The Greenpoint Stadium in Cape was packed with 50 000 “Jesus followers” to pray for Cape Town and our nation on 22 March 2010. Dignitaries of all sorts were in attendance while the hat-donned preacher Angus Buchan was the main man. Dr. Dion Forster seems to have played a major part as an organisational facilitator in the event.
Being a keen follower of Jesus Christ myself and an avid researcher who loves to read and study others’ books, I, with great expectations, clicked on the link which took me to Dr. Dion’s Forster’s website and his blog. The first thing that caught my eye was the books he had written, amongst others “An uncommon spiritual path – the quest to find Jesus beyond conventional Christianity.”“Now that’s very interesting” I thought to myself. “Isn’t that wonderful?” . . . some of our most esteemed religious leaders in South such as Graham Power, Angus Buchan and Dion Forster want to win the entire Cape Town for Jesus by virtue of an uncommon spiritual path, a path that sets Capetonians on a quest to find Jesus beyond conventional Christianity.
At first I was rather confused and disappointed, so much so that I had to tell myself, “Ok, don’t get upset. Take a deep breath, sit down and try to understand what Dion Forster means by conventional Christianity.” I sat down and began to write down the things I was taught way back in Sunday School.
1) John 3:16 – For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.God extends his love to all people but only those who receive by faith and faith alone his gift of salvation through his Son, Jesus Christ, will spend eternity in heaven with Him. The rest who reject his gift will perish in hell. Conventional Christianity? You bet!
2) Acts 4:12 -Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. John 14:6 – Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of mankind. All the other spiritual paths claimed to be equally valid in reaching God are false and a lie. Conventional Christianity? You bet!
3) 1 John 5:12 - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. God distinguishes between two kinds of people on the earth — believers and unbelievers; the saved and the unsaved; sheep and goat. Conventional Christianity? You bet!
4) 2 Timothy 3:16 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Romans 10:17 – So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
The Bible is the only book available to mankind that provides him with sound doctrine concerning the Tri-une God and his angels, Satan and his fallen angels, the Fall of mankind, heaven and hell, and salvation and sanctification. Conventional Christianity? You bet!
Conventional Christianity, in a nutshell, is therefore the only belief system that honours, worships and adores Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of mankind who was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, died as a substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice for all our sins on a cursed cross, was buried, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven to be exalted on high at the right hand of God and will return to judge the rebellious nations and every single individual who rejected his gift of salvation.
It would seem that for many Christians, and particularly for persons who have left the Church, conventional Christianity does not provide enough to sustain their spiritual lives. This book charts an uncommon spiritual path by examining the non-dual spirituality of Henri le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda), a French Benedictine monk in India. His approach is challenging, courageous, and even unsettling in some instances. However, his deep commitment to finding Christ is an inspiration. – Mobipocket
Let’s look a wee bit closer at the wording in the editorial review. In effect it says: If the above four conventional Christian doctrines are not sufficient to sustain your spiritual life, there is another path you can follow. It is an uncommon spiritual path chartered by the French Benedictine mystic and monk, Henri le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda which means “Joy of the Anointed”) in India. His deep commitment to finding Christ will inspire you. However, his whole approach in finding Christ is unsettling (worrying, disturbing, upsetting, disconcerting, troubling, unnerving).
Who was Henri le Saux ( also known as Swami Abhishiktananda)? The following are a few excerpts from articles I found on the internet.
Abhishiktananda was the name taken by the French Benedictine monk Henri le Saux, whose religious experience in India led him to become a bridge between Hindu and Christian spirituality.
Born in Saint Briac, Brittany on August 30, 1910, he seemed destined for a religious life and entered ‘minor seminary’ at the age of 11, becoming a Benedictine novice in 1930.
He left France for India in the summer of 1948, never to return to France despite his affection for his homeland. He became immersed in the atmosphere of India, in particular the Hindu perspective of Advaita. He founded an ashram and religious community, Shantivanam, in 1950 and became Swami Abhishiktananda. In his latter years though, he found himself very drawn to religious experience within solitude, spending much time in the hermit caves at Arunachala. But at no point did he disavow his Christianity, and he celebrated Mass until virtually the end of his life.
He died on December 7, 1973 at Indore nursing home, weakened by a myocardial infarction that summer, after several years in which he had lived virtually as a hermit. (Emphasis added)
The solution for the crisis of the world must be found in common by all people of goodwill, by all men devoted to truth, in whatever way the truth may have manifested itself in the depth of their hearts. Their dialogue will be a searchlight which will probe the present societies of men, but will first scan the heart of those taking part in it. It will be the test of their allegiance to truth alone in their respective religious or humanist commitments. . . .
The fate of practically all Christian theologies so far has been that, while starting from the Gospel, they have speculated on it at leisure with the help of successive philosophical systems, especially Greek essentialism, down to the present existentialism. They have determined in a rigorous manner the divine plan of salvation and have given ample intellectual foundation to the structures at work in the Church, thus deciding here below all matters concerning the other world. All went well as long as the human mind accepted, without raising questions, that the others are practically excluded from the economy of salvation—even if in fact these others included the majority of God’s children. Then the realization came slowly that such an attitude is not only inhuman but unchristian, and it became impossible to follow Augustine’s idea of the massa damnata. Theologians then tried to work out a plan of Salvation which would somehow include the others, but without altering the brilliant construction and synthesis they had already made. No accepted theology has yet tackled the problem adequately; dialogue in depth, however, is bound to call for a revision of the system, and it may be anticipated that the shock will be great. (Read complete article here). (Emphasis added).
The answer to a successful pluralistic spirituality or theology is the contemplative life
Only a contemplative spirituality can be the proper foundation for a pluralistic theology. As long as God is known only through formulae and meditated upon through a mere operation of the mind, as long also as our love for him is confined to feelings and sentiments, it remains impossible for us to realize the limitations of our own approach to the divine mystery. Only the experience of the divine Presence beyond all concepts and feelings will make it possible for us to accept the mystery of the multiform grace and love of the Lord. God is the Absolute. No one of his manifestations can express him completely: yet God is fully present in such manifestations. At the same time, only such a contemplative attitude removes from dialogue the danger of syncretism. The center of the soul is not the intellect, as a theology too dependent on Plato and Aristotle is inclined to believe. It is the real center—the atman of the Vedantic tradition—that man must discover in himself, beyond all manifestations. From that center only can man transcend himself, his thoughts, his senses, as well as the whole universe, beyond all man-made distinctions. At the level of the soul’s self-consciousness, man recognizes both the presence of God, the Absolute, in each of his manifestations, and the impossibility for any of those manifestations to express the mystery of the Absolute in a fully integral manner. Here is the very foundation for a pluralistic, not syncretistic, theology. And this is in fact what the apophatic tradition always stood for in the Church. (Read here, last paragraph) (Emphasis added).
You may recall that I discussed Ron Martoia’s definition of apophatic in this post. Martoia distinguishes between two kinds of spiritualities — kataphatic of which we have quite a lot and apophatic. Kataphatic spirituality relies on images, text, ideas, creation to come to know God. Lectio Divina is a kataphatic spiritual practice. All of this is very mental and imaginative, according to Ron Martoia. Apophatic spirituality uses no thought, no text, no image, no idea, to connect to God, to come to know God, to connect to God through the spirit.
The ultimate solution is the salvation of the world which will be procured only when people of goodwill come together
The salvation of the world and the overcoming by the Church of its present crisis will depend on all people of goodwill coming together in truth and in the Spirit; all men, that is, who within themselves have heard the voice of the Spirit and have not been afraid to listen to it and to abide by it. (Read here, last paragraph)
If Henri le Saux heard the voice of the Spirit and had not been afraid to listen to Him and to abide by his words, he would have been obedient to Him who said:
1 Timothy 4:1-2 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron.
The Spirit of which Henri le Saux and Ron Martoia speak. is not the Holy Spirit of God but the spirit of Antichrist. To fully understand their preoccupation with a Spirit that is not of God, I would like to suggest that we look at some excerpts from an article by Donald Nicholl which he wrote in October of 1989 entitled “The Leading of the Spirit.”
The emptying of the mind is the precondition for the Spirit to work in our lives
. . . for those of us who wish to accompany him [Henri le Saux] on his earthly pilgrimage—and even beyond—the indispensable precondition is that we do so through the medium of the Spirit.And the only preparation for the coming of the Spirit—or, rather, our awakening to him—is to empty our minds of all preconceptions, manmade decisions and reason-based desires. Because what we are faced with is a journey into “the deep things of God”—a favorite phrase of Abhishiktananda’s taken from the letter in which St. Paul tells the Corinthians that God has prepared for those who love him things beyond what any human being can see or hear or imagine. Yet the Spirit permeates everything, even the deep things of God, even God’s own nature, for only the Spirit of God knows what God is.
Conventional biblical Christianity teaches that the Holy Spirit of God was sent, subsequent to Jesus Christ’s resurrection and ascension, to reprove the world of sin, righteousness and judgment: of sin, because they do not believe on Jesus Christ; of righteousness, because He returned to his Father, and we see Him no more; of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged already (John 16:7-11). From the above quote it is evident that there is no room for the doctrine of sin in all of its aspects in Henri le Saux’s and his followers’ mindset. In fact, they believe that an empty mind is the key to their awakening to the Spirit. Their Spirit (although spelt with a capitol “S”) is not the Holy Spirit but a panentheistic spirit that permeates everything. He continues to explain:
How to live out in one’s everyday life this truth enunciated by St Paul was often illustrated by Abhishiktananda with the aid of a Sanskrit term akasha. The term akasha means both the infinite “exterior” space and the infinite “interior” space which are really but one, both spheres being permeated by that same Spirit which fills not only the whole cosmos but equally the human heart. This is possible because the Spirit, being God, is beyond all forms, and so is able to make his presence felt in any form; and being beyond all times he yet fills all moments of time and is present to every event of history. Thus, he is at the core of the universe and of the heart of man. He is that core.
Conventional biblical Christianity teaches that the Spirit of God does not indwell or permeate those who do not belong to Christ Jesus (Romans 8:9). As a matter of fact their own spirits are dead in sin and trespasses because the Spirit of God has of yet not quickened them through the new birth in Christ Jesus. But these doctrines are too condescending and too much of an exclusionary rule and therefore they have devised a new way of awakening to the Spirit — just empty your mind through contemplative, mystical meditative practices.
According to Donald Nicholl, Henri le Saux was awakened to the Spirit when he met the Indian holy man Ramana Maharshi and guru Gnanananda. When he stepped into their “holy” presence he immediately knew and experienced that they had been drawn so deep into “thecave of the heart” (he Sanskrit word is guha) that they touched the heart of the cosmos. Consequently they were blessed with a peace that is beyond human comprehension and they radiated that peace. Satan is an imitator who uses conventional biblical truths but twists its meaning to achieve his own objectives. Conventional biblical Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is the only One who is able to give peace to those who have received Him as their Saviour by faith alone. It is a peace that surpasses all understanding because it is a peace not of this world but his own peace that He gives (John 14:27). Conventional biblical Christianity clearly states that there is no peace for the wicked (those who do not know Jesus as their Saviour) (Isaiah 57:21).
Hinduism, and in particular the Hindu word purnam (fullness) allegedly helped Henri le Saux to fathom the depths of Jesus’ experience of God.
Fortunately for Abhishiktananda he found to hand a Hindu term, purnam which not only proved far richer in connotation than the Western term “fullness” but also provided him with a most valuable gift to pass on to the Church.
Abhishiktananda most valuable gift, as the word purnam indicates, is the complete stillness or silence between the thoughts you encounter during meditation where you become aware that you are perfect. Willem Nicol, one of the doyens of contemplative meditation in South Africa, calls it “the gap.”
He came to see also that the Spirit, who alone can reveal to us the depth of Jesus’ experience, had long been at work in the lives of Hindus and in their sacred scriptures. In Hinduism, therefore are to be found potentialities of the human Spirit which go far beyond what has so far been considered possible within the limits of Western culture. Hence the encounter with Hinduism is an occasion to liberate the spirit within Christians and thereby enable them to realise more fully the riches contained in the revealed words of their own scriptures and to share more intimately in the experience of Jesus as Son of the Father and yet one with him. Also the encounter with Hinduism—as well as with Buddhism, Islam and other great religious spheres of mankind—will usher in a radically new stage in the awareness and development of the Church. As a result the Mediterranean-based form of Christianity, which is still predominant, will soon be seen as only one of the historical possibilities of living the Christian faith.
The development of the Church, according to Henri le Saux, depends on its encounter with Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam and other great religions. Conventional biblical Christianity teaches that the Church is wholly dependent on her Head, Jesus Christ, who promised that He would build her and not even the gates of hell will be able to prevent her growth (Matthew 16:18).
Seraphim of Sarov . . . used to say, “The whole aim of the Christian life is to acquire the Holy Spirit.” And it is surely a sign of how faithful he remained to the call of the Holy Spirit that some words of his should chime in so perfectly with a remarkable statement of Seraphim, who said, “I tell you that when God visits us in his ineffable goodness we must be still even from prayer. In prayer the soul utters words of speech, but when the Holy Spirit has come you must be in complete silence.” The corresponding statement by Abhishiktananda runs, “At the end there is no place for prayer, for praise, but the silence which is the origin and completion of all words, when all the manifestations of God have to be left behind and with all his strength man must aim at the Silence in which alone God is in himself.”
What do Dion Forster, Graham Power and Angus Buchan have in common?
I have already mentioned in one of my previous commentaries that Graham Power, Chairperson of Transformation Africa with whom Rev. Jannie Pelser and many other spiritual leaders are in close cahoots, was one of the major sponsors of the Parliament of the World’s Religions held in Cape Town from 1 to 8 December in 1999. If ever there was a time when nominal Christians were captivated by the altars of other religions, it was here, when they became “participants to meet their own and other’ traditions at deeper levels” to “encounter others whose practice, work and commitment can enrich their own,” to “inspire individuals, organisations, nations and religions and spiritual communities to offer gifts of service, which will make long-term difference in the world” and last but not least to “explore new modes of creative engagement of each institution with one another and with the critical issues which confront the planetary community.” (“A New Day Dawning, Spiritual Yearnings and Sacred Possibilities”, p. 6).
They are “unashamedly ethical” but have no qualms whatsoever to be ashamed of the offensive Gospel of Jesus Christ. While they unashamedly boast in the face of God that they are “unashamedly ethical” He in utter derision answers them: “all your righteous acts (global ethics, norms and values) are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6). (Read this article written by Johan Malan and Louisa Coetzee for further information on the Transformations movement in South Africa)
The common denominator between Dion Forster, Graham Power and Angus Buchan, as with all the other transformational facilitators, is ecumenism which is just another word for interreligious dialogue. The key to successful ecumenism is compromise, as Henri le Saux so succinctly put it: “The solution for the crisis of the world must be found in common by all people of goodwill, by all men devoted to truth,in whatever way the truth may have manifested itself in the depth of their hearts.Here again we see that truth is not something found in propositions, books or God-given doctrines but in the way you experience it in your own heart on your chosen spiritual journey. Yes! they all freely talk about Jesus, loving Jesus, following Jesus and following the lead of the Spirit but theirs’ is an ecumenical Jesus and Spirit who does not care about sound doctrine but has embraced the god of paradoxes (opposites are both valid and true).
Today’s transformational Gospel is an ecumenically compromised “Gospel” which is no Gospel at all. Its adherents do not care what you believe as long as you endorse their code of global ethics. How else are they going to tolerate men like Dion Forster who unashamedly endorses someone like Henri le Saux who was a Hindu disguised as a Christian? How else are they going to tolerate clergy from the Roman Catholic fold whom they invited to attend the Cape Town for Jesus rally and who deny the efficacy of Jesus Christ’s death on the cross by claiming that good works, suffering, the mass, indulgences, purgatory, the Blessed Virgin Mary etc. etc. are all part and parcel of the final procurement of one’s salvation? Roman Catholicism adamantly denies that Jesus Christ’s vicarious death on the cross was all sufficient for our salvation. In fact, they have anathematized every single person who believe that faith and faith alone in the finished work of Christ on the cross saves lost sinners.
If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary . . . to believe with certainty and without hesitation . . . that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Six, XVI, 13)
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema. (H.J. Schroeder, O.P., trans., The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Tan Books, 1978, p. 46).
