry: Merton and Sufism.

The common denominator between Merton’s brand of Christianity and other religions is mysticism, in particular Buddhism. Stephan Joubert’s spiritual excursion to the Renovaré Conference in San Antonio, Texas is consequently no coincidence. He is merely strengthening his affiliation with his brothers and sisters who are extending a hand of brotherly affection to religions such as Buddhism, and affirming his agreement with Rob Bell who said that truth may also be found in other religions such as Buddhism. When Merton could no longer resist the mystic appeal, he intended to turn his back on Christianity. Guess who advised him to remain a Christian? No! You’re wrong. It was not a concerned Christian but a Hindu swami named Dr. Bramachari. He assured Merton that he could find the very same mysticism within the ranks of the Christian mystics. (Henri J M Nouwen: Contemplative Critic). Dr. Bramachari seems to be far better informed than most Christians of Paul’s warning in 2 Corinthians and seems to know that Merton can do more damage within the ranks of Christianity if he remains therein stead of becoming a converted Buddhist or Hindu.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

Merton affirmed that he could incorporate these mystical traditions into his own Christian tradition if he practiced tolerance of and an openness to Buddhism, Hinduism and other Asian mystical religions. Richard Foster’s entire philosophy is based on Merton’s and others’ contemplative spirituality and their efforts to bridge the gap between Western and Far Eastern spiritualities. Why would someone like Foster who claims to follow The Jesus Way endorse and follow Merton’s heresies? The underlying reason is to forge a new Christianity which gullibly utilizes Christian terminology, such as The Jesus Way and holiness, and gathers together every conceivable religious persuasion under a single umbrella called mysticism, simply because everyone has the Inner Light. Roger Oakland asks a similar question in his book “Faith Undone”

Why would someone who claims to be a Christian as Foster does, after reading and understanding Merton’s position on East­ern religion, promote his ideas? Foster knows the kind of prayer Merton stood for was different from biblical prayer. He admits that Merton’s prayer lined up with that of Zen masters and Bud­dhist monks. And yet he said, “Merton continues to inspire count­less men and women.”[i]

Stephan Joubert  is obviously one of the countless men and women who have been inspired to follow in the Jesus Way of spurious disciples such as Richard Foster, Eugene Peterson and Thomas Merton. The Renovaré (Renewal) Spiritual Formation Bible which was released in 2005 has impacted many people to strive for a renewal in the church. Besides Foster, editors included Dallas Willard, Walter Brueggemann, and Eugene Peterson.

What does the Renovaré Study Bible propagate?

• A great deal of the Old and the New Testament prophecies revolve around Israel, God’s chosen people. Dave Hunt wrote in the second part of “Israel and Prophetic Proof” in a recent edition of The Berean Call  the following:

Israel is the major topic of Bible prophecy, mentioned more than 2900 times, nearly twice as many times as her Messiah. Without Israel there would be no Messiah and no salvation for anyone, Jew or Gentile.

And yet, the Renovaré fraternity deliberately ignore Bible prophecy and re-interpret key prophecies in Scripture without the slightest compunction. In their zeal to make a better place of this world and to usher in the Kingdom of God by caring for the poor and downtrodden (which could be a good thing if the preached the unadulterated Gospel to them, which of course they don’t) they have re-interpreted “Israel” in terms of all the homeless in the world. Jeremiah 31:7-14 is undoubtedly a prophecy relating to the final restoration of Israel in their own promised land. Not so, says the Renovaré Study Bible; It is a promise to all the homeless and downtrodden people in the world. The Gospel cannot possibly be the Good News when Israel is left out of the equation. Sever them from the Gospel then you also need to sever the Messiah from it, which is impossible because Jesus Himself once said “ . . . salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). The Renovaré brotherhood, including Stephan Joubert. boast that they are following The Jesus Way and striving to live a life of holiness (without steroids of course). This is holy (or is it wholly) impossible when you dislodge Israel who gave us our Messiah from the prophecies. All the prophecies (and promises) in the Old and New Testament concerning Israel are all “yea and amen” in Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:20) and anyone who proclaims anything contrary to Christ’s prophecies relating to Israel are not following the Jesus Way but another way of another Jesus who is blazing the way to eternal destructio0n.

Who is the Jesus the Renovaré brotherhood are following?

Isaiah 9: 6-7 is one of the most magnanimous prophecies in the Old Testament predicting the advent of Jesus Christ.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

In their quest for holiness (without steroids of course) and to prove that they are genuine followers of The Jesus Way the Renovaré brotherhood, spearheaded by Richard Foster and Eugene Petersen (one of Stephan Joubert’s spiritual heroes and the author of the abominable and unbiblical “The Message”) have deliberately denigrated the above prophecy pertaining to Jesus Christ as well as many other Old Testament prophecies that point to Him. Here’s what they dare to do despite the stern warning in Revelation 22: 18 and 19.

1. The Renovaré “scholars” continually downplay the powerful Old Testament prophecies of Christ (pp. 22, 32, 1375, 1377-8, 1384, etc.).
2. They proclaim that the key prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7 of the coming Messiah, who is “the mighty God, the everlasting Father,” refers to “human agents” ( p. .997).
3. Their holinesses (without steroids) declare that Isaiah’s prophecies are merely “tradition” (pp. 982, 983),
4. They would have us believe that much of that book was not written by Isaiah (there are “three authors”– pp. 982, 1068),
5. One of their most glaring proofs that they are indeed following The Way of Jesus and running afer holiness (without steroids) is their blunt denial that chapter 53 prophesies Christ’s sacrifice for our sins (p. 984)! So please, if you have a burning desire to follow the Jesus Way, tear Isaiah 53 out your Bilbe.
6. Renovaré describes the book of Isaiah as “poetic imagination … Isaiah imagines,” etc. The Renovaré “scholars” declare, “The prophets of Israel are not to be thought of primarily as…predictors of the future … they were poets” (p. 1079). Through poetry, Jeremiah attempts “to make sense of the events of his day …” (p. 1080). This is not holiness without steroids but Blasphemy with steroids, Stephan Joubert!
7. Renovaré rejects the powerful prophecies of Daniel, including the proof of 9:24-26 that Jesus is the Christ. They never say a word about the image foretelling the four world kingdoms and revival of the fourth (Roman Empire) under ten heads (2:36-45) to be destroyed by the Messiah when He sets up His everlasting kingdom. Nor is there a word about the future apocalyptic significance of the four beasts of Daniel 7 coinciding with Revelation 13. The wrath of God poured out upon earth during the Great Tribulation (Renovaré avoids that term) are described as “natural disasters straight out of Exodus” (p. 2268). Yet even the magicians in Egypt told Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God” (Ex 8:19).

So, what is holiness anyway?

Holiness, in a nutshell, is to be like your Creator and Saviour.

1 Peter 1:15 But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

In practice it means that God’s children should talk, think and act completely different from what our world system expects its citizens to do. It comes down to separateness, severance, apartness from the world system and everything it advocates and stands for. The idea of separateness is seen throughout the Bible. Let’s ponder the following verses from Scripture.

Mark 10: 34-36 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

2 Corinthians 6:17  Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

If you proclaim to be a Christian who follows The Jesus Way you dare not associate with false teachers and preachers. Holiness also means to separate yourself from them. it is impossible to plead holiness (without steroids) while you associate with people whose false teaching God hates, to such an extent that He said through the mouth of his disciple,. Paul:

Galatians 1: 8 and 9 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. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Here are a few verses that warn us not to associate with false teachers and preachers.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Revelation 18:4  And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

2 Timothy 3:5-14 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was. But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (Emphasis added).

I have pleaded with you many times before, Stephan, and I want to do so here again: Repent of your disastrous way which is clearly NOT The Jesus Way and definitely NOT the way of holiness. It is the way that leads to destruction. You are misleading many people in South Africa. Please stop playing with fire and repent!

---

[i] Richard Foster, Devotional Classics, op. cit., p. 61.

Transforming Mission

How do you transform Jesus Christ’s original missionary command to go into all the world, to make disciples of all the nations and to teach them to observe everything He commanded us? (Matthew 28:18-20). Its as easy as eating candy floss. The first thing you need to do is to search for Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole and deliberately fall into it and then, while you’re tumbling uncontrollably ever deeper into the darkest recesses of the hole, to realize that the world will never be the same again. Everything is caught up in a whirlpool of change. Even our theology, i.e. our perception of the world, of ourselves, of God and eternity, is in a constant flux of change (Thus spake the Zarathustrian Emergents). Now, let’s see how the world has changed. Perhaps you can help me identify some of the paradigm shifts that have irreversibly changed the world. Here goes.

1. Electricity changed our world when it began to illuminate great cities.
2. The wheel and the aeroplane have given man greater mobility.
3. The telephone gave mankind greater connectivity.
4. The computer, the internet and mobile phones enlarged this connectivity to an even greater extent.
5. Man sets foot on the moon for the very first time and since then has explored many other planets in the universe.
6. Major breakthroughs in medicine are said to have enhanced man’s longevity.
7. Quantum physics has had enormous success in explaining many of the features of our world.

If the emergent and contemplative conversationalists, who are tumbling down the “Wonderland rabbit hole” are really and truly honest with themselves, they must admit that none of the abovementioned phenomenal inventions that brought about paradigm changes in our society were able to change the moral fibre of mankind as a whole. Improved environments have never changed man’s inborn depraved moral disposition, and neither does the maxim “from rags to riches.” (Jeremiah 17:9). And yet they persist in their folly to believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ must be contextualized and that mission ought be transformed to accommodate these changes and to meet the people where they are at this present moment. They perceive our modern-day society as a very complex one, as if societies in the past were more congenial and simpler. Men in antiquity who road on donkeys were no less sinful and depraved than today’s jet-setters who effortlessly fly between countries in modern planes and vice versa, the reason being that both inherited the same problem — the old Adam nature. The latter portentous and ominous part of man’s psyche clings to him like the smelly odour of a dead body (Romans 7:24).

The ill-founded notion that our society is too complex to be dealt with sufficiently and efficiently by a set of simple answers has its roots in the abdominal crusade against the Word of God and its solutions to man’s problems, so much so that the Bible narratives must be changed, refurbished, re-invented and moulded into something new that can address the needs of today’s complex souls. This is what one of our more distinguished contemplatives has to say about the complexities of our society.

Theology never should be a simple set of answers to lifes complex questions.

I’m rather intrigued by by his phrase “never should” which implies that theology (the science of studying and commenting on God and how He relates to our world) should always remain detached from or aloof of life’s complex questions. Dangling the proverbial carrot is certainly one way of keeping complex souls from finding solutions for their complex problems. It should never supply concrete answers, because as soon as it does the journey the contemplatives have embarked on will have reached a destination (“we have arrived” kinda concept) which, in turn of course, would derail and crash Brian McLaren’s and other emergents’ need for a “new quest.”  If Christian theology should never be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions, to what else should complex souls take their refuge to find answers to life’s complexities – psychology, contemplative mysticism, other religions, new norms and values, a global ethic, a transformed missiology? What does God say?

2 Peter 1:2, 3 May grace (God’s favor) and peace (which is perfect well-being, all necessary good, all spiritual prosperity, and freedom from fears and agitating passions and moral conflicts) be multiplied to you in [the full, personal, precise, and correct] knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. For His divine power has bestowed upon us all things that [are requisite and suited] to life and godliness, through the [full, personal] knowledge of Him Who called us by and to His own glory and excellence (virtue). (From the Amplified Bible)

The full, personal, precise and correct knowledge of God and Jesus Christ (which is not merely a head-knowledge but knowledge that pertains to eternal salvation – John 17: 3) produces a peace that surpasses all understanding (Philippians 4:7). It leads to perfect spiritual well-being, good and spiritual prosperity (please note: not financial prosperity to make the poor rich as some would want you to believe), and freedom from fears and agitating passions and moral conflicts. Indeed, God has bestowed on us all things through His Son Jesus Christ which enables us to live a life of godliness. Moreover, God has blessed his children with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:3). What more do they want; what more do they need? Notwithstanding king David’s life that was inundated with severe complexities, he could sing from the depths of his heart “The Lord is my Shepherd. I shall not want.” Jesus Christ was all he needed to calm the tempestuous sea in his life, so much so that “he laid him down and slept; and awaked; for the LORD sustained him“ (psalm 3:5). This is not so with the unbeliever of whom the prophet Isaiah said” “But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.” A theology that never should be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions is a theology of an incompetent God whose hands are tied and cannot solve repentant sinners complex needs and problems. Such a God is no more and no less than a statue of an idol in your living room picking up dust and dirt. Who is the liar? The one who says that “theology never should be a simple set of answers to life’s complex questions” or the One who promised that He has bestowed on us all things that are suited to a life of godliness, perfect peace free from perplexing fears, agitations and inner conflicts?

