Part 1 – A Biblical appraisal of the “Mosaïek Conversations 2010” held at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg (14-15 September 2010)

The Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg held its annual contemplative event called “Mosaïek Conversations 2010” from 14 to 15 September which was repeated the following Friday and Saturday (17 to 18 September). I attended the sessions held on the Tuesday and Wednesday. The keynote speakers were Johan Geyser, Trevor Hudson and Ron Martoia and the guest speaker was the much esteemed and internationally known clinical psychologist Dr. David G Brenner, author, spiritual teacher and consultant in personal transformation.

Having learnt (not through silence or any other contemplative discipline but in the Word of God) that Christians constantly need to test the spirits (1 John 4:1) and to examine and evaluate everything in the light of God’s Word (1 Corinthians 2:15), I ventured to listen very attentively to every speaker, not to scrutinize or evaluate their personal relationship with Jesus Christ (He alone knows their hearts) but to examine and evaluate everything they said in the light of God’s Word. We should in earnest sincerity remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 12:37:

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:37)

If God has the final say in all matters pertaining to the spiritual well-being of his creatures and if his Word settles every conceivable inquiry with regard to a life (spiritual journey) that is pleasing and acceptable to Him, then we have no other option but to test their words in the light of His Word. Anything less than that is outright disobedience to Him and his Word. If Paul, one of the greatest missionaries who ever lived, humbly accepted the Bereans’ examination of everything he preached then we too need to do so in humility (Acts 17: 10, 11), Therefore, as an introduction to my evaluation of the Mosaïek Conversations 2010 I would like to kick off with the break-out session I attended. It was called “Dangerous Peace” where Stephan Joubert and Theo Geyser were the speakers. I am not going into any detail just yet as I propose to comment on it in greater detail sometime later. What I want to do in this comment is to discuss two things the speakers brought to our attention and which, to my mind, sums up their contemplative journey quite well. These are:

• Mysticism is much older than Christianity.

• You cannot explain God or, as some like to say: “You cannot put God in a box.”

Mysticism is much older than Christianity

For some strange and mystified reason the age or oldness of something is often given preference over something that is not so old or more recent in its origin. Age or oldness then becomes the VerySign Trust Seal of the older product, authorizing it to be more reliable and trustworthy than the younger one. Some of you may have heard the argument that Buddhism and Hinduism are much older than Christianity which immediately suggests that they are more reliable than Christianity.

The well-known passage in Job where his youngest friend, Elihu, said: “I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I was afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom,” (Job 32:6 & 7), shows that in the oldest book in the Bible the eldest was given preference over the youngest. Nonetheless, great danger lurks in this, especially when a multitude of years that are supposed to teach wisdom have no answers for the complexities of life and the great suffering it often brings. In spite of this, Theo Geyser maintained that MYSTICISM is older than Christianity and is therefore  more meaningful than Christianity which was born much later in history. To validate his presupposition he quoted Karl Rahner who said: “The Christian of the future will be a mystic or he will not exist at all,” implying that MYSTICISM is the only sustaining power behind Christianity. If Theo Geyser had embraced the Word of God and gleaned his wisdom from the only authoritative, infallible and eternally reliable Book in the entire universe, he would have noticed that Karl Rahner is spreading a lie. The existence of Christianity is not dependent on MYSTICISM; its existence depends on Jesus Christ who promised: “ . . . I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18).

Is MYSTICISM or any other religion older than Christianity? To answer this question satisfactorily we must ask ourselves: What is the essence of Christianity or what is it that makes Christianity what it is? An off-the-cuff answer would be grace. However, it is not a cheap kind of grace or compassion that seems to be inherent in most other religions. It is divine grace enmeshed in the blood of an innocent victim, indeed in the blood of God Himself. In fact, Christianity, although the term was only first used in a derogatory manner in Antioch (Acts 11:26), is intrinsically linked to Jesus the Christ who was slain from the beginning of the world (Revelation 13:8). Christianity, although the term appeared much later, originated with Jesus Christ who was slain from the beginning of the world. How much older than that can you get? God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit knew before the foundation of the world that mankind would fall into sin and according to their determinate counsel (Acts 2:22, 23) agreed that God the Son would pay the penalty for the sins of the entire fallen human race. At that very moment, when the Trinity made their determinate decision that God the Son would die on a cross (even before the foundation of the world), it was already a fait accompli in Their eyes. From their perspective in their particular dimension of no time and three dimensional space Jesus had already been crucified. From our perspective in our dimension of time and three dimensional space Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem in 32 AD. Once the Trinity had decided that Jesus should die, even before the foundation of the world, it had become effective from the very beginning of the world although his actual crucifixion (in our time and space) took place in 32AD.