A popular tract titled “Heaven Opened by the practice of the Three Hail Mary’s” promises:
One of the greatest means of salvation and one of the surest signs of predestination is unquestionably the devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin. All the holy doctors of the church are unanimous in saying with St. Alphonsus of Ligouri: “A devout servant of Mary shall never perish . . “
I consecrate to Thee [Mary] my heart with all its affections, and beseech Thee to obtain for me from the Most Holy Trinity all the graces necessary for salvation. (“Heaven Opened by the Practice of the THE THREE HAIL MARY’S,” Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York).
Was this perhaps the reason why Angus Buchan spoke in an ethically transformational mode in stead of preaching the cross of Jesus Christ as Paul did so eloquently because he did not want to offend the Catholics in his audience? (1 Corinthians 2:2). In his report on the Cape Town for Jesus Day Dion Forster said that Angus Buchan “encouraged South Africans to start taking responsibility for the nation, and to start making a really positive contribution towards transformation and renewal in society (which includes elements such as racial reconciliation, shifting the wealth of the nation, and of course also standing against crime and corruption). The second part of his message, says Forster, encouraged men to live responsibility in their family lives and work lives.”
Why is it necessary for Angus Buchan to repeat the very same message over and over again at his appearances when South Africa is already in a revival as he claims? Surely if we were already smack bang in the middle of a mighty revival the men would already have been living responsibly in their homes, the wives would already have been living in submission to their husbands for the sake of Jesus Christ, the children would already have been obedient to their parents in all things, they all would already have taken responsibility for the nation by preaching the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost and last but not least, Graham Power would already have repented in sack and cloth and begged God’s forgiveness for his participation in the Parliament of the World’s Religions held in Cape Town from 1 to 8 December in 1999 and Dion Forster would already have stopped singing the praises of the likes of Henri le Saux and Bede Griffiths. The fact that these things have not happened as of yet and Angus Buchan repeatedly finds it necessary to remind South Africans of their responsibilities is ample proof that we are nowhere near a revival. Yes! a false one, perhaps but not a Holy Spirit and biblically inspired revival.
South Africa, how much longer are you going to tolerate false teachers and apostles who teach you to limp between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him. But if their ecumenical Baal is, then follow him.
Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ, (NASB)
until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. So then, we may no longer be children, tossed [like ships] to and fro between chance gusts of teaching and wavering with every changing wind of doctrine, [the prey of] the cunning and cleverness of unscrupulous men, [gamblers engaged] in every shifting form of trickery in inventing errors to mislead. Rather, let our lives lovingly express truth [in all things, speaking truly, dealing truly, living truly]. Enfolded in love, let us grow up in every way and in all things into Him Who is the Head, [even] Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). (Amplified Bible)
Have you ever been cautioned to speak the truth in love whenever you politely and earnestly warn people against false teachers and apostles as well as against all the “wonderful” signs and wonders appearing in little heart shaped stones, heart shaped clouds, bright lights from heaven illuminating huge tents and “Jesus Christ’s” alleged appearance in a cloud while holding a little lamb? I have . . ., many times, even by my nearest of kin . . . my own flesh and blood. Let’s face it; the gift of discernment which always goes hand in hand with reproof, correction and instruction (2 Timothy 3:16) has become one of the most despised gifts amongst (no! . . . not unbelievers) believers who claim they are followers of Jesus Christ. Isn’t it strange that whenever you ask your accusers to give you an example of how to speak the truth in love, they do not have the faintest of clues how to do it? Most Christians do not know how to speak the truth in love but uncannily know how to believe the deceivers’ lies in love and to rebuke in “love” those who actually do speak the truth in love? In fact, love, compassion, empathy, kindness, consideration and benevolence are all traits the deceivers have mastered to perfection, only to conceal their deception so much the better. Christians who do not have a teachable spirit and tenaciously believe they cannot be deceived because a God of love will never allow them to be led astray are usually the ones who use the “speak the Truth in love” trump card whenever they are warned.
Shouldn’t love be uppermost in a Christian’s heart? Yes, indeed it must, but sincerity is equally important; love without sincerity is worthless. Paul says in Romans 12:9 that our love should be sincere and then he qualifies sincere love by adding: “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” In 2 Corinthians he links love to truthful speech spoken in the power of God and in 1 Timothy 1:5 to sincere faith. The word for sincere is anupokritos { an-oo-pok’-ree-tos} and means to be “unfeigned,” “undisguised” and “without hypocrisy.” If anyone can prove to me that deception, lies and falsities are not evil then I would be the first to encourage Christians to love and not hate it. Love can only be meaningful when you have learnt how to hate evil in whatever shape or form. In most cases evil of the deceptive kind approaches you in the form of light, love, compassion and benevolence (2 Corinthians 11:13-15). Consequently, Christians should hate false light, false love, false compassion and false benevolence because it is downright evil.
The best way to make a Christian feel guilty, and especially those who have a heartfelt concern for Christians who are being deceived, is to imply that they are loveless, and guess what’s the easiest way to make them feel guilty? Well, quote to them Ephesians 4:15 without any effort to explain what it really means and to omit the previous verse 14.
Now, for the million dollar question: How do you speak the truth in love? Do you put on your best smile, hug a person and tenderly whisper in his ear, “If you do not immediately stop following the false Christs, teachers and apostles, repent and turn to Jesus of the Bible you will go to hell.” While you ponder this question you may also want to convince me that the following words were not spoken in love.
Matthew 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Spoken in love by John the Baptist)
Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (Spoken in love by John the Baptist)
Galatians 1:8-10 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. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. (Spoken in love by Paul of Tarsus).
Luke 13:1-5 There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. (Spoken in love by Jesus of Nazareth).
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. (Spoken in love by Jesus of Nazareth).
Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. (Spoken in love by the apostle Peter).
Jude verse 11-13 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever. (Spoken in love by the apostle Jude).
Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Spoken on love by Jesus of Nazareth)
Matthew 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. (Spoken in love by Jesus of Nazareth)
Matthew 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (Spoken in love by Jesus of Nazareth)
Luke 13:28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. (Spoken in love by Jesus of Nazareth).
Revelation 22: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Spoken in love by John, the apostle of love).
The phrase “speaking the truth in love” is not a lecture on how to present the truth without offending people. Yes, of course, Christians should never offend people but when they commit themselves to the truth in their preaching of the cross of Jesus Christ, they are going to offend many people. It is unavoidable. There are two words used for “offence.” The one is “aproskopos { ap-ros’-kop-os} whichrelates to a Christian’s way of living in the midst of unbelievers and means that they should not lead others into sin by their mode of living. A single example will explain its meaning. Many Christians believe it is quite ok to drink beer, wine and strong liquor and even to provide some for the unbelievers who visit them at their home. What does the Bible teach?
Habakkuk 2:15-16 Woe to you who make your neighbors drink, Who mix in your venom even to make them drunk so as to look on their nakedness! “You will be filled with disgrace rather than honor. Now you yourself drink and expose your own nakedness. The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, And utter disgrace will come upon your glory.
“Nakedness” in this regard is not nudity. It means to loosen the neighbour’s tongue so that he may disclose his deepest secrets without shame.
1 Corinthians 10:32 Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.
Matthew 18:7 Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
The other word for “offence” is “skandalon { skan’-dal-on} (ôscandalö )” which is used in connection with the Gospel and in particular the cross of Jesus Christ.
Romans 9:32 -33 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
Christians dare not water down the offence of the cross. As soon as they do they are an offence to others because they lead them into error and deception. And this is precisely how they should speak the truth in love — to present the truth and nothing but the truth which makes you free and safeguards yourself and your brethren from being “tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming.”
Please note, the verse does not say “speak the truth in love” but “speaking the word in love” (continuous present tense) which indicates that Christians who present the truth in such a way that others may not be led astray by false teachers and apostles and their deception are already “speaking the truth in love” although they may be accused of doing it with a wrong attitude and without love. The above quotes from the Bible of Jesus, Paul, Jude. Peter and Luke speaking the truth in love, is a resounding example of being an offence to people in behalf of the truth — all truth pertaining to the cross of Jesus Christ.
Stephan Joubert het waarskynlik ‘n kleintjie dood aan Godsdiens. In een van sy onlangse preke wat hy op 14 Februarie vanjaar tydens ‘n erediens in die Moreletapark NG Gemeente gelewer het, het hy soos so baie ander vorige kere weer die arme “kerk” aangevat oor haar onvermoë om die wêreld te verander. ‘n Mens sou kon saamstem dat “godsdienstigheid” of “kerkisme” soos dit ook altoos bekend staan, nie noodwendig God se goedkeuring wegdra nie. Sê die Here dan nie juis dat in die laaste dae mense die gedaante van godsaligheid sal hê maar die krag daarvan sal verloën nie? Daarom is die fenomeen “Stephan Joubert” so ‘n uiters moeilike enigma om te verstaan wanneer hy die “kerk” so ruig kritiseer maar nie juis omgee om hom met kerkleiers wat die Evangelie van Jesus Christus openlik en skaamteloos in die openbaar verdraai, te vereenselwig nie. Hy het ‘n ewige renons in die gemaakte-heiligheid in die kerk maar heul graag met die onheilige praatjies van sy kontemplatiewe vriende. Hoe rym dit? Voordat ons sy preek in meer detail onder die loep neem, kom ons kyk dan nou eers na enkele dinge wat sy kontemplatiewe maatjies al in die verlede gesê het en waarskynlik die afwaartse, of sal ek eerder sê, afvallige neiging in sy “godsdienstige” lewe teweeg gebring het.
Despite decades of tweaking evangelistic methods, there is little evidence that many Christians are experiencing true life change, Ron Martoia told church leaders Jan. 29. (Wat Ron Mortoia eintlik bedoel het, is dat Christus nie daarin kon slaag om mense se lewens te verander nie, ten spyte van sy belofte dat Hy die goeie werk wat Hy in sy dissipels begin het, sal voleindig [Filippense 1:6]. Stephan Joubert, wat Ron Martoia se klankbord in Suid-Afrika is, maak dieselfde aanklag teen die evangeliese metodes van die sg. pre-moderne en moderne periodes, nl. dat dit misluk het om die wêreld te verander).
Perhaps . . . that failure is because Christians in the Western world have been prone to think of salvation as a “point-of-sale” transactionthat focuses on getting to heaven instead of appreciating that Jesus came to fulfil the Old Testament promise of shalom, a concept that suggests wholeness, wellness, and peace. (As dit nie ‘n klap in die gesig is van Jesus Christus is nie dan weet ek darem nie so mooi nie. Jesus het dan juis gesê:“Laat julle hart nie ontsteld word nie; glo in God, glo ook in My. In die huis van my Vader is daar baie wonings; as dit nie so was nie, sou Ek dit vir julle gesê het. Ek gaan om vir julle plek te berei. En as Ek gegaan en vir julle plek berei het, kom Ek weer en sal julle na My toe neem, sodat julle ook kan wees waar Ek is.” Jesus wil baie graag hê dat almal moet wees waar hy nou is in die hemel, maar die tragiese is dat die meeste mense nie daar wil wees nie omdat hulle kwansuis sy “shalom” (vrede) hier op aarde wil bewerkstellig (1 Thessaloniscense 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.)
Preaching about forgiveness from sin becomes increasingly ineffective in a postmodern world where a sense of guilt and obligation is less often operative. In contemporary American culture, one can no longer assume that people identify themselves as sinners in need of grace.(Hoe op dees aarde kan Ron Martoia voorgee dat die gevestigde en Bybels gefundeerde evangeliese metodes misluk het terwyl hy die soenverdienste van Jesus Christus, veral t.o.v. die vergifnis van sondes, minag. Sy beskuldiging is in werklikheid ‘n ontkenning van Christus se belofte dat Hy sy kerk sal bou en dat selfs die poorte van die doderyk dit nie sal oorweldig nie (Mattheus 16:18). Mense wat reken dat hulle nie vergifnis hoef te kry vir hulle sondes nie en dus nie God se genade nodig het nie, maak hulle skuldig aan die aanklag in 1 Johannes 1:10:“As ons sê dat ons geen sonde het nie, mislei ons onsself en die waarheid is nie in ons nie. . . . As ons sê dat ons nie gesondig het nie, dan maak ons Hom tot ‘n leuenaar en is sy woord nie in ons nie.”
“People may not think of themselves as sinners going to hell, but they seek wholeness and recognize they’re not there,” he said. (Watwou! . . . heelheid en heilsaamheid sonder die vergifnis van sondes? Heelheid, heilsaamheid, geluksaligheid kan alleenlik jou deel word wanneer God self in jou woning maak deur sy Gees, en dit op sy beurt kan alleenlik voltrek word wanneer die oorsaak vir sy afwesigheid in jou diepste binneste uit die weg geruim word. En glo dit as u wil daar is net een ding wat keer dat God in jou woning maak — jou sondes en jou ongeloof; jou oortreding van al God se wette en verordeninge want as jy net een enkele een daarvan oortree, het jy hulle almal oortree. Skuldgevoelens volgens die wil van God is ‘n goeie ding en daarom sê die Skrif:“Want die droefheid volgens die wil van God werk ‘n onberoulike bekering tot redding, maar die droefheid van die wêreld werk diedood.” (2 Korinthiërs 7:10). Die droefheid van die wêreld, soos Ron Martoia dit stel, is om te smag na transformasie maar sonder enige berou vir jou sondes en die wete dat jy God se genade nodig het. Hierdie soort droefheid of berou loop uit op die dood, die ewige dood. Die ontkenning dat mense sondevergifnis nodig het, is maar eintlik ‘n verwerping van die kruisdood van Jesus Christus want Hyself het gesê: “Ek het nie gekom om regverdiges te roep nie, maar sondaars tot bekering.”- Lukas 5:32. Die “regverdiges” is die ouens wat glo hulle het nie die sondevergifnis en die genade van God nodig nie. Om die waarheid te sê hulle is die post-moderne Fariseërs wat soos die Farisieërs van ouds geglo het hulle is reeds regverdig (d.w.s. reeds midde in die Koninkryk van God hier en nou) en dus geen behoefte het aan die soendood van Jesus Christus nie).
Die uitdrukking “salvation as a ‘point-of-sale’ transcation” is waarskynlik ‘n sinspeling op die gedeelte in 1 Johannes 1: 8 – 10: “As ons sê dat ons geen sonde het nie, mislei ons onsself en die waarheid is nie in ons nie. As ons ons sondes bely, Hy is getrou en regverdig om ons die sondes te vergewe en ons van alle ongeregtigheid te reinig. As ons sê dat ons nie gesondig het nie, dan maak ons Hom tot ‘n leuenaar en is sy woord nie in ons nie.” Die woordjie “as” dui op die voorwaarde wat God stel alvorens ‘n sondaar vergifnis vir sy sondes kan ontvang en dis juis hierdie voorwaarde “as jy dit doen, sal Ek dat doen” waarvan Ron Martoia met minagting praat as “a ‘point-of-sale’ transcation.” Volgens Martoia sien die post-moderne mense hulleself nie as sondaars wat op pad hel toe is nie maar as mense wat smag na transformasie; hulle soek eerder na algehele heilsaamheid maar het dit nog nie bereik nie — ‘n heilsaamheid wat nie deur ‘n ingrype van God en deur sy genade bewerkstellig word nie maar d.m.v. ‘n eindelose pelgrimstog en ‘n nimmereindigende soeke na die waarheid. Op bls 16 van sy boek “Transformational Architecture: Reshaping Our Lives as Narrative” stel Ron Martoia dit as volg:
Like countless others, Chad is a guy who wants to talk about the journey, be on the journey, explore paths and trails of the journey, but he doesn’t want to let anyone short-circuit the journey or tell him exactly which steps and direction the journey should take. Chad is responding to the way he has been designed on the inside. Something about what he senses deep inside leads him to think that this journey is worth pursuing.