Who is this God of the emergent church who sprains, stumbles and gives way under the pressures of the complexities of this life? Cobus van Wyngaard describes this God as someone whose suffering on the cross was not unique here. He says amongst other heretic statements:

It’s as if Christians have this extreme fear of finding out that Jesus was just another human like me and you. Just a plain crusifixion would have been extremely bad, just as bad as it would have been for any other human. You know that it was an early Christian heresy to downplay the humanity of Christ? But by amplifying the uniqueness of his suffering, ain’t we downplaying his humanity? As if the normal suffering that a human would undergo isn’t enough, it had to be worse than anything you could imagine.

I don’t doubt the uniqueness of Christ. But I believe that much of what Jesus did was not unique to him. The Bible doesn’t have a problem with this. It talks about sharing in the suffering of Christ (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10), about following Paul like he follows Jesus (1 Cor 11:1), about disciples doing the same things that Jesus did (Matt 10). Jesus was imitated, followed. Others have done similar things. In many respects what Jesus broughts was not supposed to be unique, but rather point to something that is common! Maybe his suffering is not supposed to be unique either.

For anything to be unique it must be something that has never occurred before and never shall occur again in the entire history of humankind. A Commonalty, on the other hand, is something that can occur again and again. Cobus van Wyngaard tries very hard to prove that Jesus Christ’s crucifixion was not unique because it was a common occurrence in Roman antiquity. No one can deny that crucifixion was the means of execution in the most horrendous and cruel way during the Roman Empire and that many experienced this ill-fated death. It was this very form of execution that may be associated with the “fullness of time” of which Paul wrote in Galatians 4 because it was only first introduced and used between 6 BC and 4 AD when Emperor Constantine abolished it. Many ask the question why God waited so long to send his Son into the world and why the Roman Empire played such a major role in die “fullness of time” There are several reasons but the most obvious one is that execution by crucifixion was the means God decreed for His Son to die long before it even existed as an instrument of execution. The “fullness of time” was the time when all the Old Testament prophecies in regard to Christ’s death and resurrection were fulfilled in Him so that there could be no doubt about their fulfillment. It was important that such an event as Jesus Christ’s crucifixion in the fullness of time should be predicted in order that there might be full evidence that He came from heaven and not from the earth like all the others who died a similar death (John 8:23); and yet, in order that prophecy may be seen to have been uttered by God, it must be so far before the event as to make it impossible to have been the result of mere human conjecture. There are several Old Testament prophecies in regard to Christ’s crucifixion that can never be associated with any other person who died on a cross during the Roman Empire, making His death on the cross absolutely unique. Let’s take a look at these prophecies and their fulfillment.

Prophecies	Fulfillment
Isaiah 53: 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.	Matthew 26: 62, 63 And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Isaiah 50: 6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.	Mark 14: 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.
Psalm 69: 4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away.	John 15:23-25 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
Isaiah 53: 4, 5 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.	Matthew 8:16, 17 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.	Matthew 17: 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.	John 20: 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Psalm 22:6-8 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.	Matthew 27: 39, 40 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Psalm 69: 21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.	John 19: 29 Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
Psalm 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.	Matthew 27: 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Psalm 109: 4 For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.	Luke 23: 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Zechariah 12: 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.	John 19: 34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
Psalm 22: 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.	Mark 15: 24 And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take.
Psalm 34: 20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken.	John 19: 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
Isaiah 53: 9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.	Matthew 27: 57-60 When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.

All the above prophecies refer uniquely to Jesus Christ and Him alone, unless our very reverend Cobus van Wyngaard can prove that they also talk about all the criminals who were crucified in the time of the Roman Empire. To lay claim that “Jesus was just another human like me and you” portrays not only a gross ignorance of what God teaches us about the uniqueness of His Son in his Word, but a dangerous susceptibility to heresies that inevitably lead onto the road of destruction (Pr 14:12).

What exactly does Cobus mean when he says that Jesus was just another human like you and I? Does he mean that He was also born in sin? Was He also shackled to the old Adam nature? Was He a sinful man or without sin? If the Roman soldiers’ scourging and whipping of Jesus, the placing of the crown of thorns on his head, the nails in his hands and feet and all the other agonizing sufferings He experienced on the cross were able to bring about reconciliation between man and God, then anyone could have done it. It was not his physical suffering that was/is able to redeem man from his sin and fallen nature. It was/is the fact that his Father laid on Him who was without sin all the sins of every single human being since Adam and Eve right up to the very last person ever to be born into this world. It was/is the fact that Jesus cried out in agony “Eloi, Eloi lama sabactani (My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?”). His sweat did not turn into blood in the Garden of Gethsemane because He feared his impending physical suffering on the cross but because He knew that His Father was going to lay all the sins of humanity (which was the kenosis of his bitter cup) on Him and that His Father was going to forsake Him during the time He had to pay the ransom for our sins.

Indeed, Jesus suffered the pangs of hell (His Father’s turned back on Him) while He bore our sins on the cross. Cobus tries his level best to generalize Christ’s crucifixion by saying “I don’t doubt the uniqueness of Christ. But I believe that much of what Jesus did was not unique to him. The Bible doesn’t have a problem with this. It talks about sharing in the suffering of Christ (Rom 8:17; Phil 3:10), about following Paul like he follows Jesus (1 Cor 11:1), about disciples doing the same things that Jesus did (Matt 10).” No man can ever suffer the way Jesus suffered on the cross when His Father forsook Him in our behalf. God can never lay the sins of the whole of humanity on anyone else. No man can or will ever be able to bear the sins of the whole of humankind. “Sharing the suffering of Jesus” can therefore never ever refer to these particular sufferings Jesus had to bear on our behalf. Romans 8:17 and Philippians 23:10 refer to the suffering of humiliation, rejection, persecution and even martyrdom but never the suffering of being forsaken by God. Yes! of course, those who refuse to accept by faith Jesus Christ’s vicarious death on the cross for their sins will eventually have to pay for their own sins in hell when God is going to forsake them (turn his back on them) for all eternity. In fact, God the Father forsook his Son on the cross so that He needn’t forsake us for all eternity. Following Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:1) definitely does not mean that we should follow Him in his vicarious death for our sins. Once again no one else is able to do that. It simply means that we should deny ourselves and die to our old Adamic nature (Luke 9:23). Matthew 10 does not mean that we should do the same things Jesus did for us on the cross.

Let’s look at some other unique features of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion.

• We learn from Isaiah 53:10 that it pleased his Father to bruise Him and that his vicarious death would produce a spiritual offspring. Who else’s death on a cross could produce a spiritual offspring whose sins had been forgiven?
• Neither the Roman soldiers nor his suffering on the cross killed Jesus. He Himself laid down his life and took it again at his resurrection (John 10: 17, 18). The criminals who died on the cross had no jurisdiction or authority over their deaths. Only Jesus, the Son of God, was able to lay down his life without having been put to death by human hands.
• The moment Jesus died many graves in Jerusalem opened up when an earthquake struck and many saints were resurrected. Now you tell me, Cobus, who else’s crucifixion accomplished such a thing? (Matthew 27: 51-52).
• He remained in the grave for three days after which He rose triumphantly from without the dead.

This is the kind of transformed mission Cobus van Wyngaard and many of our pastors who follow a Jesus whose crucifixion was not unique proclaim from their pulpits. But this is nothing new. Kenneth Copeland and the Faith teachers spread the same heresies. Here’s what Kenneth Copeland said about the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

The Spirit of God spoke to me and He said, “Son, realize this. Now follow me in this and don’t let your tradition trip you up.” He said, “Think this way—a twice- born man whipped Satan in his own domain.” And I threw my Bible down.. . like that. I said, “What?” He said, “A born-again man defeated Satan, the firstborn of many brethren defeated him. “He said, “You are the very image, the very copy of that one.” I said, “Goodness, gracious sakes alive! ” And I began to see what had gone on in there, and I said, “Well now you don’t mean, you couldn’t dare mean, that I could have done the same thing?” He said, “Oh yeah, if you’d had the knowledge of the Word of God that He did, you could’ve done the same thing, ’cause you’re a reborn man too.” (Kenneth Copeland: :”Substitution and Identification” Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989; tape #00-0202)

Do the honourable thing. Step down from your pulpits and never venture to stand and preach from there ever again because you are heaping up unto yourselves wrath and indignation against the Day of Wrath. Repent! and begin to follow the real Jesus of the Bible.

Romans 2: 4, 5 Or are you [so blind as to] trifle with and presume upon and despise and underestimate the wealth of His kindness and forbearance and long- suffering patience? Are you unmindful or actually ignorant [of the fact] that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repent to change your mind and inner man to accept God’s will)? But by your callous stubbornness and impenitence of heart you are storing up wrath and indignation for yourself on the day of wrath and indignation, when God’s righteous judgment (just doom) will be revealed.

‘n Nuwe God-Verklaarde Manier om Verlore Siele in Suid-Afrika te Red

Read the English version here.

God het waarskynlik ‘n spiksplinternuwe fondament vir die redding van tien miljoen Suid-Afrikaners gelê en bekragtig. Hy het na bewering besluit dat die offerdood van sy Seun aan die kruis geheel en al onvoeldoende en ontoereikend is en het nou ‘n vrou, Elza Meyer, ‘n leier predikant by Moreletapark se NG Kerk, gekoöpteer om Christus by te staan in sy plaasvervangende lyding vir ons sondes aan die kruis. Elza se seun, Pieter, was instrumenteel om hierdie nuwe weg van saligheid teweeg te bring. Hier’s wat Elza op haar blog “Turn2God” geskryf het:

Tydens die Oos-Kaap konferensie was daar ’n aanval van die bose op my liggaam.  Ons kon nie die effek daarvan gebreek kry nie,  totdat ek laatnag my seun, Pieter,  gebel het en hom gevra het om vir my te bid. Hy het 10 miljoen siele,  gered en gedoop,  geëis in ruil vir die aanslag op my lewe. Dit het onmiddellik geëindig. Moreletapark Gemeente is deur die Here gelei om ’n nuwe doelwit vir die gemeente te formuleer nl. 10 miljoen siele binne 10 jaar.  Die oorhoofse doelwit is om 10 miljoen siele met die evangelie te bereik en hulle dissipels van Jesus te maak (Klem bygevoeg).

Hoe gaan hulle die Evangelie verkondig? Gaan hulle die verlore siele wat hulle vir Christus wil bereik, vertel dat Christus hulle wil red omdat Hy toegelaat het dat Elza Meyer ‘n hewige demoniese aanval op haar lewe oorleef? Nee . . .? Hoor ek miskien ‘n koor van Moreletapark se lidmate wat sing “Nee! ons gaan dit nie so doen nie”? Die ironie is dat hulle alreeds begin het om dit so te doen op Elza se blog “Turn2God.” Het hulle dan nog nooit gehoor van Paulus se waarskuwing in 1 Korinithiërs 3:11 nie?

1 Kor. 3:11 Want niemand kan ‘n ander fondament lê as wat daar gelê is nie, dit is Jesus Christus.

Jy’s volkome verkeerd, broer Paulus. Het jy nog nie gehoor van die spiksplinternuwe hoeksteen en fondament wat onlangs in die Moreletapark NG Kerk Gemeente gelê is nie? Nog nie . . .? Jy’s verspot. God gaan 10 miljoenverlore siele in die bestek van tien jaar in Suid-Afrika red (‘n miljoen per jaar) in ruil vir Elza Meyer se oorlweing van ‘n hewige demoniese aanval op haar lewe. Wat het jy gesê, Paulus? Het ek jou hoor sê ”Godslasterlik?” Nee, nee, nee, nee en nog ‘n nee, Paulus. Hoe durf jy sê dis godslasterlik. Jy’s te oudmodies. Ons leef in die verligte postmoderne dae en ons is besig om die Evangelie op baie ander maniere aan verlore siele in Suid-Afrika te verkondig. Ons Suid-Afrikaanse predikers is van die vindingrykstes ter wêreld . . . dink jy nie so nie, Paulus.

Ek is versot op die Woord van God en hou daarvan om waarhede wat ek nooit kon dink om dit daar te vind nie, op te diep. Ek was nogal verbaas om die volgende juweel in die Bybel te vind.

Lukas 16:8 . . . want die kinders van hierdie wêreld is verstandiger teenoor hulle geslag as die kinders van die lig.