Moreover the covenant of grace (on which the entire Christian doctrine hinges) was ratified 430 years before the Law was given which makes it nearly half of a century older than Judaism (Galatians 3:16, 17). The haughty assumption that MYSTICISM is older than Christianity falls hopelessly apart when you take all these biblical facts into account. One may argue that Ur of the Chaldees from whence God commanded Abram (later Abraham) to leave with his family to a land which He would give to him and his descendants as an eternal inheritance, practiced a spirituality that was steeped in MYSTICISM and as such was much older than Abraham’s “Christian” faith that was counted to his righteousness when he left Ur in obedience to God (Genesis 15:6). However, such an argument hardly flatters a spirituality of MYSTICISM when it is evident that God called Abram (Abraham, the spiritual father of all who hold to a faith like his own) out of Ur of the Chaldees precisely because He wanted to set his plan of redemption in motion and sever, as it were, his servant and his descendants from the demonically polluted spirituality of MYSTICISM in Ur (Babylonian Empire).

But isn’t the word “MYSTERY” frequently used in the Bible? Yes, of course! Three of the more well-known appearances of the word are found in 1 Timothy 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:51. The word “mustérion” (mystery) is not shrouded in a cloud of unknowing; it does not mean that it is unknowable, incomprehensible or unintelligible and that you need to go on a journey of contemplation (centering prayer, labyrinth walks, stillness etc) to experience the mystique of MYSTICISM. it simply means that God withholds a divine truth until He, in his own time, reveals it to one of his chosen vessels. When Paul said, “I show you a mystery” the doctrine of the Rapture was unknown up to that point and was only revealed to him personally by Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12).

You may have noticed that throughout my commentary I have capitalized the word MYSTERY. I have done so purposefully because the apostle John does the very same thing in Revelation 17: 5 where he describes MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. God commanded Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees (the bedrock of Babylonian mysteries) to set his plan of redemption in motion. Today the very opposite is taking place; the Church is leaving (apostatizing from) God’s plan of redemption and returning to MYSTERY BABYLON. Indeed, the cutting off from the Olive Tree is gaining momentum and many unsuspecting Christians are following this road into MYSTICISM, thinking that MYSTICISM is the sustaining power behind their spiritual journey and spirituality.

You cannot explain God or, as some would say: “You cannot put God in a box.”

“God is a mystery.” “You cannot explain God.” “You cannot put God in a box.” These are all expressions post modern scholars throw at you whenever you refer them to the Bible and its doctrines. They conveniently pin the “arrogance tag” on you when you claim to know and understand the truth revealed to us in Bible doctrines. According to Stephan Joubert it is very dangerous to assume that you can explain God.

During the Q&A session I asked Stephan Joubert: “You say that you cannot explain God. May I ask: Is God Holy? (in compliance with the contemplative art of “silence” or “stillness” Stephan remained silent); Is God merciful? (complete silence); Is God righteous? (complete silence); Is God just? (once again, complete silence); Is God loving-kindness? Is God love? (Stephan’s silence reached a climactic crescendo). I waited a moment for him to answer and then decided to answer my own question on his behalf.

If your answer is “yes” on each of my questions then you have managed to explain God. These are all attributes He revealed to us throughout the history of mankind. In fact, these few attributes alone contain the magnanimous elements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His awesome holiness presents you with an opportunity to tell people that sinful and lost sinners cannot possibly enter into the presence of God because of his awesome holiness and that they need to repent.