Chad is representative of a much larger group of people in the United States who are on a spiritual quest and looking for conversation partners but are uninterested in pat, canned, certain, scripted, prepackaged answers. (Klem bygevoeg)
Die laaste paragraaf kan soos volg geparafraseer word: “Chad verteenwoordig ‘n groot groep mense in die Verenigde State wat op ‘n spirituele pelgrimstog is en op soek is na gespreksgenote, maar moet asseblief om die dood net nie vir hom verse uit die Bybel aanhaal nie want hy haat gepaste, klaar-in-die-kannetjie, sekere, skriftuurlike, voorafverpakte antwoorde.” Dit bewys maar net weer eens dat die Bybel die foutlose, ewige en onveranderlike Woord van God is want Paulus het reeds duisende jare gelede voorspel dat mense soos Chad en ‘n menigte ander in Amerika en Suid-Afrika in die laaste dae nie meer die gesonde leringe van die Bybel sal verdra nie omdat hulle vir hulle leraars sal versamel (die post-moderne woord vir “leraar” is “conversation partner”) wat hulle oortjies streel (2 Timotheus 4:3). Hulle sal luister na hulle “partners in conversation” omdat dié vir hulle alles sal vertel wat hulle graag wil hoor en nie wat God vir hulle sê nie. Ek kan u verseker dat Ron Martoia en sy confidante, Stephan Joubert, twee van die beste nommerpas eindtyd-leraars is aan wie se lippe derduisende pelgrims op soek na die “unreachable star” en die “impossible dream” deesdae hang. Miskien moet Chad hom eerder met heilige ontsag en eerbied voor God op sy aangesig neergooi en luister na sy woorde in Spreuke 12: 28 en 15: 24: “Op die pad van geregtigheid is lewe, en die rigting van dié pad is onsterflikheid” EN “Die pad van die lewe gaan vir die verstandige na bowe, sodat hy die doderyk daaronder ontwyk.” Maar nee, Ron Martoia, Stephan Joubert en Chad is baie wyser as God want hulle is “uninterested in pat, canned, certain, scripted prepackaged answers.”
. . . 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 (2 Timotheus 4:3).
Stephan Joubert het die volgende gloeiende reklame oor Ron Martoia se tweede boek “The Bible as Improv”geskryf toe dit ‘n klompie jare in Suid-Afrika vrygestel is:
As one of the sharpest and most eloquent theological minds of our day, Ron Martoia in this delightfully well-written book invites us into a new, conjunctive stage of faith where paradox, society and God can exist in peaceful tension. From a new vantage point, where the Bible is no longer viewed as an owner’s manual to make everything hum but as a classic, we are challenged to live the biblical text through new conversations we engage in with the text. The jazz metaphor serves as another equally helpful image to convey the meaning of the dance of improv where the Bible becomes the score that we, in the company of other Jesus-followers, constantly immerse ourselves in. In this way the Bible comes alive through the music we are making with our lives. This masterful book by a modernday prophet in blue jeans will open up fresh new pathways for all who wish to finally replace their dated reading maps of the Bible.”
- Stephan Joubert: Extraordinary Professor of New Testament studies. University of Pretoria, and editor echurch/ekerk
U het reeds gesien wat Ron Martoia rondom die onderwerpe “sonde,” “vergifnis” en “genade” gesê het en dat dit hoegenaamd nie met die Bybel strook nie. Om die waarheid te sê, dit is onbeskaamd anti-Bybel, anti-God, anti-Christus en anti-Christendom. En tog loof Stephan Joubert hom as “een van die skerpste en mees uitgelese teologiese geeste van ons tyd.” Miskien het dit nog nie tot sy “extraoridnary professor’s” brein deurgedring nie, maar sy lofsange oor Ron Martoia is eintlik ‘n treursang oor Jesus Christus wat presies die teenoorgestelde as Ron Mortoia m.b.t. die sonde, vergifnis en genade gesê het.
Moontlik het u al voorheen van die sg “jazz metafoor” gehoor. Soos u seker weet gebruik die musici in ‘n jazz orkes nie ‘n klaar- of voorafgeskrewe partituur (“score”) om musiek te maak nie. Hulle is uitmuntende improviseerders wat op die ingewing van die oomblik tydens die verloop van hulle samespel in staat is om musiek te maak sonder ‘n voorafgeskrewe partituur. Skynbaar is die Ontluikende Kerk se leiersfigure nog nie so improvisasie vaardig nie; hulle gebruik darem nog die Bybel as ‘n partituur (“score”) om hulle “dance of imrpovisation” saam met ander Jesus-volgelinge uit te voer. Maar, in hierdie geval is die Bybel nie ‘n klaar- of voorafgeskrewe “partituur”(geslote kanon) nie maar ‘n partituur wat improviserend deur die ontluikende pelgrims op hulle nimmereindigende reis na die waarheid en deur hulle gesamentlike ervarings op hulle pelgrimsreis gemusiseer (geskryf) word. In kort kom dit daarop neer dat elkeen se improvisasie (lewenservaring) soos hy of sy die Bybel sien en interpreteer, geldend, korrek en aanvaarbaar is en mag onder geen omstandighede gekritiseer word nie (omdat dit maar net weer eens die “judging gene” in hoogste rat sou sit). Die volgende uittreksel kom uit die artikel “Are Ron Martoia, Stephan Joubert and Nelus Niemandt Experts in their Field?”en spel vir ons baie duidelik uit wat Ron Martoia en sy Suid-Afrikaanse confidante van die Woord van God dink.
Ron Martoia het tydens een van sy besoeke aan Suid-Afrika op 28 Augustus 2009 by ‘n konferensie wat gehou is in die Pierre van Ryneveldt NG Gemeente o.a. die volgende gesê:-
“Die belydenis dat die Woord vlees geword het, is ‘n saak wat die kerk deesdae uitdaag.” – Ron Martoia (1 Johannes 4:2 en 3: Hieraan ken julle die Gees van God: elke gees wat bely dat Jesus Christus in die vlees gekom het, is uit God; en elke gees wat nie bely dat Jesus Christus in die vlees gekom het nie, is nie uit God nie; en dit is die gees van die Antichris waarvan julle gehoor het dat hy kom, en hy is nou al in die wêreld.)
“God is nie die Bybel nie, alleenlik maar die Woord van God.” – Ron Martoia (Ek is byna 100% seker dat Ron Martoia boeke skryf, nie om sy lesers te oortuig dat hyself sy boeke is nie maar dat dit net papier en ink is om die woorde van Martoia duidelik te artikuleer. Daar is talle mense, o.a. Stephan Joubert, wat sy duidelik geartikuleerde en geboekstaafde woorde as die alfa en omega van die post-moderne kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit beskou. Hulle glo dus alles wat hy sê en skryf sonder om dit in die minste te bevraagteken. So-ook is die Bybel nie God nie maar sy duidelik geartikuleerde woorde om sy wil aan die mensdom te openbaar en bekend te maak. Maar anders as die duidelik geartikuleerde woorde van Martoia in sy boeke word die duidelik geartikuleerde woorde van God in die Bybel bevraagteken en selfs openlik deur die kontemplatiewe kerklui verwerp. Hulle handhaaf ‘n soort vervanginsteologie; vervang maar net die woorde van God in die Bybel met die woorde van Martoia in sy boeke en jy’s goed op pad om die Koninkryk van God hier en nou op aarde gouer en beter gevestig te kry.)
“Die Bybel is maar net ‘n storie.” – Ron Martoia (As die Bybel maar net ‘n storie is, dan is Ron Martoia en Stephan Joubert asook die hele kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit ook maar net ‘n storie. Daar is egter ‘n wawye verskil tussen die storie van die Bybel en die storie van Martoia, Joubert en die kontemplatiewe broederskap — die Bybelse storie is onomkeerbaar waar (Numeri 23:19, Psalm 119: 160, Johannes 17: 17) terwyl hulle storie onomkeerbaar vals en ‘n spul leuens is.)
“Die Bybel is vol aksiebelaaide stories wat op verskillende maniere in ons lewens toegepas kan word.” – Ron Martoia (Het u opgemerk dat die aksiebelaaide stories van die Bybel op verskillende maniere in ons lewens toegepas kan word? Dit kom daarop neer dat die Bybelse stories nie universele, onveranderlike en ewige waarhede is nie, maar dat elke Jan Rap en sy maat die aksiebelaaide stories verskillend in hulle lewens kan toepas. Jou besondere belewing van die stories is nie noodwendig dieselfde as die volgende persoon s’n nie, maar dit diskwalifiseer nie jou eie of die volgende persoon se belewenis daarvan nie. Albei is ewe waar omdat dit nou jou ervaring is wat die stories waarmerk en bekragtig en nie die geïnspireerde waarheid van God’s Woord nie. Die post-moderne volgelinge van Jesus se siening van die Bybel is nie meer gehoorsaamheidsgedrewe nie maar ervaringsgedrewe.)
Iets regtig groots is in die wêreld aan die gang, ons is in ‘n Nuwe Wêreld en jy het net twee opsies. Sluit aan of vergaan.” – Ron Martoia (Ron Martoia kon maar net sowel gesê het ons is op pad na ‘n Nuwe Wêreld Orde en almal wat weerstand bied, sal of gemarginaliseer of uit die weg geruim word. Dit is maar dieselfde dreigtaal strategie wat Brian Mclaren en Alice Bailey gebruik. Lees gerus hier. Is dit nie ironies nie? Stephan Joubert verklaar in sy aanbieding “Being a Radical Pilgrim and Prophet” tydens die Kongres by Mosaïek Kerk (Fairlands, Johannesburg van 4-5 September 2009) dat daar nie soiets soos “in” of “uit” is nie. En tog verdoem sy geestelike mentor, Ron Martoia,, almal wat nie met hulle Nuwe Wêreld orde wil saamspeel nie as die “uiters,” die ouens wat nie “in” is nie maar “uit” en die enigste manier om te voorkom dat hulle vergaan, is om by hulle “in” te sluit of aan te sluit.)
“Mense wat die Nuwe Wêreld beveg sal vergaan, sal stof word, stowwerig in hulle spiritualiteit.” – Ron Martoia (Almal weet tog reeds dat die begrip “stof word” na die dood verwys. Die Bybel sê duidelik “tot stof sal jy terugkeer.” Wat Ron Martoia dus eintlik bedoel wanneer hy sê die weerbarstiges is stowwerig in hulle spiritualiteit, is dat hulle geestelik dood is (verlore is).
“Alle gelowe het deel aan twee dimensies – Logos en Mythos.” – Ron Martoia (Alle gelowe, insluitende die Christendom, is dus maar dieselfde.)
“Jy het geen keuse om in die post-moderne wêreld te lewe nie. Jy is daar in!! Sluit aan of vergaan” – Ron Martoia (Soos ons reeds hierbo gesien het, is die kontemplatiewe broeders lief om almal wat nie met hulle saamstem nie, te dreig. Natuurlik is alle gelowiges in hierdie siek wêreld waarin leuens, valshede en onderduimsheid aan die orde van die dag is, maar hulle is beslis nie deel van hierdie wêreld nie [Johannes 17:16], en daarom moet hulle ligte laat skyn in ‘n post-moderne wêreld wat al hoe donkerder word.)
“Beweeg vanaf fokus op informasie na fokus op visualisering en spiritualiteit” – Ron Martoia (Wat bedoel Ron Martoia met visualisering? Lees asseblief die volgende internet artikels indien u meer inligting wil hê oor kontemplatiewe visualisering hier en hier. Ron Martoia raai die lesers van sy boeke aan om nie te fokus op die informasie (leerstellings) wat in die Bybel voorkom nie maar om eerder te fokus op hulle ervarings wat hulle by wyse van kontemplatiewe visualisering ondervind. Dit is blatante okkultisme.)
“Metanoia beteken bekering. Maar moet asseblief nie op julle knieë val en julle tot God bekeer nie. Dit is nie wat ek bedoel nie” – Ron Martoia (Wat bedoel Ron Martoia met die woord “metanoia” as dit vir hom nie ‘n heelhartige bekering tot God is nie? Kom ons kyk hoe lyk Martoia se “Metanoia” of is dit “Mart(en)oia?” In ‘n neutedop is Mart(en)oia se Metanoia ‘n paradigma skuif vanaf jou eng en verouderde siening rondom die Evangelie na ‘n groter prentjie en hierdie groter prentjie is niks anders nie as die omarming van die Nuwe Wêreld Orde (in die Ontluikende Kerk se paradigma ook bekend as die Koninkryk van God) waarin elke Jan Rap en sy maat van watter godsdienstige oortuiging ookal ‘n heerlike tuiste vind. En raai raai waarom moet sondaars asseblief nie op hulle knieë val en hulle tot God bekeer nie? Omdat al die ander godsdienste wat Ronnie Mart(en)oia in hierdie Nuwe Wêreld Orde (kwansuis God se Koninkryk) wil betrek, bekering tot die God van die Bybel minag en verwerp. In hierdie Koninkryk van God is daar nie ‘n koning wat rondgaan om te kyk of iemand sonder ‘n bruilofskleed ingekom het nie en vir sy diensknegte opdrag gee:“Bind sy hande en voete, neem hom weg en werp hom in die buitenste duisternis. Daar sal geween wees en gekners van die tande [Mattheus 22:11-13].)
“Metanoia beteken om oor jouself te kom, kom uit by ‘n groter plek, kry ‘n groter gemoed, word uitgenooi na ‘n groter prentjie, word uitgenooi na ‘n groter gemoed, kom uit jou klein gemoedjie.” – Ron Martoia (Martoia kon gerus ook gesê het: “Verlaat die nou pad en sluit by ons aan op die breë pad wat na die verderf lei)
“Ons is nie geroepe om gesonde leerstelling te lewer nie – ons is in die menswees-besigheid” – Ron Martoia (Hoe weet ‘n mens dat iemand wat sê hy is ‘n volgeling van Jesus in werklikheid nie ‘n volgeling van Jesus is nie? Almal wat sê hulle is volgelinge van Jesus maar Jesus se opdrag verontagsaam om ander te leer om alles te onderhou wat Hy ons beveel het, is nie ‘n volgeling van Jesus nie (Mattheus 19; 2 Johannes vers 9).
“Hoeveel het die dissipels geweet? Niks!” – Ron Martoia (Mattheus, Markus, Lukas, Johannes, Petrus, Judas, Jakobus, Paulus het niks geweet nie en daarom het hulle 27 Nuwe Testamentiese boeke geskrywe wat tot vandag toe die toets van die tyd deurstaan het. Sal Ron Martoia se boeke die toets van die tyd deurstaan? Ek twyfel want God sê:“Want alle vlees is soos gras, en al die heerlikheid van die mens soos ‘n blom van die gras. Die gras verdor en sy blom val af, maar die woord van die Here bly tot in ewigheid. En dit is die woord wat aan julle verkondig is.” Ron Martoia sal lank reeds in sy graf wees maar God se Woord bly tot in alle ewigheid).
“Jesus, dink ek, het gekom om beter mense te maak, nie Christene nie.” – Ron Martoia (Ron Martoia en Stephan Joubert is, in Mart[en]oia se eie woorde, nie Christene nie maar die beste mense op aarde of sal ek eerder sê “beter” mense as die Christene. Siestog, arme ou Paulus het seker maar die kat by die stert beet gehad toe hy in wanhoop uitgeroep het: “ . . . ek weet dat in my, dit wil sê in my vlees, niks goeds woon nie. [Romeine 7:18]. Mart[en]oia se aanname dat Jesus gekom het om van ons beter mense te maak, suggereer dat ons reeds goeie mense is en net nodig het om nog beter mense te word.)
‘n Ander kontemplatiewe mede-pelgrim van Stephan Joubert is Rob Bell. Soos Ron Martoia wat die belangrikheid van sondevergifnis minag, so minag Rob Bell die maagdelike geboorte van Jesus Christus en suggereer dat dit nie nodig is om daarin te glo om ‘n volgeling van Jesus te kan wees nie.
What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?
What if the spring was seriously questioned?
Could a person keep jumping? Could a person still love God? Could you still be a Christian? Is the way of Jesus still the best way to live?
Or does the whole thing fall apart?” (pp. 26-27).
Rob Bell vergelyk die leerstellings in die Bybel met ‘n springmat. Al sou een van die vere wat die mat styf span verwyder word of breek, kan ‘n mens nog steeds spring. Die stukkende veer maak dus geen verskil nie. Jy hoef dus byvoorbeeld nie in die maagdelike geboorte, of die Drie-eenheid van God, of die liggaamlike opstanding van Christus, of die wederkoms van Christus te glo nie. Dis kwansuis nie belangrik nie omdat jy nog steeds ‘n Christen kan wees al sou jy nie in een van hierdie leerstellige waarhede glo nie. Jy kan miskien nog spring wanneer een van die vere in ‘n springmat breek of verwyder word, maar jy gaan beslis van die vet in die vuur spring wanneer jy een van God se leerstellings verwyder want die Skrif sê baie duidelik: “Julle mag by die woord wat ek julle beveel, niks byvoeg nie, en julle mag daar niks van weglaat nie; sodat julle die gebooie van die HERE julle God mag onderhou, wat ek julle beveel” (Deut. 4:2) EN “ . . . as iemand iets van die woorde van die boek van hierdie profesie wegneem, dan sal God sy deel wegneem uit die boek van die lewe en uit die heilige stad en uit die dinge waarvan in hierdie boek geskrywe is (Openbaring. 22: 19).