Ag nee wat, broer Paulus! Jy probeer seker snaaks wees! Wel ek het so gedink totdat ek ‘n blog van ‘n ateïs gelees het wat in sy kommentaar op Elza Meyer se onbybelse eise die vraag vra: “Is skynvroomheid (huigelary) nie ‘n sonde nie?” Te midde van duisende vroue (en miskien net soveel mans wat onder die pantoffelregering by die Moreletapark Gemeente staan) wat sê hulle is Christene en Elza se nuwe manier om die Evangelie te verkondig met ontsag bejeen, en selfs ook ‘n nuwe doelwit vir die Moreletapark gemeente daargestel het, is daar ten minste een persoon, ‘n ongelowige, wat in die teenwoordigheid van gees behou het en dwarsdeur die hele skynvroomheid kon sien en vriendlik genoeg was om te waarsku teen die sonde van huigelary. U kan lees wat die woord “sanctimony” beteken, hier sien en glo my dis nie mooi nie, gladnie mooi nie.

Wat op aarde is besig om in ons geliefde land te gebeur? Elza Meyer sê ons moet “Terugkeer na God.” Stephan Joubert sê: “Nee, dis die verkeerde

rigting. Christene is nie veronderstel om na die Bybel of na God toe terug te keer nie. Hulle moet vorentoe gaan na God toe en die pad vorentoe is om moedig te gaan  waar niemand nog voorheen gewaag het om te gaan nie.” Dit laat my nogal dink aan Buzz Lightyear in “Toy Story” wat gewaag het om te gaan na “eindeloosheid en nog verder” totdat hy besef het sy vlerke is vals. Dan is daar ook nog Jannie Pelser en Graham Power wat sê: “Nee! ons manier is die beste. Laat ons nuwe norme en waardes aan elke persoon in ons geliefde land Suid-Afrika uitdeel en alles sal net honkie-dorie wees.” Dink hulle werklik hulle sal tien miljoen verlore siele in Suid-Afrika kan bereik met hierdie soort kakefonie van leuens?

Dit lyk nie juis of Angus Buchan se optredes tot dusver by die Moreletapark NG Kerk enige blywende invloed op die predikante en die mans en vrouens in die gemeente gehad het nie. Waar oom Angus ookal preek, moedig hy die mans aan om hulle vrouens lief te hê en vermaan die vrouens om onderdanig te wees aan hulle mans. Watter tipe “mighty men” het oom Angus by sy “Mighty Men” Konferensies hand grootgemaak wat versuim om hulle vrouens te waarsku teen Elza Meyer se dwaalleringe, of is hulle ook maar onderdanig aan die pantoffelregering in die gemeente? Elza Meyer self is nie juis ‘n goeie voorbeeld vir die vrouens wat blykbaar die manspredikers en die hele gemeente met ‘n ysterhand regeer, en boonop nog die weg vir die hele gemeente aandui van hoe om in te koop op haar onbybelse eise vir die redding van 10 miljoen verlore siele in ruil vir haar wonderbaarlike oorlewing van ‘n hewige demoniese aanvaal op haar lewe. Is dit werklik moontlik dat nie ‘n enkele manspredikant of enige ander manlike lidmaat haar oor haar onbybelse en Godslasterlike leringe gewaarku het nie?

Daar is net ‘n enkele, aanvaarbare en voldoende fondament (eis) wat Christene aan God mag voorlê vir die redding van verlore siele, en raai wat . . .? . . . dit is nie Elza Meyer se oorlewing van ‘n hewige demoniese aanval op haar liggaam nie. Dis suiwer en eenvoudig net Godslasterlik en sy en haar seun, tesame met die hele Moreleta Gemeente behoort God om vergifnis te vra vir hulle afvalligheid en rebellie. Dit was Jesus Christus se eie verskeurde en bebloede liggaam, en syne alleen, wat versoening meegebring het tussen verlore sondaars en die Almagtge God. Jy vind dieselfde dwalinge in die Roomse Kerk. Padre Pio wat vir 45 jaar gereeld stgmata ervaar het, het daarop aanspraak gemaak dat meer geeste uit die dood hom in sy sel besoek het as lewende mense, en die ander monikke sê dat hulle ‘n menigte stemme wat met hom gepraat het, gehoor het. Vader Pio het beweer dat hierdie mense uit die vagwevuur op pad was na die hemel om vir hom dankie tê omdat hy namens hulle vir hulle sondes gely het om hulle uit die vagevuur te kry. Om die waarheid te sê, hy het as nuweling toe hy ‘n monnik geword het, die owerste toestemming gevra om vir die sondes van die wêreld te ly en dié het hom toe die toestemming verleen. Sy stigmata (wat niks anders as demoniese aanvalle was nie) was gewaand sy lyding. Christus se lyding was nie voldoende nie en hy moes dit dus aanvul of daarop verbeter.

Keer terug na God? Sekerlik! maar dan moet dit nie die manier wees waarop Elza Meyer en haar Hadassa sussies en “Mighty Men” die Suid-Afrikaners vir Christus wil wen nie. God sal nooit as’t nimmer sondige mense toelaat om vir verlore siele te bie op die basis wat Elza Meyer, haar seun en die hele Morelettapark Gemeente dit wil doen nie. Julle is mislei en julle is besig om ander te mislei. Hou op met julle nonsens!

A New Divinely Decreed Way of Saving Lost Souls in South Africa

God has apparently authorized and lain a brand new foundation for the salvation of tens of millions of South Africans. He allegedly decided that the sacrificial death of his Son on the cross is inadequate and deficient and has now co-opted a woman, Elza Meyer, who is one of the leader pastors at the Moreleta Park Dutch Reformed Church, to assist Jesus Christ in His vicarious punishment for our sins on the cross. Elza’s son, Pieter, was instrumental in bringing about this new way of salvation. Here’s what Elza wrote on her blog “Turn2God.”

During the Eastern Cape conference demons attacked my body. We were unable to break the effect thereof until I phoned my son, Pieter, late that night asking him to pray for me. He claimed 10 million souls, saved and baptized in exchange for the attack on my life. It immediately stopped. The Moreleta Park congregation was led to formulate a new goal for the congregation, namely 10 million souls within ten years. The overriding aim is to reach 10 million souls with the Gospel and to make them disciples of Jesus Christ. (Emphasis added)

How are they going to proclaim the Gospel? Are they going to tell the lost souls they wish to reach for Christ that God wants to save them because He allowed Elza Meyer to survive a severe demonic attack on her life? No . . .? Do I here a choir of Moreleta Park congregants singing “No! we are not going to do it that way”? The irony is that they have already begun to do it that way on Elza’s blog “Turn2God.” Have they never heard of Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 3:11?

1 Cor. 3: 11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

You are dead wrong, brother Paul. Haven’t you heard of the brand new cornerstone and foundation that was lain in the Moreleta Park Dutch Reformed Church recently? No . . .? How silly of you. Well, God is going to save 10 million lost souls within ten years in South Africa (a million a year) in exchange for Elza Meyer’s survival of a very severe demonic attack on her body. What did you say Paul? Did I hear you say, “Blasphemy?” No, no, no, no and again no, Paul. How dare you call it blasphemy? You’re too old fashioned. We’re living in the enlightened postmodern days and we are re-inventing Christianity. We are finding new ways of presenting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the one you received directly from Him. Elza’s way is just one of the many other ways the Gospel is being presented to lost souls in South Africa. Our South African pastors are some of the most resourceful in the world . . . don’t you think, Paul?

I just love to read the Word of God and to unearth truths that I would never have thought I’d find there. I was rather surprised to find the following gem in the Bible.

Luke 16:8 . . . for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.

Nah!, never brother Luke! You must be kidding! Well, I thought so until I read a blog where an atheist asks the question “Isn’t sanctimony a sin?” in his discussion of Elza Meyer’s unbiblical claim. While thousands of women (and perhaps just as many men who are under the petticoat government at Moreleta park congregation) who claim to be Christians are in awe of Elza’s new way of presenting the Gospel and have even set a new goal for the Moreleta Park congregation, there seems to be at least one person, an unbeliever, who has the presence of mind to see through the whole charade and is kind enough to sound a word of warning against the sin of sanctimony. You can read what the word “sanctimony” means right here and believe me its not pretty, not pretty at all.

What on earth is going on in our beloved country? Elza Meyer says “Return to God.” Stephan Joubert says: “Nope” that’s the wrong direction. Christians are not supposed to return to the Bible or to God. They must advance and move forward to God, and the way forward is to boldly go where no man has gone before.” It kinda reminds me of Buzz Lightyear in “Toy Story” who ventured to go to infinity and beyond until he realized his wings were fake. Then there’s Jannie Pelser and Graham Power who say “No! our way is the best. Let’s hand out new norms and values (ethics) to every single person in our beloved South Africa and everything will  be just hunky-dory.” Do they actually think they are going to reach millions of lost souls in South Africa with this kind of cacophony of lies?

Angus Buchan’s appearances thus far at the Moreleta Park Dutch Reformed Church doesn’t seem to have had any lasting effect on the pastors, and the husbands and wives in their congregation. Wherever oom Angus preaches he admonishes the men to love their wives and the wives to submit themselves to their husbands. What kind of mighty men has oom Angus nurtured in the Moreleta Park congregation at his Mighty Men Conferences who do not warn their wives against Elza Meyer’s erroneous doctrines, or are they all in submission to their wives under a petticoat government? Elza Meyer herself isn’t much of a good example to the wives who seems to be governing the male pastors and the entire congregation with an iron fist, and leading the way for the entire congregation to buy into her unbiblical demand for the salvation of 10 million lost souls in exchange for her miraculous survival of a severe demonic attack on her life. Is it really true that not a single male pastor or other male congregant hasn’t warned her of her unbiblical teachings?

There is only one single, acceptable and efficient foundation (claim) Christians may present to the Lord for the salvation of lost souls, and guess what . . . . ? It is definitely not Elza Meyer’s survival of a severe demonic attack on her body. That’s pure and simple blasphemy and she and her son, as well as the entire Moreleta Park DRC congregation need to ask God’s forgiveness for their waywardness and rebellion. It was Jesus Christ’s own torn and blood-drenched body, and his alone, that brought about reconciliation between lost sinners and Almighty God. You find the same heresies being taught in Roman Catholicism. Padre Pio who regularly experienced stigmata for about 45 years, claimed that more spirits of the dead visited him in his cell in the monastery than living people, and the other monks said they heard multitudes of voices talking with him and he said that these people were coming from purgatory on their way to heaven thanking him for suffering for their sins to get them out of there. In fact, as a novice he asked the superior when he first became a monk, for permission to suffer for the sins of the world and he was granted permission. So, the stigmata (which was nothing else than demonic attacks) was supposedly his suffering. The suffering of Christ was not sufficient but he had to add to it.

Return to God? You bet, but not in the way Elza Meyer and her Hadassa sisters and Mighty Men are urging South Africans to do it. God will never allow sinful man to barter for lost souls on the basis Elza Meyer, her son and the entire Moreleta Park DRC  put forward to Almighty God. You’re deceived and you are deceiving others. Stop your nonsense!

The Prize-Winning Oxymoron of the Week

View Full Album

An adulterous divorcee who had left his wife for another woman regretted his sinful life and sought reconciliation with his ex-wife. However, he did not know how to go about it and visited a marriage counsellor for some advice.

Divorcee: Dr. I know that my ex-wife still loves me but I feel so ashamed of my gross ill-treatment of her that I do not know how I should approach her in order to return or to turn back to her. Help me please and tell me how I should return or turn back to her.

Doctor: Return or turn back to her? No, no, no, no, my dear friend, you’ve got it all wrong. There’s no such thing as returning or going back to your wife to seek reconciliation. Change your direction. Rather go forward to your wife.

Divorcee: Forward, doctor?

Doctor: Yea man, forward. Admittedly, it is not my bright idea. I picked it up from this blog I happened to stumble on. An Afrikaans guy, I think his name is Stephan Joubert, made it clear that reconciliation does not mean to return or go back, but to go forward.

Divorcee: Well doc, I doubt whether my wife will understand me when I tell her, “Honey, I’m very sorry for all the heartache I caused you. I still love you and would like to go forward to you.” She would say to me “Huh? Are you kidding me? Are you trying to be funny? What kind of a joke is that?”

Doctor: That will be 450 bucks, thank you.

Strange? Weird? No, not really. The Emergent Church followers of Jesus are so convinced that their re-interpretation of the Bible is the Gospel truth that even their oddest semantic inventions make them leap with joy. New semantic inventions? Well, they have no qualms with taking some words in Scripture and giving them “new”  meaning or to use their opposites in order to twist Scripture.

“Return to” and “turn back to” are expressions that God uses to urge lost sinners and backsliders to be reconciled to Him. Of the 17 times the phrase “Return to Me” appears in the Bible 10 of them refer to reconciliation with God. (I used the New American Standard Bible: 1995). Therefore in most cases it has a spiritual meaning that has more to do with a change in heart and mind and not a change of direction.