A gentleman behind me came to Stephan’s rescue when he said to me “I agree with you oom (the Afrikaans word for “uncle”) but you cannot put God in a box.” It is moments like this when my beautiful pelage of very little hair stands on end, and makes me think “But who wants to put God in a box?” In fact, you can’t even put yourself in a box (explain yourself to others). You may try to give others some estimate of your kind, benevolent, compassionate, lovable, generous, big-hearted and charitable personality but that does not help much to show you how God sees you. For that to happen you need the Word of God that is sharper than a two-edged sword and divides asunder soul and spirit, and joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Hebrews 4:12). Did you notice that? – “the intents of the heart?” Why are we reminded that the intents of your heart can be wicked while you think you are continually trying to be kind, generous, lovable, sweet, big-hearted and charitable? (Romans 7:18-25). Well, because God’s Word says that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9). If we need God’s Word (his sword) to explain to us what we really are and look like in his magnanimous holy sight, how much more do we need his Word to explain to us his magnanimous character and personality? The tragedy is that the contemplatives have side-tracked God’s Word (although they often quote from it to substantiate their damnable heresies) in favour of MYSTICISM which allegedly brings them into the presence of God.

To my surprise the band who led the audience in praise and song knew more about God than Stephan Joubert who supposedly cannot explain Him. In their songs they constantly referred to God’s holiness, his kindness, his love, his mercy etc, which aptly describes his magnanimous character. By the way, after each session a Buddhist altar bell was chimed to announce a time of silent prayer and reflection which to me was a welcome relief from the clamouring noise of the band (although I did not participate in their silent prayer binges. I prefer to talk to God in a clearly articulated words).

By the by, toward the end of our conversation Theo did a little egg dance when he explained the real meaning (they cannot explain God but they can explain the real meaning of his words) of the word “ginosko” (γινώσκω: to know) which Jesus used in his High Priestly Prayer in John 17: “And this is eternal life: to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent – Jesus Christ.” It doesn’t mean to know with certainty but to realize who God is, Theo affirmed with unflinching certainty. In other words, you cannot know with certainty whether you have eternal life this side of the grave? To show him how inappropriate his argument really is, I asked him whether we should interpret Jesus’s words in John 8:32 in the following way:  And ye shall realize (ginosko) the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” I can only surmise why the contemplatives like Theo Geyser would rather use the word “realize” than “know” for the word “ginosko” in John 17, bearing in mind that their spiritual journey in their quest for the truth eventually leads to self-realization or self-awareness. On this journey, you cannot say “I know” but at best you can only say “I am on a quest of realizing who I am and who God is through contemplation and silence.”

Saintly Dichotomies

Life is full of little surprises and believe it or not some of the most surprising ones have their origin on E-church’s website. How, for instance, do you reconcile the following two statements by Stephan Joubert?

The major way of teaching that Jesus opts for, and these are typical aphorisms that He would use, is not purity – impurity, who is in – who is out, who is saved – who is not. The major form of teaching that Jesus would use would be wisdom.

Metanoia is literally what the Greek word says: to get a new mind. Get a new mind. Not just a new mind, go up and the beyond, over and beyond the present mind. That is not just to start following Jesus as if He were a reformer of sorts, which He is not. It is to sacrifice everything.

But is not in the first instance of giving your heart to Jesus, making this transaction with Jesus, as Ron would tell us in his book “Static.” But it is entering into a new way of life, of looking at everything entirely differently. Therefore metanoia is not something that only makes you from a non-Christian to a Christian. . . .

Jesus does 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) [1)

AND . . .

Those people who pass did one more thing: They washed their dirty clothes white as snow in the scarlet blood of the Lamb. There you have the answer to the biggest exam question in the history of the universe. Go and learn it, and live it from your heart, and you will pass!.