Soos Ron Martoia, het Rob Bell ook ‘n baie lae dunk van die goddelik geïnspireerde onfeilbaarheid van die Bybel.
“When everything gets answered, it’s fake. The mystery is the truth” (p. 33).
“The people who eventually wrote all of this down [the Bible] weren’t sitting there with their hand and the pen moving as if controlled by some outside force.
The writers of the Bible had agendas” (p. 66).
God sê:
2 Petrus 1:3 Immers, sy goddelike krag het ons alles geskenk wat tot die lewe en godsvrug dien, deur die kennis van Hom wat ons geroep het deur sy heerlikheid en deug,
1 Timotheus 6:3-4 As iemand iets anders leer en nie instem met die gesonde woorde van onse Here Jesus Christus en met die leer wat volgens die godsaligheid is nie, dié is verwaand en verstaan niks nie, maar het ‘n sieklike sug na twisvrae en woordestryd waaruit ontstaan afguns, twis, lasteringe, bose agterdog,
Volgens die leerstellings en kennis van Christus het sy goddelike krag alle gelowiges (nie die onegtes wat glo dat ”wanneer alles beantwoord word, dit nie eg is nie”) alles geskenk wat hulle nodig het om ‘n oorvloedige goddelike en godvrugtige lewe in en deur Hom te lewe. Enigeen wat dit ontken is verwaand en verstaan niks nie en is alewig besig om bose agterdog te saai met hulle leuens.
Die post-moderne Ontluikende Kerk ontken dus dat waarheid proposisioneel, absoluut, rasioneel en seker kan wees en beskuldig enigeen wat waarheid in hierdie lig sien as arrogant en onbuigbaar wat daarvan hou om andere te oorheers. Ons vermoë om te “weet,” sê hulle word gemoduleer deur ons kultuur wat beheers word deur emosionele en estetiese ervarings, asook ons erfenis. Maar hierdie “wete” of kennis moet in pag gehou word sonder om daarop aanspraak te maak dat dit die enigste kulturele waarheids-uitdrukkings is. Die gevolg hiervan is dat rasionaliteit vervang word met gevoelens, waarheid met ervarings, eksklusiwiteit met inklusiwiteit, objektiwiteit met subjektiwiteit en absolutisme met relativisme. Hule promulgeer pluralisme, bejeen alle aansprake op waarheid met agterdog, verklaar dat alle waarheid sonder aansprake op universele geldigheid, objektiwiteit en absolutisme aangebied word. Daarom is dit te verstane dat Stephan Joubert ewe gemaklik van Jesus kan praat as die Waarheid, die Weg en die Lewe maar terselfdertyd in navolging van Rob Bell kan sê dat daar ook waarheid is in ander godsdienste soos die Boeddhisme, ja, en selfs die ateïsme. In hulle oë is waarheid of die een of die ander, of beide en . . .
Dit was dan sommige van die super ontluikende predikers met wie Stephan Joubert omgaan en wat sy spirituele lewensbaan beïnvloed het. Is daar nog vir hom tyd oor om om te draai en terug te keer na Jesus Christus van die Bybel? Natuurlik is daar; hy moet net by God pleit om genade en vergifnis en die bg. persone en alles wat hulle reeds in die openbaar kwytgeraak het, volkome repudieer. Maar kom ons keer nou terug na sy preek op 14 Februarie vanjaar wat hy by die Moreleta Park NG Gemeente gelewer het.
Nadat hy in ‘n kort inleiding vertel het hoedat die kranige atleet, Derek Redmond in 1992 tydens die Barcelona Olimpiese Spele sy dyspier beseer het en met die hulp van sy vader, Jim Redmond, huppelend die 400 meter semifinaal wedren voltooi het, klim Stephan Joubert behoorlik onder die kerkmense in. ‘n Mens sou miskien eerder vewag dat hy soos Paulus ‘n wedren sou gebruik om juis die noodsaaklikheid vir afsondering (heiligmaking) te beklemtoon wanneer hy sê:
Weet julle nie dat die wat op die baan hardloop, wel almal hardloop, maar dat een die prys ontvang nie? Hardloop só dat julle dit sekerlik kan behaal. En elkeen wat aan ‘n wedstryd deelneem, onthou hom in alles—húlle nogal om ‘n verwelklike krans te ontvang, maar ons ‘n onverwelklike. (Klem bygevoeg)
Maar nee! Stephan Joubert steur hom skynbaar nie aan so-iets soos heiligmaking nie want syns insiens is alles reeds heilig en niemand is in of uit nie; almal het alreeds deel aan die universele heiligheid in God se Koninkryk. Hoor ‘n bietjie wat hy sê:
Hierdie [Derek Redmond se vasberadenheid om die wedren te voltooi] het die simbool geword vir die Olimpiese Spele van vasbyt en van deurbyt en van mense ondersteun en van daar wees. Miskien is dit ‘n beeld waarmee ek vanaand saam met jou wil vir ‘n oomblik nadink oor Jesus , oor Jesus vir wie ek staan, vir wie ek wil “vote” omdat Hy my bekeer het van my bekering en ek wil jou uitdaag vanaand om saam met my bekeer te raak van jou bekering en om van die pawiljoen af te klim, en saam te kom speel saam met Jesus. Want die dilemma is as Jesus in Markus 1 vers 15 sê: “Bekeer julle want die Koninkryk van God het naby gekom” dan het bekering ‘n term geword wat geskaak is en gekaap is en “ge-hijack” is deur die kerk, deur godsdiens en het meeste mense, ja baie godsdienstige bekerings, selfs ‘n godsdienstige bekering na ‘n Jesus wat aan die hoof staan van ‘n godsdienstige “enterprise,” genaamd “kerk.” Maar godsdienstige berkerings maak dat jy op ‘n sekere manier lyk, leef en praat. Dit bring jou nie, soos wat jy verlede week gehoor toe Johan Smit die reeks begin het, regtig in ‘n verhouding nie; dit maak jou net vromer. Dit maak jou net heiliger. (Thomas sê: Ek wonder wie het die woord “metanoia” “ge-hijack.” Ek gee u drie raaie. Ja, u het reg geraai. Sy naam rym nogal met die woord “metanoia” — ja, dis ou Ronnie Martoia, of is dit nou weer “Mart[en]oia wat gesê het: “Metanoia beteken bekering. Maar moet asseblief nie op julle knieë val en julle tot God bekeer nie. Dit is nie wat ek bedoel nie.” Wanneer Stephan Joubert dus sê: “Hy [het] my bekeer van my bekering” dan bedoel hy eintlik dat hy sy “knie-voor-God-bekering” minag en in die plek daarvan die “Mart[en]oia -bekering” vir homself toegeëien het.
Godsdiens, wat is dit? Wel, godsdiens se diepste bedoeling is om my ‘n beter “ek” te maak. Dis amper soos daai dieet advertensies. Vroeër was ek geestelik oorgewig maar “watch my” nou; nou is ek “ge-streamline.”Nou leef ek soos wat die Here wil hê. (Thomas sê: Blykbaar het Stephan Joubert vergeet wat Paulus in 2 Korinthiërs 5:17 vir ons sê: “Daarom, as iemand in Christus is, is hy ‘n nuwe skepsel; die ou dinge[die ou lewe, insluitende dans, drink en dobbel] het verbygegaan, kyk, dit het alles nuut geword.”) Godsdiens laat my my hele lewe lank teen uiterlike dinge “fight” teen uiterlike dinge veg. Ek dink ek het julle al vertel, maar ek onthou toe ek so ‘n tjokkertjie was, daar in graad ses rond, het ons ‘n katkisasie boek gehad wat gesê het ‘n mens moet oppas vir die drie groot “d’s” — dans drink en dobbel. En ek het gewonder of ou doom gedink het ons graad sessies spring elke middag uit en dan drie “d” ons, dans drink en dobbel ons voor ons ouers by die huis kom. (Thomas sê: Ou Stephan het seker gedink hy gaan sy hele lewe lank ‘n sesjarige tjokkertjie bly en dat ou doom se waarskuwings dus nooit op hom van toepassing sou kon wees nie). Hoekom het hy dit vir ons gesê, maar dit was die soort mentaliteit maar ou doom het ons nie gewaarsku teen die groot “s’e” teen skinder en selfsug nie, maar as ons die drie “d’s” nie doen nie is ons OK. En godsdiens doen nog ‘n ding met jou, bo en behalwe dat dit jou laat veg teen sekere dinge, sit dit die heeltyd ‘n verskriklike skuldgevoel op jou. Jy doen altyd te min; jy kan die beste geestelike week van jou lewe hê maar jy kan weet jy het met godsdiens te doen as jy by daai godsdienstige “venue” instap en hulle sê vir jou “jy’t dit alweer nie gemaak nie,” of “dit was te laat,” “dit was nou te laat gewees hierdie keer,” “Dis nou goed wat jy gedoen het, maar dis te min en te laat.” Godsdiens, jy weet jy’s in die kloue van godsdiens, as jy die heeltyd voel dis ons teenoor hulle, dis ons teenoor die res, dis ons heiliges op ons hopie, ons “holy huddle,” ons “holy bubble” en die res is daarbuite as ons net die pawiljoen vol sit, as ons net meer mense kan kry, as ons net meer ouens op ons perseel kan kry, as ons net meer ouens by ons programme kan kry, dan is ons besig met godsdiens. (En ek dag dan Ron Martoia het gesê dat Jesus juis gekom het om beter mense van ons maak. Hoe dan nou, Stephan?)
Nou, hier’s elemente van waarheid in al hierdie dinge; die probleem is godsdiens sê dit gaan eksklusief hieroor. Daarom sien jy dat jy behoort aan ‘n godsdienstige beweging as godsdienstiges alhoemeer aktief raak en die wêreld alhoeminder verander. Ek het ‘n bietjie gaan kyk na die denominasie waaraan jy en ek behoort wat vanaand hier is. Hulle sê daar kom elke Sondagoggend 300, 000 mense in ons land na die NG Kerk toe – 300, 000 plus. Ek het gaan uitwerk, dit is een miljoen sewehonderd en sestien duisend man-ure; miskien moet ek dit polities korrek sê, mens-ure. Daar kom “massive” baie ouens kerk toe, massief baie mense is in godsdiens. Daar’s duisende ouens . . . in voltydse bediening maar lyk Suid-Afrika vir jou beter na hierdie een miljoen sewehonderd en sestien duisend mens-ure? Dis net wat Sondae-oggende in die kerk sit. Ons sit die banke vol. Die wêreld verander nie en daarom het godsdiens, bo en behalwe dat dit gaan oor ‘n verbetering van jouself, dat dit gaan oor jou stryd teen uiterlike dinge, dat dit gaan oor hierdie “holy huddle”,” hierdie heilige groep waarby jy moet wees; hoe meer van ons by daai groep is, hoe meer raak ons dan laastens teen die res. Godsdiens is ons en hulle. . . .
Ek onthou toe ek so ‘n jong outjie was, ek dink ek het al vertel, toe ek tot bekering gekom het, het ‘n verskriklike godsdienstige bekering gehad. Ek was heilig soos jy nog nooit gesien het nie. Ek het my plate stukkend gegooi want een of ander ou het gesê as jy dit agteruit luister is daar boodskappe op wat jy nie moet hoor nie. En ek het my vriende afgeskryf want hulle het gedans, kan jy dit glo? En ek dink hulle het gedrink. En, en, en, en niemand het by my radius van 10 meter van Stephan se ore af gevloek nie; heilige ore, nê, en heilige oë. Ek het geen sonde gesien nie en heilige mond; niemand het lelik gepraat nie. Maar ek het agtergekom as daai tien meter radius verby is dan doen ek al daai ander goeters. (Stephan Joubert maak ‘n bespotting van Jesus se uitspraak in Mattheus 5:13: “Julle is die sout van die aarde, maar as die sout laf geword het, waarmee sal dit gesout word? Dit deug nêrens meer voor as om buite gegooi en deur die mense vertrap te word nie.” Sout is ‘n verderf-werende element en is veronderstel om mense te keer om in jou teenwoordigheid te vloek en die Here se Naam ydelik te gebruik). So, ek was goed op pad om eendag voor die Here te gaan staan en te sê: “Here, jy weet, ek het darem ‘n tien meter heilige radius rondom myself gehad.
As dit nie die toppunt van ironie is nie, dan weet ek darem nie so mooi nie. Stephan kla steen en been oor die godsdiens en die godsdienstiges in hulle “holy bubbles” wat voortdurend skuldgevoelens op ander laai deur vir hulle te sê: “jy’t dit alweer nie gemaak nie” of “dis te laat, jy’s hierdie keer te laat” of “wat jy gedoen het is goed, maar dis te min” terwyl hyself ‘n geweldige skuldlas op die NG Kerklui plaas. Syns insiens sit ‘n massiewe hoeveelheid mense elke Sondagoggend in die kerk wat gelykstaande is aan een miljoen sewehonderd en sestien duisend man-ure of mens-ure (om polities korrek te wees), maar hulle is te sleg om Suid-Afrika te verander. Wil hy voorgee dat hulle reeds te laat is in hulle pogingtjies om ‘n verskil te maak in Suid-Afrika en dat hulle dit nie gaan maak nie? Hoe lui die ou spreekwoord? — “soek jouself gerus maar eers agter die deur” en hou op om ander van dinge te beskuldig waaraan jy jouself skuldig maak.
Die dilemma, sê Stephan Joubert, is dat die godsdienstiges die term “metanoia” (bekering) gekaap het, soveel so dat die meeste mense “godsdienstige bekerings” gehad het na “’n Jesus wat aan die hoof staan van ‘n godsdienstige ‘enterprise’, genaamd “kerk.” Dis skreiend opvallend dat Joubert nie net die “godsdienstiges” met sy heilige karwats bykom nie, maar ook die Hoof van die “kerk,” ja en selfs ook die goddelose NG Kerk. Miskien moet ons eers ‘n rukkie stilstaan om te kyk wat die Woord kerk beteken. Die woord vir kerk is “ekklesia” wat “uitgeroeptes” beteken. Dit sê alreeds vir jou dat die “ekklesia” ‘n spesiale groep mense is wat van die res van die wêreld of wêreldlinge afgeskei is. Een van die definisies wat die Enhanced Strongs Lexikon voorsien lui as volg:
An assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting a company of Christians, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake.
Daarmee wil ek nie te kenne dat die NG Kerk per se, of enige ander kerk of denominasie in die geheel die uitgeroeptes is nie. Die onderskeie denominasies of kerkgroepe wat deur die eeue heen ontstaan het, het nog altyd uit gelowiges en ongelowiges (naam-Christene) bestaan. Daarom sou ek so graag wou hê dat Stephan Joubert baie duidelik vir ons moet uitspel wat hy met die woord “kerk” bedoel. Die feit bly staan dat wanneer die apostels in die Nuwe Testament na die “kerk” verwys het, het hulle dit altyd gedoen met die oog op die “uitgeroeptes” wat die opdrag ontvang het om nooit enige gemeenskap met die werke van die duiwel te hê nie maar dit eerder te bestraf (Efesiërs 5:11), nie in dieselfde juk te trek met die ongelowiges nie omdat die liggaam van Christus geen ooreenstemming het met Belial die duiwel nie (2 Korinthiërs 6:14) en om hulle van die wêreld af te sonder omdat die geringste bietjie liefde vir die wêreld vyandskap meebring met God en van hulle egbrekers en egbreeksters maak (Jakobus 4:4). Dit beteken natuurlik hoegenaamd nie dat die gelowige geen kontak met die ongelowiges moet hê nie. Dit beteken gewoon dat terwyl hulle in die wêreld is hulle nes die Here Jesus Christus nie van die wêreld is nie (Johannes 17:15 en 16). Hulle is reeds burgers van sy koninkryk (Kolossense 1:13) en moet dus sy koninkryksbeginsels uitlewe. Wat behels hierdie koninkryksbeginsels? In ‘n neutedop kom dit daarop neer dat hulle moet lewe (praat, dink en wandel) soos die Here Jesus self gewandel het toe Hy nog op aarde was (1 Johannes 2:6) en dis gladnie so moeilik om vas te stel hoe Hy gewandel het nie, veral as jy in ag neem dat Hy te alle tye sy lewe lank ‘n heilige lewe voor sy Vader in die hemel gelei het. En dit is presies wat Hy van ons verwag wanneer HY die opdrag gee: Wees heilig want Ek is heilig (1 Petrus 1:16). Is dit die bekering waarvan Stephan Joubert hom bekeer het, met die gevolg dat mense nou met groter gemak en vrymoedigheid in sy teenwoordigheid kan swets en waarskynlik ook die Naam van die Here as ‘n vloekwoord kan gebruik? Het die sout dan laf geword nou dat hy hom van sy sg. godsdienstige bekering bekeer het tot die metanoia van die nimmereindigende kontemplatiewe reisplan van die Ontluikende Kerk? Is dit die rede waarom Joubert hom nie meer kwel wanneer mense in sy teenwoordigheid vloek nie? Nee! die doel is om die jeug te breinspoel en te stroop van Bybelse morele waardes.