Jeremiah 3:6, 7 Then the Lord said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, ‘After she has done all these things she will return to Me’; but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it.

Amos 3:13-4:1 “I will also smite the winter house together with the summer house; The houses of ivory will also perish And the great houses will come to an end,” Declares the Lord. “Yet You Have Not Returned to Me”

Zechariah 1:3 “Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, “Return to Me,” declares the Lord of hosts, “that I may return to you,” says the Lord.

Hosea 11:5 Because they refused to return to Me. The sword will whirl against their cities, And will demolish their gate bars And consume them because of their counsels. So My people are bent on turning from Me. Though they call them to the One on high, None at all exalts Him.

Jeremiah 24:7 ‘I will give them a heart to know Me, for I am the Lord; and they will be My people, and I will be their God, for they will return to Me with their whole heart.

Malachi 3:7 “From the days of your fathers you have turned aside from My statutes and have not kept them. Return to Me, and I will return to you,” says the Lord of hosts. “But you say, ‘How shall we return?’”

Jeremiah 4:1 “If you will return, O Israel,” declares the Lord, “Then you should return to Me. And if you will put away your detested things from My presence, And will not waver, And you will swear, ‘As the Lord lives,’ In truth, in justice and in righteousness; Then the nations will bless themselves in Him, And in Him they will glory.”

Isaiah 44: 22 “I have wiped out your transgressions like a thick cloud And your sins like a heavy mist. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.”

Nehemiah 1:19 I will scatter you among the peoples; but if you return to Me and keep My commandments and do them, though those of you who have been scattered were in the most remote part of the heavens, I will gather them from there and will bring them to the place where I have chosen to cause My name to dwell.

Joel 2:12 “Yet even now,” declares the Lord, Return to Me with all your heart,

I have read and heard some shocking things coming from the mouth of Stephan Joubert but the following remark tops everything. On the same blog mentioned above he said:

Leonard Sweet, world renowned futurist, theologian, author, speaker and the guru of those who seek God’s plans in new, meaningful ways, including myself, refuses to use the term retraite or retreat. He’ll immediately tell you that Christians never retreat. We advance. Therefore, the gatherings that he hosts at his island and mountain homes are called advances!

Christians shouldn’t turn back to the Bible or the church. Then we’re heading in the wrong direction. We move forward to God. We advance.

It sounds very pious and, oh so wonderful to say “We advance. We move forward to God” but the question is, “which God?” How are you going to know which God if you do not first return to His Word? How are you ever going to know that you need the God of the Bible if you do not return to His Word? Christians, and especially the “Christians” of today, desperately need to return to the Word of God, for it His Word that declares “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). The reason for their lack of knowledge is because most of them listen to and heed the advice of men and women who have lost their way, thinking that they are advancing toward God. We learn from Scripture that the Bible was written and designed for the following reasons:

1. Instruction (Romans 15:4)
2. Regenerating. (James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23)
3. Quickening. (Psalm 119:50,93)
4. Illuminating. Psalm :130)
5. Converting the soul. Psalm 19:7)
6. Making wise the simple. Ps 19:7)
7. Sanctifying. (John 17:17; Ephesians 5:26)
8. Producing faith. (John 20:31)
9. Producing hope. (Psalm 119:49; Romans 15:4)
10. Producing obedience. Deuteronomy 17:19,20)
11. Cleansing the heart. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26)
12. Cleansing the ways. (Psalm 119:9)
13. Keeping from destructive paths. (Psalm 17:4)
14. Supporting life. Deuteronomy 8:3; Matthew 4:4)
15. Promoting growth in grace. (1 Peter 2:2))
16. Building up in the faith. (Acts 20:32)
17. Admonishing. (Psalm 19:11; 1 Corinthians 10:11)
18. Comforting. (Psalm 119:82; Romans 15:4)
19. Rejoicing the heart. (Psalm 19:8; 119:111)
20. Work effectually in them that believe. (1Thessalonians 2:13)
21. The letter of, without the spirit, killeth. (John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6)
22. Ignorance of, a source of error. (Matthew 22:29; Acts 13:27)
23. Christ enables us to understand. (Luke 24:45)
24. The Holy Spirit enable us to understand. (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:10-14)
25. No prophecy of, is of any private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)
26. Everything should be tried by. (Isaiah 8:20; Acts 17:11)

The Word should be:-

1. The standard of teaching. 1Pe 4:11.
2. Believed. Joh 2:22.
3. Appealed to. 1Co 1:31; 1Pe 1:16.
4. Read. De 17:19; Isa 34:16.
5. Read publicly to ALL. De 31:11-13; Ne 8:3; Jer 36:6; Ac 13:15.
6. Known. 2Ti 3:15.
7. Received, not as the word of men, but as the word of God. 1Th 2:13.
8. Received with meekness. Jas 1:21.
9. Searched. Joh 5:39; 7:52.
10. Searched daily. Ac 17:11.
11. Laid up in the heart. De 6:6; 11:18.
12. Taught to children. De 6:7; 11:19; 2Ti 3:15.
13. Taught to ALL. 2Ch 17:7-9; Ne 8:7,8.
14. Talked of continually. De 6:7.
15. Not handled deceitfully. 2Co 4:2.
16. Not only heard, but obeyed. Mt 7:24; Lu 11:28; Jas 1:22.
17. Used against our spiritual enemies. Mt 4:4,7,10; Eph 6:11,17.

Saints:-

1. Love exceedingly. Ps 119:97,113,159,167.
2. Delight in. Ps 1:2.
3. Regard, as sweet. Ps 119:103.
4. Esteem, above all things. Job 23:12.
5. Long after. Ps 119:82.
6. Stand in awe of. Ps 119:161; Isa 66:2.
7. Keep, in remembrance. Ps 119:16.
8. Grieve when men disobey. Ps 119:158.
9. Hide, in their hearts. Ps 119:11.
10. Hope in. Ps 119:74,81,147.
11. Meditate in. Ps 1:2; 119:99,148.
12. Rejoice in. Ps 119:162; Jer 15:16.
13. Trust in. Ps 119:42.
14. Obey. Ps 119:67; Lu 8:21; Joh 17:6.
15. Speak of. Ps 119:172.
16. Esteem, as a light. Ps 119:105.
17. Pray to be taught. Ps 119:12,13,33,66.
18. Pray to be conformed to. Ps 119:133.
19. Plead the promises of, in prayer. Ps 119:25,28,41,76,169.
20. They who search, are truly noble. Ac 17:11.
21. Blessedness of hearing and obeying. Lu 11:28; Jas 1:25.
22. Let them dwell richly in you. Col 3:16.

The wicked:-

1. Corrupt it. 2Co 2:17.
2. Make, of none effect through their traditions. Mr 7:9-13.
3. Reject it. Jer 8:9.
4. Stumble at it. 1Pe 2:8.
5. Obey not it. Ps 119:158.
6. Frequently wrest, to their own destruction. 2Pe 3:16.

(Taken from: Torrey, R. (1897). The new topical text book : A scriptural text book for the use of ministers, teachers, and all Christian workers (New Revised and enlarged.). New York: Fleming H. Revell Co.)

It is obvious that Stephan Joubert doesn’t want you to enjoy all the above spiritual benefits in your life and that’s why he says:

Christians shouldn’t turn back to the Bible or the church. Then we’re heading in the wrong direction. We move forward to God. We advance.

I would like to urge and encourage Stephan Joubert and his emergent buddies who support him in his carnal efforts to move and advance toward God to repent and return to the Bible. In doing so they will learn some of the most awesome realities about the position the genuine children of God already have in God and therefore do not need to move or advance toward God. Let’s kook at a few of these awesome realities.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. ^He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.

John 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you  . . .

Ephesians 2: 6 & 7 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Wow! Think carefully! Let the above words sink deep into your soul and spirit, dear child of God. The genuine children of God are already IN Jesus Christ, seated IN Him at the right hand of the Father in heaven, and God has already made His abode (dwelling) IN them. They do not need to move or advance toward God. God is not in some remote place toward which His children must move or advance. They really only need to ABIDE IN HIM. Stephan Joubert and his emergent buddies are preaching and teaching a gospel of salvation by works, which is no gospel at all (Galatians 1:7). They are following the way of Cain who thought he could bring himself into the presence of God by means of his own efforts and good works. It is a false Gospel with a false Jesus and a false spirit. Paul wrote:

2 Corinthians 11:2-4 For I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy; for I betrothed you to one husband, so that to Christ I might present you as a pure virgin. But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.

Stephan Joubert and his emergent buddies, Nelus Niemandt, Rob Bell and Leonard Sweet, have written several books. I may be wrong but I get the impression that they want Christians to return to their books in stead of the Bible. May God have mercy on us.

The Restoration of All Things

Jesus, would you mind stepping aside and leave us to our own resources to make a better place of our  world? We have taken a mammoth task upon our shoulders and we really do not need you to achieve our godly venture. We aim to restore all things in the world to its original Edenic state — all things include the entire creation, all things in heaven and on earth. We are going to eradicate poverty, bring peace and stability to a war-torn and weary world and gain righteousness for all humankind. We are not merely concerned about the salvation of the soul so that people may escape this world (in the Rapture) but we are involved in the work of transforming societies on earth here and now. Jesus, rest assured, and do not be too concerned about our daredevilry, our know-how, our resilience and our energetic faith to establish your Kingdom on earth. Unlike as your own narrow-minded view that You came to this world to seek and to save the lost (Matthew 8:11; Luke 19:10), we are busy working for something much greater as the salvation of the soul; we are investing in the restoration of all things. We are going to revitalize the ecology, and the environment, do away with global warming, save the whales and the dolphins, reverse the rotting influence of thermodynamics, close the ozone hole in the atmosphere, unite all men, cure every sickness, and take from the rich to give to the poor (even if it is necessary to start a revolution).

We have Unlike your  some of the most brilliant Jesus-followers in our army of restorers, transformers and conversationalists. We are extremely proud of them and thankful for their tireless efforts to rethink, repaint, rehash, refurbish, and even change your eternally immutable Word. You may have heard that Brian McLaren who wrote the thought-provoking book Everything must change, has indeed changed your Great Commission to make disciples of all the nations and teach them to observe everything you commanded us. You haven’t heard of him yet? You do not know him? That’s a real pity because he is one of our most dedicated disciples in the emerging church. No doubt you will be just as excited as we are about the wonderful winged words he wrote in his book A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260: ““I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” Now, that’s what we like to call a real follower of Jesus.

Does the above sound like a far-fetched inter-galactic Confederacy Conference on some remote planet? Perish the thought. These ideas of a new quest were expressed right here on earth, right here in South Africa during the Amahoro Conference which took place from 8 to 12 June.

One of the most “distinguished” speakers at the Amahoro Conference, Bishop Paul Verryn, could easily have taken the place of the dispenser of grace and the seeds of compassion, Tenzin Gyatso, “His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet,” at the earlier planned Peace Conference. As you may know the Dalai Lama had been denied a visa by the SA Government to attend the Peace Conference on the eve of the world cup soccer tournament in 2010. Bishop Verryn would undoubtedly have been equally adept and proficient to ooze the love, compassion and tolerance of the  ill-treated “god-man.”  In fact, Verryn’s attendance at the Peace Conference could easily have outshone and surpassed the glorious appearance of the Dalai Lama, because he is at least not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Really?). He frequently takes the Name of Jesus Christ in vain, something which our dearly beloved reverend Jannie Pelser should address very promptly. When I say “in vain” I do not do so in vain, because Verryn very often takes the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ on his lips with an embittered heart and unloving disposition. As a man of the cloth and an ordained bishop in the Methodist Church he should know the passage in Scripture that says “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?” (James 3:11). Verryn begins his presentation in a very “Christian-like” manner by saying;

The topic that I’m supposed to be speaking about is, the reformation of the church (sniggers) . . . not too difficult (laughter) . . . Let me say that, I suppose, that when I was thinking about this the first word that popped into my head, quite naturally, was the word “grace,” because that seems to be one of the central themes of reformation and if we are going to speak reformation we need to speak about grace and we need to speak about radical grace. (Emphasis added)

What on earth is “radical grace?” What did Verryn mean when he coined the phrase “radical grace?” perhaps we should allow him to explain in his own words.