Stephan Joubert’s claim that Jesus never linked onto the purity or holy story (in Leviticus)—of “who is in and who is out,” “who is saved and who is not” and of “holy – unholy, clean – unclean, pure – impure, in – out, us – them”—hardly expresses approval of his statement about the blood of Jesus Christ. If there is one thing that exemplifies the truth that Jesus, his Father and the Holy Spirit (please note carefully: the HOLY Spirit) inexorably link onto the purity story, it is the blood of Jesus Christ. In fact, the blood of Jesus Christ is the only (I repeat the only) substance that grants repentant sinners access to an awesomely holy God (Hebrews 10:19). And yet the Emergent fraternity strongly believe that you can enter into the presence of God through the practice of contemplative prayer. To reiterate: it hardly compliments Stephan Joubert’s statement about the blood of Jesus Christ.

The enigma we need to try and unravel is, why does Stephan Joubert make contradictory statements? How is it at all possible for him to make biblical statements that are completely at variance with statements he and some of his fellow emergent pilgrims have made in the past? It is on record, for instance, that Ron Martoia, one of Stephan Joubert’s most revered friends in the Emergent Church, has said, and I quote:

Despite decades of tweaking evangelistic methods, there is little evidence that many Christians are experiencing true life change . . .

. . . that failure is because Christians in the Western world have been prone to think of salvation as a "point-of-sale" transaction that 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.

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.

"People may not think of themselves as sinners going to hell, but they seek wholeness and recognize they’re not there," he said. (conference held at Conover, N.C. on January 29, 2007).

Ron’s statement is completely at odds with Stephan’s assertion that “Those people [in Revelation 7] who pass did one more thing: They washed their dirty clothes white as snow in the scarlet blood of the Lamb.” The expression “washed their clothes in the blood of the Lamb” is just another way of saying “they received forgiveness for their sins” or “they repented of their evil ways.” And yet Ron says the preaching of the forgiveness from sin is no longer viable in a post modern world. Ron obviously does not agree with Stephan that to pass God’s last exam you need to wash your dirty clothes in the blood of the Lamb. Nonetheless, the question we need to ask is, why does Stephan Joubert resort to turncoat tactics by making statements that do not fit in with many of his previous statements? The reason, in my opinion, is because when the flak starts to hit, you go into auto-pilot mode and effortlessly resort back to biblical truths so as to pacify your friends who may have begun to lift eyebrows over your chicaneries. Unless, of course, Joubert’s reference to the washing of one’s dirty clothes in the blood of Jesus does not link onto the biblical metanoia or repentance from sins but to do-goody deeds that supposedly grant you entrance into the Kingdom of God. His last statement seems to underpin the latter argument: “Go and learn it, and live it from your heart, and you will pass!”

I want us to hold a magnifying glass to Stephan’s latter statement. First of all, it not only misrepresents but demeans the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross. It suggests that you need to do something so that you may pass God’s exam (his assessment of your performance during this life) at His Final Judgment Seat. The words “and you will pass” clearly suggests that no one can know with certainty that they have passed God’s exam this side of the grave but that you will only know when you appear before Him on that great day of wrath (Revelation 6:17). “You will pass” but only at the Judgement Seat of God, kinda thing. What does the Bible say?

11And this is that testimony (that evidence): God gave us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.

¹²He who possesses the Son has that life; he who does not possess the Son of God does not have that life.

¹³I write this to you who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) the name of the Son of God [in the peculiar services and blessings conferred by Him on men], so that you may know [with settled and absolute knowledge] that you [already] have life, yes, eternal life (1 John 5: 11-13).

THEREFORE, [there is] now no condemnation (no adjudging guilty of wrong) for those who are in Christ Jesus, . . .  (Romans 8:1)

According to these passage there is absolutely no need for you to pass any exam because Jesus has already passed God’s exam for your life and in your behalf on the cross. He has paid dearly and fully the penalty for your and my constant failures of God’s exam in this life. The only prerequisite is to possess the Son. If you have the Son you already have eternal life. Moreover, the Bible passage to which Stephan Joubert refers in Revelation 6:17 cannot possibly point to believers who have already received and possess Jesus Christ as their Saviour. The verse emphatically states that “the day of THEIR wrath” has come which simply means that the day of their (the unbelievers and those who shun the blood of the cross by introducing and practicing other ways and means to enter into the presence of God other than through the blood of Christ) punishment and indignation has arrived. How then can Stephan Joubert link believers to this verse?