Moontlik het u agtergekom dat Stephan Joubert se taalgebruik deurspek is met anglisismes soos “ge-hijack”, “ge-streemline” ens. Dis nie om dowe neute nie. Hy doen dit doelbewus om die jongmense in die sakkie te kry sodat hy hulle makliker kan breinspoel met sy kontemplatiewe idees. Terwyl Bill Clinton nog die Goewerneur was van die staat Arkansas, het hy en sy vrou Hillary The Governor School gestig met die doel om die bestaande openbare skole te hertruktureer. As deel van die breinspoel prosedure is die studente aangemoedig om vloekwoorde deel te maak van hulle alledaagse spreektaal, juis met die doel om hulle te stroop van Byblese morele waardes. Die Ontluikende kerk met hulle “swetsgierige” predikers doen presies dieselfde. ‘n Onlangse steekproef deur die Barna-groep toon dat 92% van die leraars wat hulle met die ontluikende kerk en die etikette “emerging” en “emergent” vereenselwig, glo dat vloekwoorde maar “ok is in die regte omstandighede.” Indien jy die veelvuldige kulture in die wêreld wil “engage” soos Stephan Joubert in navolging van Rob Bell al by geleentheid gesê het, is dit nodig om vir die wêreld te wys jy is nie beter as hulle nie en dat ‘n vloekwoordjie hier en daar geoorloof is ( Dit help jou om die denkbeeldige tien meter radius van heilige grondgebied wat jy met jou “godsdienstige bekering” rondom jou gekweek het, uit die weg te ruim en op gelyke voet te plaas met jongmense.
Dit is opvallend dat die predikers in die ontluikende kerk met groot minagting van die “kerk” praat (en nou verwys ek weer eens nie van ‘n spesifieke kerk of denominasie nie, maar na die “ekklesia”). Soos ons hierbo gesien het, is hulle preke gewoonlik deurspek met neerhalende uitsprake t.o.v. die kernleerstellings van die “kerk,” o.a. t.o.v. sonde, verlorenheid, die hel, die hemel, bekering, heiligmaking en selfs ook oor die Hoof van die “kerk.” Sê Paulus dan nie juis dat Jesus Christus die Hoof van die liggaam, dit is die gemeente is nie? (Kolossense 1:18). As bekering nie na die Hoof van die liggaam is nie, na wie of wat moet dit dan wees? Omdat hulleself geen sistematiese teologie met konkrete leerstellings onderskryf nie, kan hulle blykbaar nie anders as om die bestaande bybelgefundeerde leerstellings van die “kerk” voortdurend aan te val en te verkleineer nie. Soos ek reeds vermeld het, is hulle hele aanslag dekonstruktief en nie opbouend nie. Brian McLaren het bevoorbeeld gesê:
Die post-moderne oorgang is goed op dreef, maar dit is nog steeds ‘n proses. Die vroeë dekonstruktiewe fase van die post moderne oorgang is besig om na ‘n meer konstruktiewe en kreatiewe ontwikkelingsfase te vorder, wat (vir my) in die breë kultuur geïllustreer word deur denkers soos Wendell Berry en Ken Wilber, plus ‘n antal van ons wat spesifiek vir die Christengemeenskap skrywe. (Daar is natuurlik sommige mense wat nog steeds veg teen hierdie vroegste fases, sonder om te besef dat die ‘gevegslinie’ verander. Maar, ek behoort nie gevegsbeelde te gebruik nie, want ek sien dit nie so in nie). Ten spyte van al die werk wat ons reeds gedoen het en al die vordering wat ons gemaak het, het ons nog ‘n ver pad om te gaan – Brian McLaren (Uit die Engels vertaal ) (Klem bygevoeg).
Wat hy gesê het kom honderd persent ooreen met wat Alice Bailey gesê het:
. . . daar sal ‘n Universele kerk verskyn, en die definitiewe hooftrekke daarvan sal teen die einde van hierdie eeu verskyn . . .Hierdie kerk sal tot aksie aangespoor word deur die Christus en sy dissipels wanneer die uitstorting van die Christus-beginsel, die WARE tweede Koms volbring is . . . die Christenkerk in sy veelvuldige vertakkinge kan as die nukleus dien om wêreld–verligting te bereik . . . die kerk as ‘n leerfaktor behoort die groot basiese leerstellings te neem en (d.m.v. die vernietiging van die ou vorme waarin hulle uitgedruk en gehou word) hulle ware en innerlike spirituele betekenis openbaar. Die belangrikste werk van die kerk is om te onderrig, en onophoudelik te onderrig, en om die uiterlike gedaante te bewaar met die doel om die menigtes wat gewoond is aan kerkgebruike, te bereik. Leiers moet opgelei word; Bybelkennis moet versprei word; die sakramente moet misties vertolk word, en die kerk se krag om te genees moet gedemonstreer word. – Alice Bailey [1] (Uit die Engels vertaal) (Klem bygevoeg).
Stephan Joubert het in sy preek dit baie goed reggekry om die “basiese leerstellings” van die kerk te neem en die “uiterlike gedaante te bewaar met die doel om die menigtes wat gewoond is aan kerkgebruike te bereik.” Tewens hy het Ron Mortoia se raad om nie te fokus op die geykte informasie in die Bybel nie maar om te visualiseer (om te fantaseer) baie goed nagevolg. Hy het ‘n paar dinge gesê wat hoegenaamd nie in die Bybel teruggevind kan word nie en na behore sy verbeelding gebruik om vryelik dinge te visualiseer nadat hy uit Lukas 24, die gedeelte toe Jesus na sy opstanding die twee Emmausgangers tegemoet geloop het, uit Eugene Peterson se Die Boodskap voorgelees het.
Kom ons kyk dan nou vir eers na enkele dinge wat hy gesê het wat heeltemal aweregs van die Bybel is. Soos reeds vermeld, het hy die gedeelte uit Lukas 24 vanaf vers 13 voorgelees, die gedeelte waarin Jesus die twee Emmausgangers tegemoet geloop het om vir hulle die Skrrifte oop te maak en aan hulle te verduidelik dat Hy moes ly, gekruisig word en die derde dag weer opstaan uit die dode. Stephan preek gereeld daaruit want dit is een van sy aller gunstelinge gedeeltes in die Bybel.
Stephan Joubert: ”Toe ons sulke tjokkertjies was, het ons altyd in die huis . . . dan hoor ons van die Christene onder die Kommuniste; dan hoor ons hulle kry so ’n Bybel, dan skeur hulle hoofstukke uit, dan kry elke ou ‘n hoofstuk. Ek het altyd gedink die arme ouens wat Levitikus kry en die arme ouens wat Numeri kry, wat maak hulle daarmee?”
Het u die tikkie sarkasme in Stephan Joubert se stem gehoor toe hy sê: “Ek het altyd gedink die arme ouens wat Levitikus kry en die arme ouens wat Numeri kry, wat maak hulle daarmee?” Wat maak hulle daarmee? Jy behoort te weet want jyself het op ‘n kol tydens een van jou Bybelstudies in Pretoria ‘n speletjie met jou mede-Bybelgenote en getroue Bybellesers gespeel toe jy die boek Spreuke as’t ware uit die Bybel geskeur en gevra het: “The other day at a Bible school I did at a church in Pretoria, I asked the people to play a little game with me. And the game was about, let’s for a moment, say to ourselves, we only have the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. What would our spirituality look like? And it was like a shocking game for us all, because you won’t find in the book of Proverbs anything about the cult, cultus (sic). There’s no temple. There’s no religious personnel. There’s no holy times or holy foods or holy stuff. There’s only one life and it is the real life. There’s only this life where I live and God is immediately in this life or not.” Wat maak hulle daarmee? Wel, Stephan jy behoort te weet wat hulle daarmee maak aangesien Lukas 24 een van jou aller gunsteling hoofstukke in die Bybel is. En tog lyk dit of jy die kernbelangrike boodskap in jou aller gunsteling hoofstuk keer op keer mislees en oor die hoof sien. Jy het tog sekerlik gesien dat Jesus die Skrifte vanaf Moses en al die ander profete vir hulle uitgelê het en al dié dinge wat in hierdie geskrifte op Hom betrekking het, verduidelik het en dat hulle harte brandende in hulle was toe Hy op pad met hulle gepraat en hierdie Ou Testamentiese Skrifte vir hulle uitgelê het? Soos jy seker ook weet, word die eerste vyf boeke in die Bybel, die Pentateug, aan Moses toegeskryf en jy weet tog sekerlik ook dat Levitikus en Numeri nou al vir duisende jare deel vorm van die Pentateug. Jesus het dus ‘n geweldige hoë premie op hierdie twee boeke geplaas toe Hy aan die twee Emmausgangers verduidelik het hoe o.a. hierdie twee boeke Hom verheerlik. Nes die twee Emmausgangers was ook die harte van die Christene onder die Kommunisme brandende toe sommige van hulle Levitikus en Numeri uit die enkele bladverskeude Bybel ontvang het. Ook hulle harte het geswel van dankbaarheid omdat hulle geweet het dat Jesus ook in Levitikus en Numeri se bladsye gevind kan word. Hy is ook dáár en omdat Hy ook dáár is, loop hulle brandende harte oor van dankbaarheid en opregte aanbidding.
En jy, Stephan, is jou hart ook brandende wanneer jy Levitikus en Numeri lees of is jy hoofsaaklik ‘n Speuke-man wat die “Sage from Heaven” volg en navolg omdat Spreuke kwansuis nie die “religious life” wat jy so haat verteenwoordig nie maar die “real life” soos jy dit stel? Kom ek herinner jou aan jou neerhalende akkolades rondom Levitikus, een van dié twee boeke wat Jesus met ontsag aan die twee Emmausgangers voorgehou het omdat dit ook betrekking het op sy lyding en sy opstanding.
Wisdom was all about finding the will of God in the book of Proverbs, but wisdom was about the right way of living. The other day at a Bible school I did at a church in Pretoria, I asked the people to play a little game with me. And the game was about, let’s for a moment, say to ourselves, we only have the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament. What would our spirituality look like? And it was like a shocking game for us all, because you won’t find in the book of Proverbs anything about the cult, cultus (sic). There’s no temple. There’s no religious personnel. There’s no holy times or holy foods or holy stuff. There’s only one life and it is the real life. There’s only this life where I live and God is immediately in this life or not. And it is the wise person, and not the fool, who will be able to see where God is and where God is going. It’s a way of life. It’s not in propositions. And secondly, you don’t find the will of God like many people who lived their lives in other stories from the Word of God. In the book of Proverbs you won’t find anything about prophecies, dreams, revelations, getting like some people say in church, getting scripture. You know this thing? “I just got Scripture.” Another lady, I have told this story, another lady the other day said to me: “You know, I stand on Bible.” I said: “Ma’am, that is great. Get off and read it. It is better . . . In the book of Proverbs your would never decipher God’s will through that. It’s a way of life. It’s a way of thinking deciphering, surrounding you with wise people, observing, experiencing, sensing, living in reality. You don’t sit and read a book and then you know how it works. You don’t follow a program at a church or at a synagogue and then you understand how God works. You live in a real life. ”
Bravo Stephan! Jy het die dame darem maar goed op haar plek gesit toe sy sê sy staan op haar Bybel en jy haar ewe professorlik aangeraai het om eerder af te klim en dit te lees. Maar sê my, lees jy jou Bybel gereeld? Dit lyk nie so nie want net iemand wat nie gereeld sy Bybel lees nie sal so iets waansinnig kwytraak soos: “Jy sit nie en lees ‘n boek en weet dan hoe dit werk nie.” Eers sê jy vir die dame sy moet haar Bybel lees en dan vertel jy ons jy sit nie en lees die Bybel om te weet hoe dit werk nie. Toemaar, moenie te sleg voel nie. Dit is maar net een van jou paradoksale raaisels wat net jy en jou ontluikende boeties kan ontsyfer. Hoe dit ookal sy, is dit enigsins moontlik om ons land se konstitusie met al sy gepaardgaande wette te leer ken sonder om die konstitusie te lees? Natuurlik nie. Iemand wat andersins sou dink, moet waansinnig wees. Netso kan niemand God se wette leer ken as hy/sy nie God se boek lees nie. Die Bybel sê tog baie duidelik, en alleenlik diegene wat sy Boek gereeld lees sal weet: “Wat sal ons dan sê? Is die wet sonde? Nee, stellig nie! Inteendeel, ek sou die sonde nie anders as deur die wet geken het nie; want ek sou ook die begeerlikheid nie geken het nie as die wet nie gesê het: Jy mag nie begeer nie.” [Romeine 7:7].
Jy het telkens gesê jy is ‘n volgeling van Jesus en dat jy vir Hom stem, maar dit lyk nie juis of jy met Hom saamstem oor die belangrikheid van Levitikus en Numeri nie. Trouens jy het in weerwil van Jesus Christus se hoë dunk van Levitikus die volgende daaroor gesê:
Israel definitely did not live according to the creation story. Yes, they [the Israelites] did use the story of the Exodus. They had their feasts, their three annual feasts that were organized around these stories. They would use some of the implications of those stories, but the story that won in the end, in Israel, was the priestly story. If you were born and raised an Israelite, you knew about holy – unholy, clean – unclean, pure – impure, in – out, us – them. This is the priestly story. It is all about purity. It is all about who is in and who is out. . . .
And now suddenly Jesus comes and you have the four dominant stories of Israel. You have the creation story, you have the Exodus, you have the priestly story and the wisdom story And interestingly enough, Jesus is not a reformer. He is not a reformer trying to reform some of the stories. Jesus did not link onto, particularly, the purity story, never at all. Jesus, if I might, may put it like this, Jesus links onto the, to wisdom. And if you understand this, it will change the entire understanding of Jesus. Jesus takes the fourth story of Israel, the story that did not win, the story that belonged to the upper classes: the story of wisdom. (Emphasis added)
Weer eens, as jy jou Bybel gereeld lees, sou jy weet dat die priesterlike storie in Levitikus met al sy offers direk heenwys na Jesus Christus en sy soendood aan die kruis. Die Jesus waarna jy verwys wat hom nie met die reinheidstorie (soos jy dit noem) vereenselwig het nie, moet dus ‘n ander Jesus wees.
Kan jy nog steeds met oortuiging sê dat Jesus nooit aansluiting gevind het by die priesterlike storie in Levitikus nie terwyl Hy die moeite gedoen het om vyf ure lank in die snikhete son van die Jerusalem woestyn saam met Kleopas en Maria te stap terwyl Hy o.a. Levitikus vir hulle oopgemaak het sodat hulle kan verstaan dat Moses spesifiek en hoofsaaklik oor Hom in Levitikus geskrywe het?
Stephan Joubert: “Ek hoop vanaand gaan ek en jy as ons saam met Jesus reis vir wie ek wil stem, vir wie ek my lewe wil gee, wat my wil losmaak van ’n godsdienstige bekering, wat wil sê: as jy, as jy “metanoia,” bekering wil hê, soos Markus 1 vers 15, kom loop saam met My.”