We really need a revolution . . . It is completely unacceptable, completely unacceptable, that we have the disparity between the rich and the poor that we do have in this country. And the country is 80, 90% religious. If you happen to be a Muslim, then you will know that if that’s what is happening in the country, it is a sign, or it is a warning that god will curse you. So the the disparity cannot continue. And it will not continue. And I stand very humbly before you today and I want to say to you, if we don’t reform, if we don’t move the economics of this nation in another direction, we are in for bad weather. Very, very bad weather. And I know that. I’m telling you if I had to end up on the streets, and I could end up on the streets, I am going to organize, I am going to organize a revolution. We’ll try to begin with being peaceful, but if we can’t, we will have to do it in another way. (Emphasis added)

View Full Album

“Revolution spells “killing” and “killing” spells “blood.” Does Verryn really think he is going to solve the extreme problem of poverty by leading a revolution? The irony is that many, many blacks have become very affluent in our country and that the poor, destitute and oppressed people in Zimbabwe (Mugabe’s paradise), Mozambique, the Congo, and many other African countries are fleeing their “paradises” to enter ours illegally because it has become to them a land of milk and honey. OK! but as soon as they arrive here they are persecuted by a bunch of xenophobic crackpots who accuse them of stealing our indigenous workers’ jobs. These are the kinds of acts of violence, intolerance and hatred that have become fertile ground for a revolution. Is Verryn going to use this to start his own revolution? This is exactly what happened in France during the French Revolution. The influential bankers and liberal politicians (yes and even the liberal church clergy) deliberately used the poor and oppressed people of France to start their infamous revolution. They pushed the poor into the forefront of the battle zone while they lavished in comfort. Against whom does Verryn want to start his revolution?—the former freedom fighters who started a revolution for the very same reasons but eventually stole from the poor to fill their own pockets, the corrupt politicians who are preventing the poor from getting their fair share, or the Christian church of which he claims to be a member? Is this his reformation of the church to which he laughingly

referred in his speech at the Amahoro Conference and is “not too difficult” to achieve?

I’m not too concerned about Verryn’s boastful bravados to start a revolution. Genuine revolutionaries in the past never blurted out their intentions to start a revolution but secretly planned their evil deeds. What concerns me most are the “useful fools” (with thanks to Vladimir Lenin) in the church, and particularly the Afrikaans Dutch Reformed Church, who are lapping up every word Paul Verryn and Brian McLaren said during the Amahoro Conference. How is it possible that young men who are supposed to know the Gospel of Jesus Christ can sit in awesome adoration at the feet of their gurus and listen while they churn out hatred and disdain against the Christian Church and her Christ? I put it to you that they have built their lives on shifting sands that cannot withstand the winds and tsunamis of false doctrines.

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Emphasis added)

The reason for the present appalling position some of our young pastors and reverends find themselves in today must be sought in the unholy corridors and classrooms of our unhallowed seminaries, particularly the one at the Pretoria University. There they are taught that the Bible is not the immutable and infallible Word of God, that the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross is a vile doctrine, that He was not born of a virgin, that He did not rise bodily from the grave and that his return is as much a metaphor as his resurrection. In short, they have no concrete gospel on which to base their faith and therefore need to go on an endless journey or quest to find the truth. In this way no one will ever be able to say “this is the gospel truth” because the others who are on this endless journey together with him will say to him: “We love you, respect and appreciate your ideas but because you are humble enough to change and even discard your ideas for the greater good, let us continue on our journey of humility and love in our quest for the truth.”

Please bear in mind that in the emergent conversation the “followers of Jesus” never make clear-cut and specific statements. Statements are too condescending and have the potential to cause strife, conflict, hatred and even wars. What they actually love to do ever so subtly when they want you to put on your thinking cap is to plant suggestions into your mind by beginning their sentences with  “I would like to suggest.” However, whenever they need to underscore their own ideas they conveniently refer to the Bible and declare with absolute assurance “the Bible never says this” or “the Bible never says that.” For them the Bible is an authoritative book only when it suits them. I call it the psychology of “semantic manipulation.” Satan used the very same tactics in the Garden of Even when he manipulated Eve into believing his lie when he asked: “Has God said?” The emergents will never say: “Thus says the Lord.” but always strike an authoritative note by making statements such as “the Bible never says. ” Here’s how Brian McLaren camouflaged  his own condescending statements at the Amahorror Conference. There is no doubt that he was on a crusade to bring biblical Christianity and Israel into disrepute.

I must admit that Brian McLaren’s discourse was a brilliant piece of pyrotechnical journalism. Before I continue discussing his presentation at the Amahoro conference, I need to summarize his objectives in these words: Condition mankind to abhor his past, and especially the atrocities of his religious past, and it will be so much easier to manipulate his thoughts and actions while you set him on a path of an endless quest for something better, something that allegedly translates into peace, harmony, love, compassion, tolerance and prosperity. By keeping mankind locked in a position where he is constantly looking back over his shoulder towards his past you will keep him yearning for a brighter future without really knowing where he is headed. Such an attitude is wholly unbiblical. Paul who suffered more than any of the other apostles at the hands of his persecutors once said: “Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3:13, 14). To use McLaren’s own words when articulating his thoughts, I would like to suggest that Paul deliberately chose to forget the past because recollections of the past often lead to feelings of bitterness, dissatisfaction and even hatred. His goal, unlike that of Brian McLaren and his emergent followers, was not clouded in a haze of uncertainties. He knew what his goal was and looked forward to the prize with great anticipation and joy. He also knew that this world could never improve on it’s past because it lies completely in the evil one (1 John 5:19). The cycle of violence in South Africa where more people have been killed than in the Iraqi war since 1994 is a direct result of this kind of bitterness and discontent. Are our emergent Afrikaner clergy prepared to remember these heinous atrocities as well or only Apartheid?

To set the tone of his discourse and to achieve his goal McLaren painted a very emotionally charged picture of African slavery and the Apartheid system in South Africa, suggesting very empathically that the Christian faith is to blame for these atrocities. Inflammatory remarks . . . ? You bet! Here’s what he said:

These are hard realities, because the colonizers were going to church and reading their Bibles and using the Bible to justify and help them to feel right about what they were doing.

To make such a blanket statement (which is more than a mere suggestion) you really need to know your history and especially what the differences are between nominal Christians and true biblical Christians. Believe it ort not, there is a vast difference between the two because the Bible clearly says that in the last days many will have a form of godliness who will go on an endless quest for the truth, ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:5). The endless quest also seems to be indicative of the eternal immutable truth in Matthew 7:13 and 15

Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.“For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Emphasis added)

McLaren also seems to be a past master at manipulating the thoughts of men in their perceptions of God. One of his most brilliant descriptions of God’s dreams for the Christian faith was his statement (which is more than a mere suggestion) that He who is in the future is beckoning us into a brighter future. This is how he said it:

! I’d like to suggest that we need a new quest because one of the things that needs to be changed is the assumption that the Christian faith is primarily something that’s handed to us from the past. I’d like to suggest that the journey of following Jesus is primarily something that is given to us from the future; its an invitation to move into the future. Its God out ahead of us saying, move toward the future I have for you. Its God inviting us towards God’s own way, and inviting us in God’s own path. Now we do this always remembering the past but God doesn’t simply live in the past. God is with us in the present and God beckons us into a good future, and of course we have to think of this in terms of Africa.

Frankly, this is nothing else than an open-ended view of the Bible and a notion that we need to receive new revelation knowledge as we go along. The emergents believe that their conversation is an incarnational method to expand and even enhance the Bible in each cultural setting. Therefore God’s Word is not a closed canon in which He has spoken and said everything He willed to say, but He is beckoning us in ever increasing new ways into the future. If the future is always ahead of us mortal beings, as indeed it is, and if God is already in our future, as indeed He is, then His beckoning becomes a never-ending process of beckoning. We may just as well say: “Don’t concern yourself about where you are going to end up in the future. The quest must continue unabated because anyone who claims to have arrived is arrogant, void of true humility and completely ignorant.” Here’s how Brian McLaren explained the quest:

. . . sometimes religious debate creates hate and that leads to violence and guess what violence in the name of religion leads to, among other things, atheism because good people, moral people say, it would be better not to believe in God than to believe in a God who makes you kill people. So, what I’d like to suggest, is that five hundred years ago we had the Great Reformation and if we’re in the early stages of what some people are calling the great emergence, something that an African reformation would be a major player in, I’d like to suggest what we need for the next leg of the journey; the last thing we need is 95 new theses, the last things we need is 95 new debates, the last thing we need is having even more violence among people who call themselves Christians.

I’d like to suggest that what we need are questions. If statements can bring you to a new state, only questions can bring you on a new quest. Do you see the difference between a new state and a new quest? In a new state you say we’ve arrived and we can lay out the dimensions, and we could create the new box, but in a quest you say no, we’re searching for something; we’re on a journey, and in stead of ever allowing hate to be part of this quest we have to say this is a quest of love; that we have to love one another, no matter what.

I’ve noticed that McLaren’s idea of God beckoning the church from the future into a better world, is something Stephan Joubert also seems to adhere to.  He recently wrote the following “wise” words on Dries Lombaard’s blog:

The strange thing about Christian one liners/slogans is that you often find the words "turn back…" in them.

"Turn back to God."

"Turn back to the Bible."

It makes me wonder why: turn back?

Shouldn’t it rather be: "Go forward?"

Leonard Sweet, world renowned futurist, theologian, author, speaker and the guru of those who seek God’s plans in new, meaningful ways, including myself, refuses to use the term retraite or retreat. He’ll immediately tell you that Christians never retreat. We advance. Therefore, the gatherings that he hosts at his island and mountain homes are called advances!

Christians shouldn’t turn back to the Bible or the church. Then we’re heading in the wrong direction. We move forward to God. We advance. (Emphasis added)

Brian McLaren made it clear From the very outset of his presentation that domination is salient to all of mankind but that there is one specific kind of colonizing domination which surpasses all the others — the Greco-Roman model. Being a superior culture it dominated all the other inferior cultures and, as McLaren suggested, Christianity bought into it as early as the third and fourth centuries. You hardly need to be a rocket scientist to see what McLaren aimed at, especially when one takes his closing remarks into account.

I believe that the Christian narrative I was given can be pictured like this: Now, in some ways this diagram of six lines, I don’t even have  to  fill in words because most of you can fill it in. Garden of Eden, perfect world, Fall, fallen history, salvation, heaven and hell. And that’s the story of history, past, present and future summed up. Now, I started out to ask myself a question a few years ago; where in the Bible does it tell us that this is a narrative? And I realized, the Bible never tells us that this is what’s going on. In fact, if you really want to be shaken up heaven and hell never, well, as a destination after death are never mentioned in the entire Old Testament. That wasn’t the narrative David was living by or Moses or Abraham or Joel or Amos or Obadiah or Isaiah; they weren’t living with this narrative. That wasn’t their narrative at all. What narrative were they living by and where did it come from?

Well, this is why I became a little suspicious and I’d like to suggest that that narrative is not the Christian narrative, I’d like to suggest its the Greco-Roman narrative. Now, this is going to go over some people’s heads but don’t worry . . . . you don’t really need to know this but for some of you this might be useful. I’d like to suggest what we call Eden isn’t really Eden; its the Platonic ideal, its Plato’s ideal world. And the word Fall, “The Fall,” never occurs in the Bible. No Jew in the Old Testament ever talks about “The Fall.” Paul never talked about “The Fall,” Jesus never talked about “The Fall” but the idea of “The Fall” came a few hundred years later. I’d like to suggest that what we call “The Fall” is the fall into Plato’s cave, if you know Plato’s story of the cave. And what we call fallen history is not in the Bible, its in Aristotle. What we call fallen history is living in Aristotle’s world. And what we call salvation, or atonement or purification is being brought back up to the status of Plato’s perfection — an ideal world. And what we call hell is actually Plato’s Hades.

Now, these were Greek philosophical ideas that came before Christianity but the Romans got a hold of them and they turned a Greek philosophical story into a human, historical, political story. So, what happened is up the line the Platonic ideal became the Pax Romana, the Roman peace, and the Roman peace is a world where there’s harmony because everyone is submitted to Caesar . . . so when everyone is submitted to one person you have harmony and order and peace. That’s the Roman civilization and then, everybody who is not in the Roman civilization, they’re part of the bottom world which is the vulgarian world, they’re the vulgarians, the savages, the natives; all that language got picked up and salvation means inviting the savages to become part of the empire.

Now, if you start thinking about this I will have just ruined your life (laughter) because the Bible starts to look like a different book. When you stop cutting the Bible up and fitting into it those six lines, you discover that the Bible is a book about a bunch of slaves who don’t want to live in a world where  one guy at the top is named Pharao. Whose side is God on? The empire’s side or the slave’s side? God is on the slave’s side.

Who says there is no mention of hell as a final destination in the Old Testament? Think again when you read the following passages from the Old Testament.

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth and look Upon the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm does not die, And their fire is not quenched. They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.

Father Abraham, obviously an Old Testament figure, who received Lazarus to his bosom in Paradise, saw and spoke with the rich man who was cast into hell and pleaded with him to send someone to his brothers and warn them of the physical torment he suffered in the flames of hell (Luke 16:20-31).