The wrath spoken of in Revelation 6 has nothing to do with god’s Final Judgment. It describes the horrific scenes of destruction, mayhem and death during the opening of the seven seals in the seven year Great Tribulation which Jesus describes in Matthew 24.  This is also quite evident from verse 17 of the very next chapter 7: “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation (persecution), and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” The “massive crowd” as Stephan describes them, are therefore not believers who now learn and live from their heart how to pass God’s exam. The vast host who no one can count in this chapter are the Jews and Gentiles who are saved (have washed their dirty clothes in the blood of the Lamb) during the Great Tribulation under Antichrist. But then again, why would Stephan Joubert and his Emergent Church buddies bother about biblical eschatology when it is their aim to establish God’s Kingdom here and now which, by the way, is one of the main ways of learning and living out God’s final exam.

WHAT IS THE BOTTOM-LINE?

The blood in which the Great Tribulation martyrs are going to wash their dirty clothes is the very same blood Stephan Joubert and his Emergent buddies have put aside as the only means of entering into the awesomely holy of holies in heaven and the presence of God (Hebrews 10:19-21). In stead they have opted for techniques such as centering prayer, contemplative prayer, Lectio Divina, stillness, and other forms of meditation to approach and enter into the presence of God. It is nothing else than a perpetuation of the way of Cain who brought a bloodless offering before God and who slew his brother Abel because he sacrificed the only acceptable offering to God – a slain lamb. Did Cain pass God’s exam with his bloodless offering? If he had, as some would like to think, then Stephan Joubert and his Emergent buddies have nothing to fear. They too will then pass God’s exam, not by means of the blood of Jesus Christ but by their practice of their blood dishonoring contemplative tools.

The Dutch Reformed Church’s Journey to Never-Never Land

Image via Wikipedia

C.H. Spurgeon once said:

“We see, in many a land, the proudest dynasties and tyrannies still crushing, with their mountain weight, every free motion of the consciences and hearts of men. We see, on the other hand, the truest heroism for the right and the greatest devotion to the Truth in hearts that God has touched. We have a work to do, as great as our forefathers and, perhaps, far greater. The enemies of Truth are more numerous and subtle than ever and the needs of the Church are greater than at any preceding time. If we are not debtors to the present, then men were never debtors to their age and their time. Brethren, we are debtors to the hour in which we live. Oh, that we might stamp it with Truth and that God might help us to impress upon its wings some proof that it has not flown by neglected and unheeded.”

What is Truth? These words from the lips of Pontius Pilate who finally sealed Jesus’ death sentence when he asked the Jewish rabble: “I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the Passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?  Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber” have repetitiously and monotonously echoed throughout the ages. Has it ever occurred to you that it was a custom that swayed Pontius Pilate’s mind to have Jesus of Nazareth crucified? Customs and cultural traditions are part and parcel of man’s psyche but they are often cast up as barriers against the Truth. In our beloved Dutch Reformed Church, as in many other churches, the Truth has effectively been marginalised and even suppressed by the post modernists’ rallying cry: “In antiquity it was customary to believe this and that because it complimented their frame of mind and their particular culture. However, having studied the Bible for many years, post modern scholars, professors, preachers and teachers can no longer believe these so-called truths.” Professor Jurie le Roux of the DRC Seminary in Pretoria succinctly expressed this view as follows.

For the First Century Christians Jesus rose from the dead because it was part of their worldview; today we cannot understand it in that way any longer. (1)

Barabbas, a robber who has actually become a metaphor for today’s post modernists’ role in robbing unsuspecting church goers of the Truth, is being released like the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. Like the Jewish rabble they too are crying with hoarse voices filled with animosity: “Release unto us NOT this Man who is the essence of Truth but a robber.” And now once again like precision clockwork, another post-modernist opts for the release of a “robber” in stead of the Truth under the guise of learnedness, scholarly expertise and higher education. His name is Dr. Chris Jones, Head of the Centre of Moral Leadership at the University of Stellenbosch. This is what he said in a recent article, “Difficult Faith Questions” in the Kerkbode, an online magazine of the DRC.