Om Stephan Joubert se siening rondom die woord “metanoia” (bekering) te verstaan, is dit nodig om eers weer vir Ron Martoia nader te wink want Stephan na-aap maar eintlik vir Ronnie. Ons het reeds hierbo gesien dat Martoia se bekering nie tot God is nie omdat hy nie van jou verwag om op jou knieë voor God neer te val en jou tot Hom te bekeer nie. Nee! dis darem te veel van n “point-of-sale transaction” (“as jy dit doen dan sal ek dat doen”). Jy moet jou darem tot iets groters as dit bekeer, iets wat jou sal vrymaak van jou klein gedagtewêreld en jou in die groter prentjie van hierdie Nuwe post-moderne wêreld sal bring. Wat behels hierdie nuwe prentjie? In die eerste plek gaan hierdie veranderde gemoedstoestand (“metanoia” beteken om anders te begin dink) nie om ‘n eksklusiewe nie maar ‘n inklusiewe wêreldbeeld — daar is nie so iets soos in of uit, gered of nie-gered, heilig of onheilig, ons teenoor hulle in hierdie utopiese paradys nie. Stephan Joubert se bekering van ‘n godsdienstige bekering na ‘n “Mart-en-oia” bekering het waarskynlik plaasgevind toe Hy besef dat redding nie ‘n daadwerklike ervaring is wat jy meemaak wanneer jy jou saak met God regmaak nie (Jesaja 1:18), en wanneer jy op jou knieë neerval en jou tot God bekeer nie. Nee! die “Mart-en-oia” is ‘n proses (pelgrimstog) wat jy betree wanneer jy besluit om saam met Jesus te loop. Hoe ver moet jy loop? “So lank as wat dit nodig is. ‘As long as it takes.’” sê Stephan Joubert. Die vraag is, om wat te bereik? – metanoia (bekering)? Hoe lank en hoe ver moet jy saam met Jesus loop alvorens jy die sekerheid het dat jy hemel toe gaan as jy sterwe?
Om die “Mart-en-oia” te laat klop verkondig Stephan ‘n paar baie eienaardige dinge rondom die twee Emmausgangers – Kleopas en Maria. Hy plaas hulle in sy eie gehate godsdienshoekie en verwys na hulle as mense wat hulle rug op God gekeer het. Syns insiens het die gebeure op Opstandingsondag soos volg verloop.
”Dis die dag toe die engele weer die ritssluiter van die hemel oopmaak soos in Lukas 2” en vir die Here sê “Ons het ‘n partytjie vir U gereël.” U het gewen; ‘n feesmaal wag op U. Kom huistoe.” Maar Jesus wys hulle uitnodiging van die hand omdat Hy twee mense sien loop het op pad na Emmaus. Hulle het hulle rug op God gekeer en Jesus kan dit nie vat as mense hulle rug op Hom keer nie. Nee, Mnr. die Professor Joubert, Jesus Christus tree nie so banaal op nie wanneer die mense hulle die rug op Hom keer. Luister ‘n slag weer hierna:
En Jesus het hom aangekyk en hom liefgekry en vir hom gesê: Een ding kom jy kort—gaan verkoop alles wat jy het, en gee dit aan die armes, en jy sal ‘n skat in die hemel hê; kom dan hier, neem die kruis op en volg My. Maar hy het treurig geword oor dié woord en bedroef weggegaan, want hy het baie besittings gehad. [Markus 10:21-22]
En dan verloop die gebeure soos volg:
Stephan Joubert: “Hy kan dit nie uitstaan dat mense wegstap nie en Hy doen nie die godsdienstige ding om vining ‘n weerligstraaltjie te kry om hulle te gooi nie. Hy doen nie ‘n ding om vir hulle te sê, weet julle as julle vanaand doodgaan, gaan julle hel toe nie, nê? HY doen nie die godsdienstige ding wat baie kerkmense doen nie; hy sê nie, nee hulle het hulle kans gehad, laat hulle loop, “keep on walking.” Nee, nee, niks daarvan nie. Hy sê vir die engele, Hou julle fees. Ek gaan ‘n bietjie stap.”
Benewens die feit dat ons nêrens in die Skrif lees dat die engele die hemel soos ‘n ritssluiter oopgemaak het en Jesus genooi het om dadelik huistoe te kom omdat hulle ‘n groot feesmaal vir Hom gereël het, is daar ook geen sprake van Kleopas en Maria wat hulle rug op God gekeer het nie. Maar nouja, dis alles deel van sy confidante, Ron Martoia, se briljante nie-gosdienstige raad om nie op die informasie voor hande te fokus nie, maar op visualisering en spiritualiteit. Mense wil tog so graag storietjies hoor wat hoegenaamd nie in die Bybel voorkom nie omdat hulle so graag in die gehoor gestreel wil wees.
Wat bedoel Stephan Joubert wanneer hy sê die engele het weer (nogal “weer”) die ritssluier van die hemel oopgemaak? Het hulle die ritssluiter van die hemel oopgemaak sodat Jesus huistoe kon kom om die feesmaal wat hulle kwansuis vir Hom gereël, te geniet? Dit is of was nog nooit nodig gewees om die hemel soos ‘n ritssluiter vir Jesus of sy engele oop te maak sodat hulle heen en weer die aarde en die hemel kon besooek nie. Daar is talle plekke in die Ou Testament waar Jesus Christus voor sy vleeswording saam met sy engele mense op aarde besoek het en weer terug is hemel toe. Daar is en was dus net een groep wesens vir wie die hemel vanweë die sondeval gesluit was — die mensdom, en om te suggereer dat engele die hemel soos ‘n ritssluiter oopgemaak het, is godslasterlik. Die hemel is eers weer vir die mensdom oopgeskeur toe Jesus aan die kruis uitgeroep het: “Dit is volbring!” en toe die swaar voorhangsel as bewys daarvan van bo na onder geskeur is (Mattheus 27:51).
Stephan Joubert suggereer dat die rede waarom Jesus saam met Kleopas en Maria in die snikhete son gestap het, was om hulle te verlos van hulle godsdienstigheid en om dit te kon doen het Hy nie die godsdienstige weg gevolg om hulle met ‘n weerligstraaltjie te gooi en vanuit die hoogte vir hulle te sê hulle gaan reguit hel toe nie (soos die verfoeilike godsdienstiges so graag doen nie). Nee, Hy stap saam met hulle. Suggereer Joubert dat Kleopas en Maria, die oom en tannie van Jesus soos hy hulle identifiseer, ongered was en hulle rug op God gekeer het? Indien Stephan Joubert hulle twyfel oor die opstanding van Jesus uit die graf en hulle verfoeilike godsdienstigheid as die teken van hulle ongeredheid interpreteer, dan was die elf dissipels ook ongered omdat hulle almal getwyfel het oor sy opstanding. Hulle het juis getwyfel omdat hulle die Ou Testamentiese profesieë oor Hom in Moses se pentateug (insluitende Levitikus en Numeri) en die profete nie geken het nie en daarom het Hy dit vir hulle stap vir stap uitgelê. Skynbaar het hulle “ongeredheid” en verfoeilike godsdienstigheid hulle astrant gemaak omdat, soos Joubert dit stel:
Stephan Joubert: “So dis Jesus se oom en tannie en hulle is kwaad vir Jesus. Kleopas begin stap; hy pak sy tas en hy waai. Hy’s ontnugter want die lewe is hard. Nie eers as jy godsdienstig is, is jou veiligheid gewaarborg nie want hy was godsdienstig. Hy was saam met Jesus in sy groep en nou tref die swaarkry van die lewe hom en godsdienstiges kan nie swaarkry “handle” nie. Hulle kan glo as dit veilig is en as almal heilig is en as die sondaars doer is en net nie by ons is nie en as God ons seën en as dit strome van seën op ons reën, maar as moeilikheid kom, as hulle hul werk verloor en die misdadigers begin wen en hulle bid en die hemele bly toe en dit reën nie en die misdadigers hardloop in die strate, dan sê hulle vir die Here: Waar is U? Dan sê Jesus, hou my dop, ek loop saam met julle.”
Hier vertoon Stephan weer eens sy fantastiese vermoë om te visualiseer of te fantaseer. Jesus vra vir Kleopas en Maria: “ . . . waarom is julle bedroef? maar nee, Stephan Joubert sê Kleopas en sy vrou was kwaad vir Jesus. Hoe kon hulle vir Jesus kwaad wees as hulle nog nie eens op daardie tydstip geweet het die Persoon met wie hulle gepraat het, Jesus was nie? Ja! miskien was hulle ontnugter maar kwaad . . . beslis nie. Jesus wat die harte van buite na binne en van binne na buite ken en tot in elke mens te diepste wese kan sien, het gevra “ . . . waarom is julle bedroef?” en nie “ . . . waarom is julle so kwaad?” nie. Die woord skuthropos { skoo-thro-pos’} beteken om droefgeestig en kop onderstebo te wees.
Hulle vraag aan Hom: “Is U alleen ‘n vreemdeling in Jerusalem en weet U nie van die dinge wat in hierdie dae daarin gebeur het nie? dui hoegenaamd nie op woede nie maar verbaasde dronkgeslanenheid. Die hele Jerusalem en selfs die vreemdelinge wat van elders besoek afgelê het, het geweet Jesus is gekruisig, maar hierdie “vreemdeling” het skynbaar niks daarvan geweet nie en dit het hulle totaal dronkgeslaan. Maar nouja, Stephan Joubert moet die toneel op so ‘n negatiewe wyse skilder want hoe anders kan hy die godsdienstiges bykom. Hy moet hulle in ‘n slegte lig plaas want hulle kan swaarkry kwansuis nie “handle” nie. Net hy en sy vriende in die Ontluikende Kerk kan swaarkry “handle” want hulle is die enigstes wat saam met Jesus stap omdat hulle hul van hulle godsdienstige bekerings bekeer het. Ek noem dit nie ‘n bekering van ‘n godsdienstige bekering nie maar plein afvalligheid.
Hoe sê die Amerikansers? “You aint heard nuttin yet.” Hoor wat sê Stephan Joubert voorts.
Stepan Joubert: En Kleopas is so blind soos baie godsdienstiges want godsdienstiges ken net een roete, kerk toe en terug, kerk toe en terug, maar in die wêreld? – jy verwag nie die Here daar nie en as jou lewe aan stukke lê? – jy verwag nie die Here dáár nie. En dis die Jesus met wie ek wil saamloop; dié Jesus wat meer dáár is as hier. Ja Hy’s hier ook,. ekskuus, moet my nooit verkeerd hoor nie. Hy is vanaand hier maar weet jy, jy gaan Jesus meer dáár sien, is meer hulle Jesus as my Jesus. Dis meer die nie-gelowiges, die twyfelaars, die ouens wat nog ‘n keer ‘n slagoffer was van misdaad, dis die ouens wat nog ‘n keer hulle werk verloor het; dis die ou wat nog ‘n keer agtergekom het ek speel net tweede viool. Dis dáár waar Jesus is. Jy moet net mooi kyk.”
Dit is duidelik dat Stephan Joubert juis nie mooi kyk nie. Dié Jesus van wie Joubert hier praat is nie dié Jesus van die Bybel nie. Dis ‘n ander Jesus. Jesus Christus, soos ons Hom in die Woord van God leer ken, is alomteenwoordig. Hy is gelyktydig en ewe veel op alle plekke en nie meer op sekere plekke as hier waar die godsdienstiges hulle kerk hou nie. Wat wil Joubert eintlik sê? Daarmee sê hy dat God sy woning ook by ongelowiges maak omdat daar syns insiens nie so-iets is soos heilig en onheilig, gered en ongered, ons en hulle nie. Ja, Hy is alomteenwoordig maar HY woon beslis nie in alle mense nie. Daarom sê die Skrif: “ . . . as iemand die Gees van Christus nie het nie, dié behoort nie aan Hom nie” (Romeine 8:9). Maar kom ons kyk vlugtig na wat een van Stephan Joubert se gunsteling boeke, Spreuke, met groot wysheidd oor die ongelowiges sê.
Spr 10:3 Die HERE laat die regverdige nie honger ly nie, maar die begeerlikheid van die goddelose stoot Hy weg.
Spr 10:11 Die mond van die regverdige is ‘n fontein van lewe, maar die mond van die goddelose verberg geweld.
Spr 10:16 Wat die regverdige verwerf, is vir die lewe; die inkomste van die goddelose is tot sonde.
Spr 10:25 Wanneer ‘n stormwind verbygaan, is die goddelose nie meer nie; maar die regverdige is vir ewig gegrondves.
Spr 10:28 Die verwagting van die regverdiges is vreugde, maar die hoop van die goddelose vergaan.
Spr 10:32 Die lippe van die regverdige weet wat welgevallig is, maar die mond van die goddelose is pure valsheid.
Spr 11:10 Oor die voorspoed van die regverdiges jubel ‘n stad, en as die goddelose omkom, is daar gejubel.
Spr 12:7 Die goddelose mense word omgekeer, en hulle is daar nie meer nie; maar die huis van die regverdiges bly staan.
Spr 13:9 Die lig van die regverdige brand vrolik, maar die lamp van die goddelose gaan dood.
Spr 13:25 Die regverdige eet totdat hy versadig is; maar die maag van die goddelose ly gebrek.
Spr 15:6 In die huis van die regverdige is ‘n groot skat, maar in die inkomste van die goddelose is verwarring.
Spr 15:29 Die HERE is ver van die goddelose, maar die gebed van die regverdiges hoor Hy. (Nee, nee, nee, nee, dis darem nie waar nie, sou Stephan Joubert waarskynlik sê: Hy is dan juis meer by die nie-gelowiges en die twyfelaars as by die arme godsdienstige drommels wat die kerkbanke vol sit elke Sondagoggend).
En dit, vrinne, is Stephan Joubert se gunsteling boek, die sg “wisdom story” wat presies die teenoorgestelde sê as wat hy hierbo vir ons probeer wysmaak het. En dan wil Stephan Joubert ons vertel dat die Here Jesus Christus meer by die nie-gelowiges is as by die gelowiges. Sy eie geliefkoosde boek, Spreuke (wysheidspreuke), verklaar presies die teenoorgestelde. Wie moet ons glo – Die Here wat nie kan lieg nie of Stephan Joubert wie se hart bedrieglik is bo alle dinge (Jeremia 17:9)? Stephan se wysheid is beslis ‘n wysheid wat nie van bo is nie. “
Dít is nie die wysheid wat van bo kom nie, maar is aards, natuurlik, duiwels; [Jakobus 3:15]
[1] Alice Bailey, The Externalization of the Hierarchy, 1957, Lucis Publishing.) Lucis Trust het aanvanklik bekend gestaan as Lucifer (Satan) Trust. Lees gerus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust.
Dr Gys du Plessis is a Medical Doctor and the Founder and Visionary leader of the Wholeness Centre at Mosaïek where he serves as Wholeness Designer
The phrase never the twain shall meet, as Rudyard Kipling used it in his Barrack-room ballads, 1892: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,” has become something of a misnomer ever since post-modern thinkers have been trying to marry spirituality and science. It is alarming to see how many people, amongst whom are many Christians, have been hoodwinked to believe that Eastern mysticism is scientifically verifiable. In fact, there is a continued and concerted global effort to corroborate paranormal and spiritual experiences, induced by meditation and contemplative disciplines such as contemplative prayer, by means of the “scientific” Trojan horse. You may find it thought-provoking to know that the Dalai Lama has a keen interest in science and especially in the field of neuroscience. Sharon Begley, author of the book “Train Your Mind Change Your Brain” writes:
Every year or so the head of Tibetan Buddhism invites a group of scientists to his home in Dharamsala, in Northern India, to discuss their work and how Buddhism might contribute to it.
In 2004 the subject was neuroplasticity, the ability of the brain to change its structure and function in response to experience. The following are vignettes adapted from “Train Your Mind, Change Your Brain,” which describes this emerging area of science:
The Dalai Lama, who had watched a brain operation during a visit to an American medical school over a decade earlier, asked the surgeons a startling question: Can the mind shape brain matter?
Over the years, he said, neuroscientists had explained to him that mental experiences reflect chemical and electrical changes in the brain. When electrical impulses zip through our visual cortex, for instance, we see; when neurochemicals course through the limbic system we feel.
But something had always bothered him about this explanation, the Dalai Lama said. Could it work the other way around? That is, in addition to the brain giving rise to thoughts and hopes and beliefs and emotions that add up to this thing we call the mind, maybe the mind also acts back on the brain to cause physical changes in the very matter that created it. If so, then pure thought would change the brain’s activity, its circuits or even its structure. (You can read the article here).
The entire field of quantum physics is focused on bridging the gap between the paranormal and science. Several books have been written in a relatively short time to prove that science and religion are integrally related and many of them were written by persons who are Buddhists or at least have Buddhist leanings and affiliations. In the introduction to B Allan Wallace’s, book, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge, we read the following:
SCIENCE HAS LONG TREATED RELIGION as a set of personal beliefs that have little to do with a rational understanding of the mind and the universe. However, B. Alan Wallace, a respected Buddhist scholar, proposes that the contemplative methodologies of Buddhism and of Western science are capable of being integrated into a single discipline: contemplative science. . . .