If this is the American guy’s interpretation of the Bible with regard to sin, salvation, hell and heaven and if his wide-eyed admirers (Dutch Reformed Church’s pastors) who laughed at his little jokes would dare to preach his “humble suggestions” from their pulpits, then may God have mercy on their souls and the souls of their congregants because, with due respect to Hamlet “there is something rotten in the state (statements, suggestions) of Brian McLaren.” What he said amounts to something worse than hate and inflammatory talk. Allow me to reiterate what he said.

• The early church bought into the Greco-Roman philosophies of Aristotle and Plato as early as the third and fourth centuries AD.

• The Greco-Roman culture was superior to the other inferior cultures.

• The concept of “The Fall,” fallen history, hell and heaven as alternate destinations after death are not in the Bible. They are Greco-Roman perceptions that found their origin in Plato’s ideal world, Plato’s Cave, Plato’s Hades and Aristotle’s world.

• The Romans inherited Plato’s ideal world and called it the PAX Romana, the Roman peace, because everyone submitted to Caesar’s dictatorship, the result being a state of euphoric harmony, order and peace.

• Those who were not part of the Pax Romana were outcasts, vulgarians, natives and savages.

• Salvation was granted them by inviting them to become part of the empire — a repressive and oppressive empire.

• The Christian colonizers (followers of the Greco-Roman perception of sin, salvation, heaven, The Fall and the history of The Fall) who went to church and read their Bibles, used their Bibles to justify their atrocities of slavery, Apartheid and other misdemeanours. They are to blame for the mess we are in today.

• Therefore. let’s start a new world religion where everyone can comfortably fit in and be part of a happy group of believers (of whatever persuasion), and take hands to follow Jesus who is beckoning us from the future into a better and brighter world — not a Greco Roman imperialistic world but the Kingdom of God on earth.

On whose side is God? This is perhaps the only sensible question Brian McLaren asked but unfortunately failed to elaborate on his answer when he said: “God is on the slave’s side.” Indeed, God is on the slave’s side but this kind of slavery is not a slavery or bondage to other more superior human beings or cultures. and empires. Rich people, poor people, white people, black people, yellow people, kings, princes and other dignitaries are all slaves to sin and need to have their shackles of slavery broken by the only Person who is capable of setting them free — Jesus Christ.

John 8:34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin.

Romans 3:23 There is no difference, ^ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

If the injustices our Christian forebears committed against the Africans at large are called sin, then Brian McLaren has no right to make the statement that they justified their sins from the Bible. How so? you may ask. Well, Brian McLaren stated with unequivocal certainty that the “Fall” is nowhere to be found in the Bible. He says that neither Paul nor Jesus ever mentioned a “Fall.” No “Fall” equals “no sin” and yet McLaren states (gone are his humble suggestions) that the colonizers unearthed their heinous sins against Africans from the Bible which is allegedly completely silent about a “Fall.” Therefore they could hardly have justified their sins like slavery, Apartheid and so many other white-skinned atrocities from the Bible. McLaren would have been closer to the truth if he had stated (not suggested) that our Christian forebears justified their atrocious sins from the books and works by Aristotle, Plato and other Greco-Roman philosophers because, according to Mr. McLaren, the “Fall” is a Greco-Roman fallacy which found its origin in Plato’s “The Allegory of the Cave.” McLaren doesn’t seem to be bothered by his glaring slip-ups because he is bent on making a mockery of the Christian faith as we received it from the apostles. This kind of hatred is far worse than his alleged hatred perpetrated by debate because it is a hatred steeped in a false humility. Mr. McLaren is obviously anti-Christian and anti-Israeli.

So, to end: Paul Verryn pleaded for a revolution at the Amahoro Conference and Brian McLaren taught his audience how to start one — blame the Christian faith for all the atrocities in the world.

Mag ‘n Mens Prominente Gelowiges se Leringe Bevraagteken?

Galasiërs 2:6 Moreover, [no new requirements were made] by those who were reputed to be something—though what was their individual position and whether they really were of importance or not makes no difference to me; God is not impressed with the positions that men hold and He is not partial and recognizes no external distinctions—those [I say] who were of repute imposed no new requirements upon me [had nothing to add to my Gospel, and from them I received no new suggestions]. (Klem bygevoeg)

Galasiërs 2: 11 Maar toe Petrus in Antiochíë gekom het, het ek hom openlik teëgestaan, omdat hy veroordeeld gestaan het.

In reaksie op my kommentaar oor prof. Hennie Stander, ‘n baie prominente gelowige in Suid-Afrika, se aweregse uitlating dat “Dit is ‘n natuurlike reaksie om so op te tree” nadat ‘n werknemer sy werkgewer se huis afgebrand het omdat hy gevoel het hy te nagekom is, het een van Hennie se bewonderaars haar in ‘n opvolg kommentaar, getiteld “Heilige goed voor die honde gooi” soos volg uitgelaat:

Ek het net gister op ‘n blog hierdie sieklike ding raakgelees. Hoe iemand glo dat hy die reg het om prominente gelowiges letterlik uitmekaar te skeur op grond van dit wat so ‘n gelowige sê of doen. Wat vir my so erg is, is dat hierdie persoon homself die reg toe eien om die Bybel hiervoor te gebruik! . . . Neewat, ek stem saam – moet beslis nie jou perels voor die varke gooi nie! (Klem bygevoeg)

Hoewel haar woedebui darem nog nie so erg is soos ds. Guilliame Smit s’n wat my op ‘n dag ‘n agent van die duiwel genoem het nie, grens haar tirade ook baie na aan laster.

Die Here Jesus se vermaning in Matteus 7:6 is hoofsaaklik gemik op valse leraars wat sy Woord minag en verdraai. Barnes skryf in sy kommentaar:

Give not that which is holy, etc. By some, the word holy has been supposed to mean flesh offered in sacrifice, made holy, or separated to a sacred use. But it probably means here anything connected with religion–admonition, precept, or doctrine. Pearls are precious stones found in shell-fish, chiefly in India, in the waters that surround Ceylon. They are used to denote anything peculiarly precious, Revelation 17:4; 18:12-16; Matthew 13:46. In this place they are used to denote the doctrines of the gospel. Dogs signify men who spurn, oppose, and abuse that doctrine; men of peculiar sourness and malignity of temper, who meet it like growling and quarrelsome curs, 2 Peter 2:22; Revelation 22:15. Swine denote those who would trample the precepts under feet; men of impurity of life; corrupt, polluted, profane, obscene, and sensual; who would not know the value of the gospel, and who would tread it down as swine would pearls, 2 Peter 2:22; Proverbs 11:22. The meaning of this proverb then is, do not offer your doctrine to those violent and abusive men, who would growl and curse you; nor to those peculiarly debased and profligate, who would not perceive its value, would trample it down, and abuse you. This verse furnishes a beautiful instance of the introverted parallelism. The usual mode of poetry among the Hebrews, and a common mode of expression in proverbs and apothegms, was by the parallelism, where one member of a sentence answered to another, or expressed substantially the same sense with some addition or modification. See my Introduction to Isaiah. Sometimes this was alternate, and sometimes it was introverted—where the first and fourth lines would correspond, and the second and third. This is the case here. The dogs would rend, and not the swine; the swine would trample the pearls under their feet, and not the dogs. It may be thus expressed:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs. Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, Lest they trample them under their feet, And turn again [that is, the dogs] and rend you. (Klem bygevoeg)

Dis opvallend dat die postmoderne “prominente gelowiges” eerder godloënaars aanhaal as vir Jesus Christus en enigeen wat dit durf waag om Christus aan te haal word dikwels soos volg uitgekryt:

En kan hy vir jou teksverse aanhaal hoor! Dis skoon “indrukwekkend” – maar net tot op ‘n punt. Want dit gaan nie vir hom oor die eer van God nie. Hy gebruik die Bybel as ‘n sweep – om mense wat hom grief mee te slaan. Soos ‘n vriendin van my sou sê: “Bible bashing” (Klem bygevoeg)

Die doktrine van vrede en die wyse waarop dit bekom word is sekerlik een van dié belangrikstes in die Bybel. Daarom kan Christene  (en selfs ook die prominente gelowiges) enige ander siening oor vrede wat nie met Jesus Christus se beskrywing daarvan ooreenkom nie, nie aanvaar nie. Prof. Hennie Stander het Dorothy Thompson (9/07/1893 – 30/01/1961), ‘n Amerikaanse joernalis wat ‘n persoonlike onderhoud met Hitler in haar leeftyd gevoer het en later uit Duitsland gedeporteer is se siening rondom “vrede”  hier aangehaal. Sy was drie keer getroud, o.a. ook met die novelleskrywer, Sinclair Lewis. Sy het ook ‘n lesbiese verhouding gehad met Christa Winlsow, die outeur van Mädchen in Uniform, omdat, soos Thompson geglo het, elke persoon “die reg het op liefde.”

As iemand my sou vra: “Wie kies jy om aan te haal wanneer belangrike geestelike onderwerpe soos bekering, redding en vrede ter sprake kom?, ” sal my antwoord hierop wees dat ek kies om Jesus Christus, die essensie van Waarheid, aan te haal omdat dit my die enigste sekerheid gee dat ek die waarheid en niks anders as die waarheid aanhaal nie. Dit is duidelik dat prof. Hennie Stander en sy bewonderaars ook gekies het, maar hulle keuse berus op mense wat God se waarheid weerspreek. Boonop kies hulle om minder prominente gelowiges wat eerder vir Jesus Christus wil aanhaal as honde en varke te brandmerk.

2 Timotheus 4:1-4 Ek besweer jou dan voor God en die Here Jesus Christus, wat die lewende en die dode sal oordeel by sy verskyning en sy koninkryk: verkondig die woord; hou aan tydig en ontydig; weerlê, bestraf, vermaan in alle lankmoedigheid en lering; want daar sal ‘n tyd wees wanneer hulle die gesonde leer nie sal verdra nie, maar, omdat hulle in hul gehoor gestreel wil wees, vir hulle ‘n menigte leraars sal versamel volgens hulle eie begeerlikhede, en die oor sal afkeer van die waarheid en hulle sal wend tot fabels.

Is jy kwaad vir jou Buurman? Neem wraak! Brand sy huis af! Dis ‘n natuurlike reaksie!

Ons land het darem nie ‘n gemis aan goeie raadgewers nie. Dink daaraan: Stephan Joubert moedig Christene aan om by mense van ander geloofsoortuigings te leer; Jannie Pelser vra, Maar kan ons nie maar ook by die New Age dinge leer nie. En nou kom Hennie Stander met een van die briljanste uitsprake vorendag wat gerus maar as die uitspraak van die jaar bestempel kan word. In eergister se uitgawe van sy blog (Sondag, 7 Junie) vertel hy hoedat Pres. Barack Obama  op ‘n vredesending na verskillende lande in die wêreld tans besig is om mense te leer dat vrede moeilik en nie goedkoop is nie. In Duitsland het hy die Israeli’s en die Palestyne gewaarku dat hulle baie moeilike stappe sal moet doen om vrede te bewerkstellig. ‘n Mens kan net raai wat daardie stappe moet wees; Israel sal maar net nog meer grondgebied aan die Palestyne moet afstaan; Jerusalem sal in twee verdeel moet word; die veiligheidsmuur wat Israel tussen hulle en die Palestyne gebou het, sal gesloop moet word; en die Palestyne sal hulle eie soewereine staat met ‘n gedeelte van Jerusalem as hulle hoofstad moet kry. Moeilik en nie goedkoop nie? . . . Vir wie nogal? En siedaar! Vrede, vrede skree hulle wanneer ‘n skielike verderf hulle oorval (1 Thessalonicense 5:3).

Om sy aanname dat vrede nie maklik of goedkoop is nie nog beter te verduidelik, vertel Hennie van ‘n werker in Johannesburg wat hierdie afgelope week sy werkgewer se huis in ‘n gegoede woonbuurt afgebrand het omdat hy gedink het hy word benadeel. Dan sê Hennie met die wysheid soos dié van ‘n Delphi-orakel: “Dit is ‘n natuurlike reaksie om so op te tree.” Moet ons hieruit aflei dat die Tweede Wêreldoorlog waarin Hitler miljoene Jode uitgeroei het ‘n natuurlike reaksie was? Was die destydse grusame vermoording van miljoene mense in Rwanda ‘n natuurlike reaksie?

Ek nooi u om gou-gou saam met my ‘n hofsaak by te woon waarin ‘n man aangekla word van brandstigting en waartydens verskeie mense dood is. Hy word verteenwooordig deur adv. Hennie Stander, een van die briljantste advokate in ons land.

Regter: Hoe pleit u?

Advokaat Stander: Onskuldig! u edelagbare. Dit was ‘n natuurlike reaksie van die man om so op te tree.

Die regter loer met groot bewondering oor sy dik brilraam na adv. Stander, slaan met sy houthamertjie op die regbank en skree: “Onskuldig! Die saak is gesluit!” Die brandstigter glimlag breed, omhels Stander met groot dankbaarheid en stap as ‘n vry-man uit die hof om voort te gaan met sy natuurlike reaksies.

Blykbaar is Hennie Stander salig onbewus van Jannie Pelser se “Nuwe Hartstigting” wat ons hele gemeenskap wil omdolwe met sy “nuwe waardes en norme.” Moontlik het hy ook nog nie gehoor van Graham Power se projek genaamd “Onbeskaamd Eties” nie. Pelser en Power is tot die dood toe bekommerd oor die misdaad, geweld, korrupsie en onetiese optredes onder ons mense, maar Stander sê: Ag nee wat, dis tog nie so ‘n groot probleem nie. Dit is alles maar net natuurlike reaksies om so op te tree. Jannie! ek het ‘n uiters belangrike werk vir jou om te doen ter wille van ons land en sy mense. Skakel tog asseblief vir Hennie en tik hom so ‘n bietjie oor die vingers omdat hy julle werk in die wiele ry. Terwyl julle swoeg en sweet om nuwe waardes en norme en etiese optrede onder ons mense in te burger, breek Hennie alles af deur te sê dat “dit meer gewoon of natuurlik is om wraak te neem . . . Dit is ‘n natuurlike reaksie om so op te tree.” Veronderstel ons plaas vir julle (Jannie en Graham) in die een hoek van ‘n bokskryt en Hennie in die ander. Vir wie dink julle gaan die skare misdadigers, geweldenaars, en korrupte politici toejuig en ondersteun?

Die soort vrede wat Hennie Stander bepleit wanneer hy sê: “Dit is nogal iets wat ’n mens moet onthou, naamlik dat vrede nie maklik of goedkoop is nie. Dit vra altyd groot opoffering en ’n duur prys. Die rede is doodgewoon omdat vrede ’n onnatuurlike reaksie is. Dit is meer gewoon of natuurlik om byvoorbeeld wraak te neem”,” is ‘n vrede wat die wêreld jou gee. Die Here Jesus het juis na hierdie wêreldse vrede verwys  toe hy gesê het:

Johannes 14:27 Vrede laat Ek vir julle na, my vrede gee Ek aan julle; nie soos die wêreld gee, gee Ek aan julle nie.

Die vrede wat die Here Jesus sy volgelinge gee is ook nie goedkoop nie. Hy het ‘n geweldige hoë prys daarvoor bepaal toe Hy sy lewe aan ‘n vloekhout, die kruis, vir ons sondes afgelê het. Dit is ‘n vrede wat nie net alle verstand te bowe gaan nie maar jou ook ‘n goddelike liefde gee vir ander mense, en ja selfs ook jou vyande, sodat jy geen wraakgedagtes of onmin jeens hulle koester nie. Troens, jy streef om die evangelie aan hulle te bring sodat hulle waaragtig tot bekering kan kom en sodoende ook die vrede van Christus kan smaak. Die wêreld kan jou vrede gee (die Here Jesus het diit nie betwis nie) maar dis ‘n vrede wat beslis nie vrede kan bewerk tussen jou en God nie. Trouens, die vrede wat die wêreld jou gee kan nooit die stigma van onvrede wat aan ‘n ongelowige kleef, afskud nie. Daarom sê die Here dat daar eintlik nooit werklike vrede in die hart van die ongelowige kan wees nie.

Jesaja 57:20-21 Maar die goddelose is soos ‘n onstuimige see; want dit kan nie tot rus kom nie, en sy waters gooi slyk en modder op. Geen vrede, sê my God, vir die goddelose nie!

Iemand het eenmaal gesê: “Man is restless until he finds rest in God through Jesus Christ.” Dis ‘n vrede waaraan jyself nie nodig het om te werk nie. Dis nie ‘n vrede wat jyself kan skep nie en nog minder is dit ‘n vrede wat jy in eie krag, geloof, energie, wilskrag, simpatie, geregtigheid, verbeelding en deur die triomf van beginselvastheid kan meebing. Dis ‘n vrede wat aan jou geskenk word dié dag wanneer jy na Christus kom om jou saak met Hom reg te maak, tot bekering te kom en jou hele lewe aan Hom oor te gee sodat Hy jou kan gebruik soos Hy wil. Dis ware vrede en nie soos Hennie Stander dit omskryf in die woorde van iemand anders wat sou gesê het nie:

“Peace has to be created, in order to be maintained. It is the product of Faith, Strength, Energy, Will, Sympathy, Justice, Imagination, and the triumph of principle. It will never be achieved by passivity and quietism.”

Hennie sluit sy kort artikel op sy blog af met hierdie woorde.

Maar dit is die moeite werd om vrede te soek. Immers, God vra dit van ons.

Nee Hennie, die Here verwag nie van ons om vrede te soek soos die wêreld dit aan ons wil gee nie—deur ons eie skeppingsvermoë, geloof, krag, energie, wilskrag, simpatie, geregtigheid, verbeelding en die triomf van ons eie beginselvastheid nie—en jy as belydende Christen behoort dit te weet.

1Thessalonicense 5:3 Want wanneer hulle sê: Vrede en veiligheid—dan oorval ‘n skielike verderf hulle soos die barensnood ‘n swanger vrou, en hulle sal sekerlik nie ontvlug nie.

An Ecumenical Post Modern, Post Apartheid Missional Church

Since the Conference hosted by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Stellenbosch and Communitas from 18-20 May 2009 on the theme “What can we learn from the book of Acts about being a Missional Church?” the Book of Acts has suddenly become the new Magna Carta for the missional church in South Africa. Several questions ensue from the Dutch Reformed Church’s unexpected interest in Acts. If Acts is a trailblazer in regard to effective local and global missionary work, why has the church delayed its imperatives to study and implement what Jesus Christ’s apostles taught and practiced in Acts? What has motivated the DRC to embark at this late stage in the history of the church on a research programme that will work on seven themes in the Book of Acts over a period of three years? Are they aiming to reach the lost with the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ so that as many lost sinners as possible may be saved? Or, is she working toward the inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth in which every conceivable religious ragtag and bob-tail is welcome? Why is the DRC’s younger generation clergy obsessed with the ancient practices and experiential theology and disciplines of the so-called Desert Fathers, i.e. contemplative prayer, centering prayer, labyrinths, breath prayers, the silence, solitude etc., when these disciplines do not feature in the book of Acts? To find some answers to these questions it might be feasible to pay attention to the names of distinguished missiologists who keep on popping up in the ongoing discussions on the blogs of DRC pastors and students on the internet.

A name that seems to be on every “Acts-orientated” follower of Jesus’ lips is David Jacobus Bosch. He was a missiologist in South Africa who died in 1992 in a tragic car accident only a year after he published his monumental book, Transforming Mission. He formulated the concept of AC, the “Alternate Community” in South Africa which was born out of  his strong aversion to the Apartheid system. In his book “Mission and the Alternative Community,” pp. 8-9. Bosch wrote:

“The church has tremendous significance for society precisely because it [exists] as a uniquely separate community . . . . We have to work consistently for the renewal of the church—the alternative community—and precisely in that way at the renewal of society.” (Emphasis added)

Bosch’s definition of the church as a uniquely separate community seems to contradict his strong aversion to the Apartheid system. Wasn’t it the “doctrine of separateness” of the Apartheid system that led the politicians to believe that they could change and renew society? And yet, Bosch advocated an alternative community (the church) as precisely the entity to renew society. How can a uniquely separate community (embodied in the church) renew the society when today’s society advocates unity in diversity, centralization and globalization? Either the church needs to transform into a unified society or the society needs to be transformed into a uniquely separate church community. Having seen the direction the emergent church is going it is obvious that the missional church is opting for a unified and centralized community or society. As soon as the ecclesiae flirt with politicized methods (such as social action or activism) to transform, renew or refurbish society in order to stamp out social injustices, disparities between the rich and the poor and other communal discrepancies, they inevitably need to shift and even erase boundaries so as to engage different cultures and religions in an effort to find joint ways to reform society. In some instances it inadvertently and in others deliberately leads to a compromise of one’s beliefs and principles. To illustrate, I would like to quote to you what Lesslie Newbigin said in an interview in 1988. Newbigin hailed Bosch’s book Transforming Mission as “a kind of Summa Missiologica” that “will surely be the indispensable foundation for the teaching of missiology for many years to come.” (This endorsement is found on the back cover of the paperback version of Transforming Mission). Andrew Walker interviewed Bishop Lesslie Newbigin in 1988.

WALKER: How do you answer people when they say to you, ‘Why, Bishop Newbigin, do you believe in the incarnation and the resurrection of Christ?’ I mean, how would you suggest to a modern world that such a belief is credible?

NEWBIGIN: Well, ultimately, of course (and here we see my Reformed background), I come to the doctrine of election. I mean that by his mysterious grace God took hold of me, an unbelieving, pondering person, and put me in a position where the reality of Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, became for me the one clue that I could follow in making sense of a very perplexing world.

The test, of course, can only come at the end. I would want to claim that that clue ultimately gives one a kind of rationality that is more inclusive of the whole of human experience than the real, though limited, rationality of the reductionist and rationalist scientific point of view. But at the end of the day, we have to wait for the day of judgment. There is an element of risk, there is an element of commitment involved, where you don’t pretend to have something – that is, if there were some way by which I could prove the authority of Jesus Christ from outside, then that would be my authority and not Jesus Christ. I can only point to him.

WALKER: Given that you can point to him, do you think it reasonable or unreasonable to suggest that to be a Christian does involve some minimal amount of beliefs?

NEWBIGIN: Oh yes, surely it does.

WALKER: I mean, if somebody was to come here, put you into a corner and say, ‘Now look here Bishop, what have you got to believe to be a believing Christian?’, what would you say were the basics?

NEWBIGIN: I would simply say, ‘Jesus Christ, the final and determinative centre around which everything else is understood.’ If that is there, I am not enthusiastic about drawing exact boundaries. I think you can define an entity by its boundaries or by its centre. I think that Christianity is an entity defined by its centre. So provided a person is, as it were, ‘looking to Jesus’, and seeing him as the central, decisive, determinative reality in relation to which all else is to be understood, then even if his ideas are weird or off-beat, I would regard him as a brother in Christ. (Emphasis added)

According to Lesslie Newbigin and his rendering of the doctrine of election,  Jesus Christ is apparently merely the one clue which all men can follow to make sense of a very perplexing world. His statement fits in perfectly well with the emergent perspective of being a follower of Christ. Jesus Christ is no longer the unique Way, Truth and Life because such an exclusive assertion stifles a working relationship between the church and the non-Christian religions who find it very offensive. Christ is seen merely as the epitome of sacrificial living which He demonstrated in His sacrificial death on the cross, motivating his followers to follow his example, to topple the walls of social injustices and make sense of a very perplexing world. The  problem is that this is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Nowhere between the two covers of the entire Bible are Christians given a mandate to renew or change society. Their mandate is to go into all the world, make disciples of individuals within every society (nation) and to teach them to observe everything He commanded them to do.

To see Jesus Christ as the epicentre of one’s existence is a very noble and honourable thing to do, but what significance does the epicentre have, if any, when it is stripped of exact boundaries? (i.e. exact doctrines such as “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but through Me.”) Surely, the entrenchment of Jesus Christ as the epicentre of your life involves obedient submission to His doctrines and His calling to herald the unadulterated doctrines of His grace (2 John verse 9). Before I continue, it is of the utmost importance to articulate very carefully what is meant by the drawing or setting up of doctrinal boundaries. First of all, it does not entail a separation or exclusion of people from the mercies of God (Titus 2:11). God extends His grace to all people, no matter what their present position with regard to their creed, race, and ethnicity may be. Consequently, these exact doctrinal boundaries are not drawn to exclude people who are presently confined within the boundaries of other faiths but to break through those boundaries, and to translate the confined within those boundaries out of their present position in the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of His dear Son (Colossians 1:13). The translation is thus a transference from without the confines of one set of kingdom boundaries into the confines of another set of Kingdom boundaries where bound sinners are set free in Jesus Christ. In essence it an individualistic salvivic experience through faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to the demands of His Gospel, by which each and every individual repentant sinner is placed on the Rock within the boundaries of the Kingdom of God, the boundaries being the sovereign will of God as expressed in His eternal doctrines. The post modern missionary model has shifted from an individualistic salvivic experience to a communal, transformational and reconciliatory missional paradigm which finds its niche in the emergent church’s view of the Kingdom of God — an all inclusive universalistic  Kingdom which is perhaps defined best by Rob Bell’s statement “a giant resurrection rescue” in one of his Nooma videos. Both the Reformed en Emergent fraternities have a keen interest in the establishment and progression of God’s Kingdom on earth, Lesslie Newbigin states:

The church is the bearer to all the nations of a gospel that announces the kingdom, the reign, and the sovereignty of God. It calls men and women to repent of their false loyalty to other powers, to become believers in the one true sovereignty, and so to become corporately a sign, instrument, and foretaste of that sovereignty of the one true and living God over all nature, all nations, and all human lives. It is not meant to call men and women out of the world into a safe religious enclave but to call them out in order to send them back as agents of God’s kingship. – Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks

Newbigin’s call to repentance is not based on the individual’s need to confess his own personal sins to a holy and righteous God who extends His arm of unlimited grace through the finished work of His Son on the cross to every single human being, but on the need for a corporate change of loyalties, i.e. a corporate and  societal transformation. David Bosch had a similar view of the Kingdom.