Just as behaviourism, psychology, and neuroscience have all shed light on the cognitive processes that enable us to survive and flourish, contemplative science offers a groundbreaking perspective for expanding our capacity to realize genuine well-being. It also forges a link between the material world and the realm of the subconscious that transcends the traditional science-based understanding of the self. (Emphasis added)
Dave Hunt in his book “Occult Invasion” says on pages 60 and 61.
While the development of transpersonal psychologies in the early 1970s brought an almost grudging admission that the realm of the spirit was real,’[1] there was a reluctance to admit that science had no jurisdiction over it. Science continued to be regarded as the only way to evaluate the nonphysical as well as the physical. We had been conditioned to revere a “scientific explanation” for all phenomena.
Many of those involved in the New Age were only too eager to pretend they had “scientific” support. When TM (one form of yoga) fell flat as the”Spiritual Regeneration Movement,” Maharishi Mahesh Yogi changed its name to “The Science of Creative Intelligence.” With that new and deceitful name, TM became a success worldwide. One of the most ancient religious practices in Hinduism and Buddhism is now widely accepted in the West as the science of yoga. [2] (Emphasis added).
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Indeed, much of today’s mysticism which the West inherited from the East was introduced to Westerners under the guise of science. The late Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, founder of Transcendental Meditation and guru to The Beatles, claimed his techniques gave practitioners access to the “quantum field of cosmic consciousness.” In a tribute to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Deepak Chopra, author, Sirius radio host and founder of TheAlliance for a New Humanity, wrote here:
He did not assert his own divinity. He credited his entire career to his own master, Guru Dev. He seemed indifferent to the cult of personality and the aura of superstition surrounding gurus, which includes the notion that they have perfect control over mind and body and hold the secret of immortality. But deeper than that, Maharishi wasn’t a religious figure. Although he had taken vows as a monk, he brought a technique to the West, Transcendental Meditation, that was entirely secularand even scientific. Indeed, his lasting memory will probably be that he convinced Westerners of the physical and mental benefits of a purely mechanical non-religious approach to consciousness. (Emphasis added)
It is obvious that Deepak Chopra was doing his level best to convince Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s followers in the West that his brand of Yoga was “entirely secular and even scientific.”
The million dollar question is: How do you marry science and religion or spirituality, as they refer to it today? How do you attribute non-physical human experiences such as pity, empathy, compassion, love, hatred, anger, honesty, dishonesty, hope, despondency, respect, disrespect, obedience, disobedience, justice, righteousness (moral issues) to science? How do you measure them scientifically? It is believed that there are mainly two preconditions to achieve this:
You must accept the idea that all wisdom and knowledge come from God. It means that Christians should never shy from the empirical studies (especially in the field of neuroscience) of non-Christians and even from people of other religions because they allegedly can learn and benefit from them. No one will deny that Christians have benefitted immensely from the vast advancements in the medical and scientific fields (especially in the field of computer technology. I wouldn’t have been able to convey my thoughts worldwide if we didn’t have the worldwide web or internet). However, it becomes rather dicy when Christians believe they may learn from “sciences falsely so-called” (1 Timothy 6:20). What are these “sciences falsely so-called?” As soon as you move from the physical to the metaphysical realm and think you can study both equally sufficient with science, you are deceived. How do you, for instance, prove scientifically that man does not only consist of a body but that it (the body) is only a container of the real you — a soul and a spirit. Similarly, how do you prove scientifically that man’s spirit is dead until he or she is quickened or regenerated by the Holy Spirit at the spiritual rebirth? These are the things that make the Bible so unique; no other book, scientific or religious, can boast equality with the Bible when knowledge of the paranormal comes into play. Anyone who dares to suggest in the very slightest that the Bible is insufficient in its knowledge of the metaphysical world and therefore we need to tap into the wisdom of “sciences falsely so-called” are exposing themselves to the dangers of deep deception.
You must integrate the physical and the non-physical entities of man. Soul and spirit need to be integrated with a physical organ such as the brain. Is your mind and brain the same thing? When Christians say they have the mind of Christ, do they actually mean they have the brain of Christ? We will be looking into this in more detail as we go along.
Interestingly enough, Gys du Plessis pleaded for both the above preconditions in his presentation “Wholebrain Christianity.” Here’s what he said:
The contemplative life, we do that from our brains and its got to be seen in an holistic way because for the last 400 years medicine and science had been stuck in a rigid fixed brain where the anatomy cannot change. The common wisdom in medicine and in science was that this brain after childhood, the only change after childhood, is this slow decay into ageing. The brain could not heal anything that died . . . It was doomed and deemed to be that way for life. Nothing could change, leave alone help a brain to perform better or to improve or to change anything. It was this rigid organ for 400 years. The metaphors used for this brain was that of a machine. Descartes, the French philosopher in the 17th century – I wish I could get hold of him today; it would be nice to strangle him . . . just before death sets in (Gys du Pleesis obviously needs a new brain, one that enables him to love others instead of wanting to murder them) — but he did us so many favours but so many disfavours . . . Descartes said “I think therefore I am.” He described the brain as a pump with pipes and that stuck. . . . So we were stuck for almost 400 years with this rigid [machine of a pump with pipes] and this was in stark contrast, so contrary to what Jesus came and taught. In his ministry, in his healing, in his delivery it was all about transformation; it was all about growth; it was all about restoration. So, it is if Jesus knew much more about the brain at that stage . . . than medicine and science have known over the last 400 years odd. But it’s changed; in the last 25 years; dramatic changes have taken place in the discoveries, in research on the brain. Numerous wonderful people that really have digged (sic) deep into this and I have mentioned a couple of resources there. And, you know where’s the challenge? If I do these talks with doctors I meet such a lot of resistance. They feel like a fundamentalistic (sic) congregation somewhere in a secluded village. . . . Where is Christianity with this, with all the new knowledge, the new wisdom, the new facts? . . .
The worst thing, when I speak to Christians, is that, and I mention some of these researches, “oh yes, but he’s not a believer, that researcher. He’s not a Christian.” Then I think to myself: I don’t understand this. All knowledge, all wisdom comes from God. It’s like Jesus . . . Let’s envision Jesus telling the story of the parable of the Good Samaritan in this way: There’s this man lying. Passed comes the Good Samaritan and he reckons to the Samaritan, “no! you can’t help me. You’re not appropriate. God wouldn’t like to use a Samaritan to save me.” Why would God not use scientists who are not confessing believers not to change us and to tell us what this is all about? The whole idea of the Good Samaritan parable, surely, was a love intention. I still have to meet a scientist that doesn’t love science. There’s a love intention in the parable, proceeding into what? — a deed and action that will help mankind, a deed of respect. . . . That’s what science is all about.
Gys du Plessis said a few strange things we need to evaluate in the light of God’s Word.
So, if “it is as if Jesus knew much more about the brain . . . than medicine and science have known over the last 400 years odd”how were people transformed, delivered and restored during those 400years when the brain was defined as merely a machine with pumps? If the transformative neuroplastic powers of the brain were only discovered by numerous wonderful non-Christians that have really digged (sic) deep into this in the last 25 years, how were the people transformed, delivered and restored in the last 1975 odd years since Jesus gained much more knowledge about the brain? I really pity the wretched people who lived in old testament times who new nothing about the neuroplasticity of the brain and its capabilities to change or transform itself. Could it be possible that some of the people in those unfortunate years when so little was known about the brain were transformed without having to know that the brain was not just a machine with pumps but a wonderful organ with neuroplastic capabilities to transform, deliver and restore people? Transformation in the Bible always, let me repeat that, always concerns a radical change from unrighteousness to righteousness and a complete translocation or transference from the powers of darkness to the Kingdom of HIS beloved Son (Colossians 1:13). The question remains whether this radical change is the result of knowledge you gain from the research some wonderful non-Christian scientists performed on the brain and of God’s supposed utilization of their knowledge to save people? Or is it the result of faith according to what Scripture says it ought to be (John 7:38)
Was it Jesus’ knowledge of the brain at that stage that enabled him to transform, deliver and restore people or was He able to do all those wonderful things because He is God? (Mark 2:9). What kind of knowledge did He have to acquire to earn the accolade “it is if Jesus knew more about the brain at that stage . . . than medicine and science have known over the last 400 years odd” when He, the Creator of all things, made the brain to perform its relevant functions? What are these functions? The general idea amongst most of today’s neuroscientists is that mind and consciousness emanate from the cells in the brain; that it is the seat of your emotions and presents the full gamut of your morals, good and bad. Having reached the conclusion in neuroscientific research that the brain can change, it allegedly also has the capacity to change a person’s nature from, for instance, a wicked person to a compassionate and caring one. And how is this accomplished? Well, of course, through mystic contemplative practices which we do from the brain, according to Gys du Plessis. In one of the books he recommends in his presentation, The Mind and the Brain: Neuroplasticity and the Power of Mental Force by Jeffrey Schwartz MD, the idea that intelligence is resident in the brain’s cells and membrane is put forward as follows:
Of all the thousands of pages and millions of words devoted to the puzzle of the mind and the brain, to the mystery of how something as sublime and insubstantial as thought or consciousness can emerge from three pounds of gelatinous pudding inside the skull, my favorite statement of the problem is not that of one of the great philosophers of history, but of a science fiction writer. In a short story first published in the science and sci-fi magazine Omni in 1991, the Hugo-winning author Terry Bisson gets right to the heart of the utter absurdity of the situation: that an organ made from basically the same material ingredients (nucleated, carbon-based, mitochondria-filled cells) as, say, a kidney, is able to generate this ineffable thing called mind. Bisson’s story begins with this conversation between an alien commander and a scout who has just returned from Earth to report the results of his reconnaissance:
“They’re made out of meat.”
“Meat?” . . .
They’re meat all the way through.”
“No brain?”
“Oh, there is a brain all right. It’s just that the brain is made out of meat.”
“So … what does the thinking?”
“You’re not understanding, are you? The brain does the thinking. The meat.”
“Thinking meat! You’re asking me to believe in thinking meat!”
“Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture, or do I have to start all over?
It is this kind of sci-fi nonsense that proves beyond any doubt that “scientists” who busy themselves with “a science so falsely called” are doing exactly what the Bible says they would do: “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.“ (1 Corinthians 2:14). The natural man (unregenerate man) can only discern natural things; his ability to discern goes only so far as the “meat” and no further. Things that pertain to the soul and the spirit cannot be appraised or assessed scientifically with the result that they are foolishness to them. The fact of the matter is that man consists not only of a blob of meat but he also has a non-physical soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12). If man was created in the image of God in righteousness and holiness of truth (Ephesians 4:24) and the “meaty” brain was able to produce these spiritual attributes in its cells and neurons, then God is nothing but a big “meaty” brain. Dave Hunt says in his book Occult invasion (pp. 54-55)
Thoughts were presumed to originate in the brain as the result of chemical and electrical processes. Nothing nonphysical could exist. Contrary to common sense, man was the prisoner of whatever his brain cells (for purely mechanistic reasons) “thought.” This incredible “fact” of science was taught throughout the academic world.
The great hope was that the laws of physics and chemistry, applied to the brain, would explain human personality. That would allow psychiatrists to manipulate the brain like a mechanic does an engine. Thus all inappropriate behavior could be eliminated. There would be no more wars or crime and this world would become a rhapsody of kindness, pleasure, and prosperity, the Eden no one had believed in.
It was impossible, however, to suppress the evidence that, instead of producing thought, brain activity is a result of thought. Inasmuch as thoughts originate independently of the brain, they must exist outside the physical dimension. That fact is self-evident on the basis of the many thoughts for which there is no physical counterpart nor any physical stimulus: truth, justice, holiness, perfection, God, ad infinitum. Indeed, consciousness itself exists outside the realm of science. Michael Polanyi argued:
The most striking feature of our own existence is our sentience [consciousness]. The laws of physics and chemistry include no conception of sentience, and any system wholly determined by these [physical laws] must be insentient [i.e. without consciousness].
It may be to the interests of science to turn a blind eye on this central fact of the universe, but it is certainly not in the interest of truth. [3]
No matter how “intelligent” a computer may be, it can only do what it has been programmed to do. Nor can the brain, though far more complex than any computer, think on its own. If thought were the result of neural activity in the brain, we would all be helplessly dragged along by chemical/electrical processes determining our thoughts and even our morals and emotions. No rational person can accept that hypothesis because we demonstrate our power of choice, and thus control of our brain cells, countless times each day. There is a “ghost” in the machine. The human soul and spirit do the thinking and use the brain to communicate these thoughts to the body and through the body to others. (Emphasis added) [4]
Do all knowledge and wisdom come from God, even that of unregenerate man? We’ve already seen that the natural man cannot appreciate the things of the spirit because he is completely inept to understand it and indeed regards it as foolishness. What kind of knowledge and wisdom in the spiritual realm can he thus impart to the Christian? It can only be described as a foolish knowledge and wisdom and as a matter of fact it is precisely what the Bible calls it: “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-20). (Emphasis added).Gys du Plessis tries very hard to substantiate his statement that “all knowledge and wisdom come from God” by means of the parable of the Good Samaritan. The irony is that he falls into the same trap as the scientists who look only as far as the “meat.” Jesus definitely did not tell the parable of the Good Samaritan to teach his audience that all knowledge and wisdom come from God. If that had been the case He would have had to admit that the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God was also from God (1 Corinthians 3:19), which is absurd. How can a thing that is foolishness with God come from God? Ah, but the bedrock of pragmatism is “love.” If your intentions are pure which is to serve mankind in love, then you cannot debunk any kind of scientific knowledge and wisdom. “That’s what science is all about” according to Gys du Plessis. In that case the atom bomb that wiped two cities from the face of the earth was also an act of love. Love puts the stamp of approval on any kind of knowledge and wisdom, despite the fact that it is often foolishness with God, especially in the realm of the spirit.
Is the scientific evidence that physical changes take place in the brain through external stimuli or the environment the empirical proof that the brain can also transform a person morally and spiritually? Gys du Plessis seems to think so because right at the end of his presentation he made a “heartrending” (or is it “brain-rending”) plea when he said “Let’s get God back into the brain.”
Of whom is Gys du Plessis speaking — believers and unbelievers or only believers? If he is referring to believers only the question arises: Where does God take up residence in a repentant sinner when he or she is regenerated — in the spirit or the brain? It cannot be the brain because Gys du Plessis made a plea that we should put God back in the brain which, of course implies that He is of yet not in the believer’s brain. From whence must God then be transported in order to be put back into the brain — from somewhere outside the believer or from within his/her spirit? If God needs to be transported from outside the believer to be put back in the brain then the “believer” is in reality no believer because Jesus once said that if you do not have his Spirit living within your innermost being (your spirit) you do not belong to Him (Romans 8:9). If He is to be transported from the believer’s spirit to his brain it too poses somewhat of a problem because Gys du Plessis asserted that the soul and the spirit of man resides in the brain. If that is the Gospel truth then surely you do not need to put God back in the brain because He is already there where the spirit supposedly is, that is, in the brain. These are his words:
My biggest desire is that you just maybe take away the fact that we have to seek the Holy Spirit in the brain because that is where the Holy Spirit, where God belongs, where mind and soul is and where God belongs. The brain is the seat of the Holy Spirit. (Emphasis added)
If non-Christians are included in du Plessis’ plea to get God back into the brain, his entire supposition that the brain is the seat of the soul and the spirit of man, falls flat. He knows as well as I do, unless he believes Trevor Hudson who says Jesus is in everything and everything is in Jesus and we are already living in a Christ-shaped world, that the non-Christian’s spirit is dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1). They simply do not have the Spirit of God residing and living in their spirits; they are dead and that is precisely why Jesus once said to the man who first wanted to bury his dad before he would follow Him: “Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.” (Matthew 8:22). If the brain is the seat of the spirit and Holy Spirit, then the non-Christian must be brain-dead because his spirit is “dead in trespasses and sins” and will eventually be buried by their own dead.