As we call people (back) to faith in God through Jesus Christ, we must help them to articulate an answer to the question ‘What do we have to become Christians for?’ At least part of the answer to this question will have to be: ‘In order to be enlisted into God’s ministry of reconciliation, peace, and justice on earth.’ It should be natural for Christians to be committed to these values. In a sense . . . there is already very much believing in Western society. What we do not need, then, is to introduce more religion. The issue is not to talk more about God in a culture that has become irreligious, but how to express, ethically, the coming of God’s reign, how to help people respond to the real questions of their context, how to break with the paradigm according to which religion has to do only with the private sphere.” — David J. Bosch, Believing in the Future (Emphasis added)

Here again the communal transformational and reconciliatory missional model as opposed to the individualistic salvivic model comes to the fore. In his book “Transforming Mission” Bosch wrote:

Even so, personal conversion is not a goal in itself. To interpret the work of the church as the ‘winning of souls’ is to make conversion into a final product, which flatly contradicts Luke’s understanding of the purpose of mission. Conversion does not pertain merely to an individual’s act of conviction and commitment; it moves the individual believer into the community of believers and involves a real — even a radical — change in the life of the believer, which carries with it moral responsibilities that distinguish Christians from ‘outsiders’ while at the same time stressing their obligation to those ‘outsiders’. (David Bosch: Transforming Mission, pg. 117)

Jesus’ mission was first and foremost to the individual sinner. He came to seek and to save the lost sinner (Luke 19:10). This is borne out by his salvivic encounters with individuals like Nicodemus, Zacchaeus,, the Samaritan Woman, Mary (Lazarus’ sister) who washed his feet with her tears and dried them with her hair, the blind man on whose eyes the Lord put clay to heal him, Peter, Paul and many others. Hadn’t personal conversion been uppermost in Jesus’ mind, He wouldn’t have given so much of his time to talk to and present His Gospel to individual persons. Missiology would indeed have been a non sequitur if it was not focused on the salvation of the lost individual which, to reiterate, was the main purpose for Jesus’ incarnation and not the transformation or renewal of whole societies. In fact, Jesus Himself said that very few people are being saved because the majority do not find the strait gate and the narrow way (Matthew 7:13 & 14). One of the reasons why so many are not finding the strait gate and narrow way is because it is so fundamentally and inexorably narrow-minded. It is too exclusive and condescending according to the emergent adherents. By the by, in another virulent attack on fundamentalists, Cobus van Wyngaard said the following on his blog recently:

In his [Scot McKnight’s] book Finding Faith Loosing Faith he talks about a number of crisis that leads to deconversion. I’ll order the book sometime, and will mention them more when I get the book, but form [sic] today’s talk Scot confirmed one thing: Fundamentalism creates extremely good soil for atheism to flourish in. I’ve been saying this for a long time now. The crisis that fundamentalism creates is that an expectation on infallability [sic] of the Bible is created that cannot be met, and the text never intended to meet, when that realisation dawn on someone, it has the potential of leading to atheism.

It appears that rev. Cobus van Wyngaard welcomes Scot McKnight’s attack on fundamentalism as an ex cathedra announcement of pure infallibility. Today’s emergent de-converted “saints” are strangely prone to an infallible choice of making fallible men the epicentre of their lives while claiming to be followers of Jesus Christ who once uttered the most fundamental truth in the history of mankind — “no one comes to the Father but through me.” The apostle Luke penned down an equally fundamental truth in the book of Acts that echoes Jesus’ words in John 14:6: “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Is Luke’s missionary dictum in Acts 4:12 fallible? If Cobus is correct in saying that God’s Word is fallible and that any claim to infallibility breeds atheists, why do the DRC clergy want to learn from Acts about how to be a missional church? It is preposterous to think that you will be able to proclaim Luke’s missionary dictum while you have doubts about the infallibility of God’s Word, unless of course you want to convert fundamentalist bred atheists to your own status of so-called de-converted Jesus-followers.

To reiterate: Jesus Christ is no longer the Way, the Truth and the Life because the non-Christian religions with whom the post modern missional church aims to work together to bring about an ethical transformation in society, find that doctrine highly offensive. Jesus Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross is merely an example of sacrificial living in behalf of the poor and the destitute and the means to take on social injustices, poverty, crime and violence. There are several examples of this of which the most recent is Rick Warren’s PEACE PLAN. To accomplish a global transformational paradigm shift He suggests that we need to have a critical mass and in order for that to happen there must be a crossing of all barriers – unity is a must! “Critical mass” is a scientific term which, used in a societal frame, refers to “an explosion in global consciousness capable of ‘touching’ or transforming all of humankind.” The idea is that when a certain critical number of people all share the same awareness, then change can come to all people’s thinking because of the critical mass.”

From Rick Warren’s website (pastors.com) “This is a time, which calls for a critical mass of transformational leaders who will commit to creating a synergy of energy within their circle of influence so new level of social, economic, organizational and spiritual success can be reached. We have not, however, developed the leaders we need for this noble task. To reach such heights, we will need to un-tap the leadership potential of skillful leaders who are successfully directing various organizations and systems. Some of these men and women, knowledgeable and committed, to there profession, will be the transformational leaders we need to create the needed synergy of energy.” (Emphasiss added)

Are the DRC leaders’ efforts to birth a new missional strategy in South Africa focused on achieving this critical mass? The DRC clergy are already talking about “Mission as reconciliation” (Klippies Kritzinger) and “Acts being a book about crossing boundaries.” (Cobus van Wyngaard, My Contemplations). Here’s what Cobus and so many other DRC reverends believe:

Our group worked on Acts 15-20. Between 11:00 and 12:00 today, we identified the following as the most important theological thread for South Africa today:

Looking at our text, but also at the whole of Acts, we notice that Acts tell the story of boundries that was crossed. Of course, we didn’t notice this first, the scholars that introduced he discussion also pointed us to this. However, what we believe is important is that the boundry crossing always caused the Jerusalem church to change their theology. When Peter visit Cornelius, the theology change. At the meeting in Jerusalem, the fact that boundries have been crossed changes the theology.

That we need to cross boundries is commonly accepted in South Africa today. But crossing boundries need to change the theology of those on the inside. (Emphasis in the original text).

It is rather sad to hear learned men of the cloth say that the church at Jerusalem in the book of Acts always changed it’s theology and that when Peter visited Cornelius the theology also changed. The fact of the matter is that their theology never changed. If Peter’s, all the other apostles’ and the Jerusalem church’s theology needed change every time they crossed boundaries it would mean that their original theology was erroneous and that their conversion experience was false. What was their theology? The apostle Peter received their theology from the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost when he encapsulated it as follows:

1) Jesus Christ was crucified and slain. (. . . this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death (Acts 2:23).

2) Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. (But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power (Acts 2:24)

3) His resurrection was prophesized in advance according to the Scriptures. (And so, because he [David] was a prophet and knew that God had sworn to him with an oath to seat one of his descendants on his throne, he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay (Acts 2: 30, 31).

4) His sacrificial death and resurrection demands a response through faith unto the remission of sins. Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38)

Paul proclaimed the very same message much later in his first letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

It was not the early church’s theology that changed or needed to change but some of the Jewish Christians’ perceptions in regard to God’s dealings with the gentiles. Peter’s vision of a great sheet being let down from heaven, containing clean and unclean animals, was not to teach him that he needed to alter his theology but to discard his Hebraic version of “Apartheid” which led him to believe that he would become unclean if he supped and dined with gentiles. He was rather slack in his understanding of Jesus’ words “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” ”Any man” to him seemed to have referred to the Jews only, in much the same way the Calvinists regard “any man” or “the world” as a reference to the predestined elect only. Peter’s mind and attitude, not his theology, was changed when he came to the following conclusion :

Acts 15:9-11 “He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (Emphasis added)

Have you noticed the profundity of Peter’s statement?  Peter said in effect: “We, the Jews, are saved in the very same way they, the gentiles are saved — by faith and faith alone in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross” He did not say that they, the Gentiles, are saved the same way as we, the Jews are. Peter’s statement of faith reached back into history 430 years before the Law was given and when Abraham, then still a Gentile, was made righteous through his faith in Jesus Christ (Galatians 3;17, 18). Gone was Peter’s exclusive brand of Hebraic Apartheid between Jewish and Gentile Christians who believed the same way. Does that imply that Christians have the right to change their theology or to compromise their faith when cultural boundaries are crossed? By no means, for if they do they cannot claim to believe the same way as Peter or the Gentile Christians in Acts to whom he referred.

Now, let us return to Newbigin’s doctrine of election. The question is, how do you reconcile two apparently irreconcilable opposites — the one, a system which draws exact boundaries between the elect and the non-elect (reprobate) and contained one of the building bricks in the wall of Apartheid, and the other, a system which promotes and works toward an all inclusive universalistic spirituality? How can someone like Lesslie Newbigin hold to the doctrine of election and simultaneously regard someone with weird and off-beat ideas as a brother in Christ? Hadn’t Newbigin categorically stated that he believes in the doctrine of election, his testimonial that “even if his ideas are weird or off-beat, I would regard him a a brother in Christ,” could have been contributed to Brian McLaren who made the following weird and off-beat statement:

“I must add, though, that I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260) (Emphasis added).

Lighthouse Trails had this to say about McLaren’s weird and off-beat antics.

Is Brian McLaren becoming an enemy of the Cross of Jesus Christ? While his signature and endorsement on the back of such books as Tony Campolo’s “Speaking My Mind” and Dave Fleming’s “The Seeker’s Way,” was horrible enough, that was mild compared to what he has now done.

In the midst of the Purpose Driven craze and an apparently sleeping church, Brian McLaren has endorsed a book that calls the doctrine of the Cross a vile doctrine. (p. 168, Reimagining Christianity – Alan Jones) (Emphasis added).

You may want to take me to task for making a connection between Lesslie Newbigin and Brian McLaren but before you do that I would like to draw your attention to an even more shocking notion that is making headway in the ranks of our new generation of South African pastors, one that needs to be taken very seriously, and that is the view that David Bosch is having a major influence on the emergent church in South Africa. The following very telling statement appears on Cobus van Wyngaard’s blog My Contemplations

For I believe a growing group of us, the work of David Bosch is becoming key to the emerging conversation in South Africa. He’s had an important influence on thinkers such as Alan Hirsch and Brian McLaren, he is South African, he wrote brilliantly, and on the questions that we are currently asking. So in attempting to answer the question I’ll refer to my own and other’s interpretation of Bosch, and show where I believe Bosch is guiding us at the moment. (Emphasis added)

If David Bosch is one of Brian McLaren’s major influences, he was indeed far ahead of his time but that certainly does not mean it is something to be admired. In fact, the church as a whole should be very concerned about the DRC’s apparent interest in the book of Acts while they are actually promoting the contemplative spiritualities of the Desert Fathers and their disciples. Of even greater concern is the fact that David Bosch adopted Hans Kung’s “Paradigm Theory” in his book “Transforming Mission” in an attempt “to demonstrate the extent to which the understanding and practice of mission have changed during almost twenty centuries of Christian missionary history.” (For a critique of Bosch’s use of paradigm theory, see Gerald Pillay, “Text, Paradigms, and Context: An Examination of David Bosch’s Use of Paradigms in the Reading of Christian History,” in Mission in Creative Tension, ed. J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman (Pretoria: Southern African Missiological Society, 1990), pp. 109-23.). To get a better insight into Hans Kung’s missiological paradigms I suggest you read here. it gives you an idea of the direction the missional or “sent churches” in South Africa are taking and it does not look good —  not good at all.

Deut 13: 1-3 If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. (Emphasis added)