Gys du Plessis continued his plea by saying:
Let’s change our perspective. I want to urge you as wholebrain Christians; how can we be wholebrain Chirstians? We have to embrace a brain that changes itself. 1 Corinthians 2:16 says that who knows the mind of the Lord, but we have the mind of Christ. That’s what Paul says there. . . . This is surely what the spiritual journey is about, the mind of Christ but how do we accomplish that? It is common knowledge amongst Christians to know the basics — to accept the Lord as our Saviour and Lord, the Lord of our lives and then to start following Jesus in obedience. That’s the basics and most Christians know that but you know how few Christians know that there’s a big physical component to following Christ. It was put so eloquently by Trevor yesterday when Trevor said how do I physically prepare myself to encounter the living God. Isn’t it beautiful? . . . What are the physical components that will inhibit or that will advance me in my spiritual journey, taking the brain into consideration and you know what is the fascinating thing over the last 25 years in the research? It’s the fact that we’ve discovered that the brain can change, that the brain is completely modifiable, its changeable, its alterable. Its been proven, and all the resources you can read on that, that with our thoughts, with our acting, with our learning we can change the shape of the brain (that’s exactly what the Dalai Lama believes). Each activity that we perform . . . my brain is changing the whole time and this property of the brain to be able to be . . . changeable, to be alterable we call neuroplasticity. (Gys du Plessis then refers to two examples – the experiments done by Paul Bach-y-Rita and Wilder Penfield)We’ve got to grasp [how changeable and alterable the brain is] in our spiritual journey because that’s the context against which you’re going to do the contemplative life.(Emphasis and parenthesis added)
In his research on the brains of his epileptic patients Wilder Penfield discovered that the brain was divided into maps and that there is a map for every thought, action and memory. In our spiritual formation”,’ du Plessis said, it’s all about maps because with every activity, every thought, every action, every learning, everything that you’re hearing now, and with everything you are going to do in the contemplative life, you are going to create maps in the brain. He went on to say that addictions are also created in the maps but the wonderful thing is that you can unlearn a map. You can malnourish a map. If you don’t feed the map, the map will eventually shrink. You can now overcome bad habits that hamper you in your Christian or spiritual life by a process of unlearning the maps where these bad habits are created and nourished. The way to do it is to create new maps that supplant or displace the maps that contain the addictions or bad habits. In a near ecstatic outburst of joy over these new formed maps, Gys du Plessis said:
Do you realize the spiritual implication? . . . Just imagine what can happen spiritually if we embark on the contemplative journey; if we really go to that stillness . . . We must become neuroplastitioners. . . . We can create new maps, spiritually as well.” (Emphasis added).
Who needs a divinely incarnated Messiah born of a virgin when you can transform yourself? Will the creation of new maps in your brain through the contemplative
Cover via Amazon
journey necessarily lead to the transformation of your spirit because the brain allegedly is the seat of the Holy Spirit? It seems, however, that in this particular scenario, the Holy Spirit is not the One who does the transformative work in you; you allegedly do it yourself when you stop nurturing and nourishing the maps you created with your bad habits and displace them with new ones. Anyone may have the ability to discard bad habits such as smoking, drinking and swearing, especially when they make their New Year’s resolutions, but what effect do these bad habits have on the individual? The Bible says that “we all have sinned (passed tense) and come short of the glory of God”. It is not only the present sins (bad habits) that cause man to come short of the glory of God. Every single one of his past sins separate him/her from God (Isaiah 59:2). It is the separation from God that must be dealt with by dealing with the cause of the separation. The malnutrition of the maps in your brain that supposedly contain your bad habits and their displacement with new maps cannot and will not break down the wall of separation between you and God. The neuroplasticity of your brain may enable you to create new maps in the place of maps containing your bad habits in your brain and it may even help you to become a better person but it is definitely not going to benefit you spiritually; it is not going to remove the stains those bad habits (sins) have left on your soul.
If you look closely you will see the hand of the enemy in all of this because it comes down to one thing, and that is the contemplative fraternity’s desire to mix or to integrate the spiritual and the physical components of man. You may recall that I quoted Gys du Plessis as saying:
It is common knowledge amongst Christians to know the basics — to accept the Lord as our Saviour and Lord, the Lord of our lives and then to start following Jesus in obedience. That’s the basics and most Christians know that but you know how few Christians know that there’s a big physical component to following Christ. It was put so eloquently by Trevor yesterday when Trevor said how do I physically prepare myself to encounter the living God. Isn’t it beautiful? . . .
NO! it is not beautiful! It is not even nice. It is devilish and it contradicts the Word of God! Jesus once emphatically declared that the flesh (all of man’s physical components) profit you nothing (John 6:63). It is completely worthless in the act of worshiping God. Jesus would never have said that God must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (John 4:23) if man’s physical components were of any value in your encountering with the living God. This, the mixture of physical components with the spiritual, is precisely what makes the contemplative journey worthless. You may think you are being transformed, that you are growing spiritually and benefiting from the contemplative journey but God who never changes because He is the same yesterday, today, tomorrow and for evermore, still says that the flesh (physical components of man) profit you nothing, zilch, nada, zero.
Gys du Plessis wants the Christian to put God back in the brain, but the neuroscientist, Andrew Newberg, of whom du Plessis speaks very highly has already done so in his groundbreaking book “How God Changes Your Brain.” He has done “very interesting research” on the human brain to prove that man’s perceptions and ideas of God and who He is, is allegedly mapped in his brain. On page 10 he says the following:-
To survive in a pluralistic society, we must evolve our spirituality and our secularity, integrating religion and science in a way that’s beneficial to all.But to do this we must overhaul antiquated religious notions that interfere with the religious freedoms of others.Most important, we will need to devise innovative ways to promote peaceful co-operation between people, especially between those who hold different religious views. In this respect, scientists, psychologists, sociologists, theologians, and politicians must forge new cooperative alliances in order to improve our global interactions with others. (Emphasis added)
If it were possible to know God and to know who He is through an alleged set of maps in a physical organ such as your brain and if global interactions with others (relationships) can be forged through divinely orchestrated changes of these maps, then who needs a divinely incarnated Messiah born of a virgin? The so-called newly devised innovative and scientifically proven ways to promote peaceful co-operation between people, especially between those who hold different religious views, are really not new at all but ancient occult practices disguised in new garb.
On pages 6 and 7 the two authors explain in more detail the alleged benefits of contemplative disciplines.
Along with my research staff at the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Spirituality and the Mind, we are currently studying Sikhs, Sufis, yoga practitioners, and advanced meditators to map the neurochemical changes caused by spiritual and religious practices. Our research has led us to the following conclusions:
Each part of the brain constructs a different perception of God. (Really?How does a physical organ such as the brain construct different perceptions of the God of the Bible who is Spirit and needs to be worshiped in spirit and in truth? — unless, of course, this god is not the God of the Bible and is quite capable of revealing himself through physical organs such as the brain. No wonder the Emergent fraternity makes such a fuss about worshiping their god through all of the five senses and are quite prepared to prepare themselves physically to encounter the living God).
Every human brain assembles its perceptions of God in uniquely different ways, thus giving God different qualities of meaning and value. (Really! The God of the Bible who revealed Himself as being the same yesterday, today and forevermore can now be perceived in the brain as someone with different qualities of meaning and value. So let’s discard the Bible as God’s revelation of Himself and rely completely on our brain to determine his unique qualities — unless, of course, this god is someone who can change his qualities so that the brain may perceive him as an angel of light).
Spiritual practices, even when stripped of religious beliefs, enhance the neural functioning of the brain in ways that improve physical and emotional health. (Is this what the medical world calls the placebo effect? — only in this particular case the patient is not given a sugar pill and told that it would improve his condition; he is told to sit down for about twenty minutes everyday and center himself into complete silence so that God may do an innermost therapeutic work on his physical and emotional health.)
Intense, long- term contemplation of God and other spiritual values appears to permanently change the structure of those parts of the brain that control our moods, give rise to our conscious notions of self, and shape our sensory perceptions of the world. (Really! In order to change the structure of something, in this case the brain, you must of necessity have creative powers. Indeed, it makes you a god with a small letter “g”. This is nothing new. The Pentecostal Charismatic Church has always maintained that you can create wealth, health and prosperity through positive confession).
Contemplative practices strengthen a specific neurological circuit that generates peacefulness, social awareness, and compassion for others.(Really! And I’ve always thought that a Christian who claims to be a follower of Christ, like the Emerging Church fraternity, already have the peace of Jesus Christ that passes all understanding because He once said “my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.”) (Emphasis and parenthesis added).
In an article entitled “Mirror Neurons Bring Science Closer to Buddhism” on theBuddhist Channel, the neurosurgeon, Dr. S.V. Prabhu, Neuro Surgery Department of the Western India Institute of Neurosciences, Kolhapur, India, said that humans had a template for compassion and therefore the need was to make it a “temple.” In the case of human emotions such as pity, sympathy, empathy and compassion the last was the most positive while pity was a negative feeling. Mirror neurons, he stressed, helped a person to feel another’s emotions, like pain or pleasure. He observed that humans as highest evolved living beings on this planet were equipped with tools of compassion in our brain. Mirror neurons are a concept that is revolutionizing psychology and philosophy, according to Dr, Prabhu who has established the correlates of Buddhist concepts in neurosciences. Another speaker, Dr. Priyanjali De Zoysa, Psychological Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Colombo University, said that although a majority of current psychotherapy techniques were based on Western (Judeo-Christian) psychological theories and research, the Western world’s growing interest, since of late, had led Buddhist practices to be incorporated into standard Western psychotherapeutic techniques. Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) was one such psychotherapeutic technique. “MBCT is based on the technique of Vispassana meditation as propounded by the Buddha more than 2500 years ago,” she said.
I have already discussed the terms “Insight Meditation,” which Ron Martoia likes to use, and the equivalent Buddhist form of meditation, “Vispassana, in my commentary “(E)merging into a plural spirituality” to demonstrate how alien practices are brazenly carried into the Christian church. The deeper one delves into the Emergent Church and its philosophies, the scope of their efforts to narrow the gap between Christianity and Buddhism in particular becomes more evident.
The need to make the mirror neurons in the frontal lobe of your brain, also known as the template of compassion, a “temple” has now made it possible to place any god or gods in this frontal lobe “temple.” In fact, the biblical view that man’s spirit is dead in sin and trespasses which needs to be quickened by the Holy Spirit Spirit before anyone can even begin to think of having a relationship with God and entering His Kingdom, is now a redundant doctrine. It belongs to the old worldview of who is in and who is out, who is saved and who is not, who is holy and who is not, etc. etc. etc. No! that’s old hat. The new paradigm puts you, yes YOU my dear friend, in the driving seat because you now have the power to put God back in your brain (that is, in the frontal lobe of your brain where the life-changing mirror neurons or reside which is called “temple of compassion” ).
Once again, we should ask ourselves, who needs a divinely incarnated Messiah born of a virgin when we have this wonderful organ called “brain” which is able to change your life and your relationship with others when the alleged maps in your brain can be altered by a panentheistic “God” through ancient “scientifically” proven contemplative practices?
For instance, we no longer need to preach the unadulterated Gospel of Jesus Christ to our prison inmates, as brother Paul and Silas had done so eloquently in worshipful song whilst an earthquake brought a prison guard to his senses and he and his entire family were eventually saved. These primitive worldviews and “antiquated religious notions that interfere with the religious freedoms of others” have become obsolete in our new “pantentheistic” and insanely contemplative driven post-modern society. So, what they actually need is not a dramatic earthquake-conversion to Jesus Christ, but a deeply silent metanoic shift in worldview and consciousness, induced by means of a divine innermost therapeutic work of God (a.k.a. Thomas Keating and his contemplative spirituality). So please, don’t tell our prison inmates and drunk, party inebriated youth that they are lost sinners and that they have capitulated their lives to crime, drunkenness and sex because Jesus Christ is still standing outside the door of their hearts and knocking . . . patiently waiting to be be invited in. No! rather have them take part in a crash course of “Prison Contemplative Programs” and voila, the badly mapped mirror neurons in their brains will miraculously be altered by “God” and their lives will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. You can experience the same unmanageable life of an alcoholic, as the dearly beloved “father” Thomas Keating said in a interview with the equally adored integral guru, Ken Wilber, “without the inconveniences of being an alcoholic.” All you need to do is to displace the bad alcoholic habit in the badly created maps in your brain with the good contemplative “alcoholic” habit in the newly created maps in your brain. (Watch the video here).
What I find so fascinating about the emergent fraternity is that they love to quote Paul when it suits them just fine but when it does not fit into their agendas they conveniently “move far beyond trite bible verse quoting and engage with the deepest reflection on what it means to self-lead our own deep change and then understand how to help others do the same.”Gys du Plessis said: “1 Corinthians 2:16 says . . . ‘who knows the mind of the Lord, but we have the mind of Christ.’ That’s what Paul says there. . . . This is surely what the spiritual journey is about, the mind of Christ, but how do we accomplish that?” Why would you want to accomplish something when you already have it in your personal possession? Paul very distinctly says that God’s children already “have the mind of Christ.” They receive the mind of Christ (the things that pertain to the sovereign will of God) when the Holy Spirit quickens their spirits and He takes up his residence in their innermost beings (their spirits) at the moment of their regeneration — and not their brain. Then comes the gradual transformation from an egocentric and carnally inclined Christian to a God-centered and spiritually inclined Christian. This is where the mind which governs your thinking comes into play and why Paul said that Christians ought not to be conformed to the dictates of the world but to be transformed by the renewal of their mind (Romans 12:2). The brain is merely the physical medium, as it were, of the interaction between the spirit, body and soul. Whatever the Holy Spirit communicates through the spirit of the believer must be conveyed and translated to all the members of the body. And the only way for the Holy Spirit to accomplish this is not though coercion and force but by the believer’s obedience to Jesus Christ in the mortification of the “self.” (the dying to your “ego”).
Romans 6:1-14
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
The Emergent Church in South Africa and her so-called pastors are arguably the most dangerous “spiritual criminals” in the country. I call them “spiritual criminals” because they are putting to death the small remaining vestiges of God’s work in many peoples’ lives. Through their demoniacal deceptive methods and practives they are deceiving many men, women and children whom Jesus Christ bought with his precious blood. Paul’s warning in Galatians allegedly has no tranformative influence on their lives because their consciences have been seared with a hot iron (1 Timothy 4:1, 2; Galatians 1:8-9).
————————————————————————————————————————
[1] Rogo, “Psychology,” pp. 12-13
[2] Dave Hunt: Occult Invasion, pp. 60-61, Harvest House Publishers 1998
[3] Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Anchor, 1967), p. 37 cited by Lawrence LeShan, The Science of the Paranormal (The Aquarian Press 1987), p. 31
The Greenpoint Stadium in Cape was packed with 50 000 “Jesus followers” to pray for Cape Town and our nation on 22 March 2010. Dignitaries of all sorts were in attendance while the hat-donned preacher Angus Buchan was the main man. Dr. Dion Forster seems to have played a major part as an organisational facilitator in the event.
Conventional Christianity, in a nutshell, is therefore the only belief system that honours, worships and adores Jesus Christ as the only Saviour of mankind who was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, died as a substitutionary or vicarious sacrifice for all our sins on a cursed cross, was buried, rose from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven to be exalted on high at the right hand of God and will return to judge the rebellious nations and every single individual who rejected his gift of salvation.
Let’s look a wee bit closer at the wording in the editorial review. In effect it says: If the above four conventional Christian doctrines are not sufficient to sustain your spiritual life, there is another path you can follow. It is an uncommon spiritual path chartered by the French Benedictine mystic and monk, Henri le Saux (Swami Abhishiktananda which means “Joy of the Anointed”) in India. His deep commitment to finding Christ will inspire you. However, his whole approach in finding Christ is unsettling (worrying, disturbing, upsetting, disconcerting, troubling, unnerving).Abhishiktananda was the name taken by the French Benedictine monk Henri le Saux, whose religious experience in India led him to become a bridge between Hindu and Christian spirituality.
I have already mentioned in one of my previous commentaries that Graham Power, Chairperson of Transformation Africa with whom Rev. Jannie 
Pelser and many other spiritual leaders are in close cahoots, was one of the major sponsors of the Parliament of the World’s Religions held in Cape Town from 1 to 8 December in 1999. If ever there was a time when nominal Christians were captivated by the altars of other religions, it was here, when they became “participants to meet their own and other’ traditions at deeper levels” to “encounter others whose practice, work and commitment can enrich their own,” to “inspire individuals, organisations, nations and religions and spiritual communities to offer gifts of service, which will make long-term difference in the world” and last but not least to “explore new modes of creative engagement of each institution with one another and with the critical issues which confront the planetary community.” (“A New Day Dawning, Spiritual Yearnings and Sacred Possibilities”, p. 6).