Theologians who think innovatively are often harshly criticized – especially by “normal” members in the church (the purpose of this choice of words is not to try and talk down to people). Naturally it is expedient to continuously welcome and promote members’ participation and conversation.

However, it is necessary to conduct these conversations in a spirit of integrity, profundity, tolerance and sensitivity to mention only a few values. The latter is important because you are often laid bare in your thoughts before your partners in conversation.

A number of members, believers and pastors are not only worried about innovative ideas amongst theologians but also become very upset when they hear and read in these conversations that certain “truths” are no longer fixed as they were believed to be in the past — they experience it as a kind of subversion of the purity of the church.

The innovative theological ideas referred to above, are without exception based on years of research, reflection and prayer. Can we therefore not communicate each other and each other’s good indentations more circumspectly?

His main concern, he says, is the well-known rhetoric that faith is heard and understood in a more unbiased way in the ordinary, simple inner circle and that the church must guard against the theological Scribes and their cunning whose aim it is to confuse people as well as against the false prophets with whom the people surround themselves because they preach and teach what they want to hear (2 Timothy 4:3). In this way, he continues, highly educated theologians are made suspect as if it were their intent to tamper with the truth in sinister ways. To illustrate his point Chris Jones quotes Christo Lombaard’s following examples “I am not a trained surgeon; I am just a normal person like you who’s concerned about your health; let me operate on you . . .” or “I am not a trained engineer; I am only a normal person like you who’s concerned about our transportation system; let me build a bridge over the high way . . .” Chris asks: “Why is the absurdity of this kind of argument tolerated when it comes to theology or faith? Of course “normal” people’s faith may have an admirable spiritual depth but when certain questionable religious convictions are elevated to an authoritarian position to the detriment of sound theology red lights begin to flicker.”

Indeed, It would be foolish to let anyone who is not a trained physician to operate on you or to appoint someone who is not an engineer to build a bridge over a highway.  Nonetheless, can we apply Christo Lombaard’s sentiments to the realm of faith and spirituality? Unless the truth in 1 Corinthians 1:26-31 is no longer valid in our post modern society, Lombaard’s assessment cannot be applied to matters pertaining to the Christian faith. In fact, Paul emphatically declares that God chose the foolish, the  weak, and the despised to confound the wise and the mighty. Barnes explains verse 27 as follows:

But God hath chosen – The fact of their being in the church at all was the result of his choice. It was owing entirely to his grace.

The foolish things – The things esteemed foolish among people. The expression here refers to those who were destitute of learning, rank, wealth, and power, and who were esteemed as fools, and were despised by the rich and the great.

To confound – To bring to shame; or that he might make them ashamed; that is, humble them by showing them how little he regarded their wisdom; and how little their wisdom contributed to the success of his cause. By thus overlooking them, and bestowing his favors on the humble and the poor; by choosing his people from the ranks which they despised, and bestowing on them the exalted privilege of being called the sons of God, he had poured dishonor on the rich and the great, and overwhelmed them, and their schemes of wisdom, with shame. It is also true, that those who are regarded as fools by the wise men of the world are able often to confound those who boast of their wisdom; and that the arguments of plain people, though unlearned except in the school of Christ; of people of sound common sense under the influence of Christian principles, have a force which the learning and talent of the people of this world cannot gainsay or resist. They have truth on their side; and truth, though dressed in a humble garb, is more mighty than error, though clothed with the brilliancy of imagination, the pomp of declamation, and the cunning of sophistry.

And the weak things – Those esteemed weak by the people of the world.

The mighty – The great; the noble; the learned.

If, as Chris Jones says, truths — and in particular Bible truths — are not fixed but wax and wane with the ebb and flow of each new society and culture, it implies that today’s truths will eventually be replaced with new truths within the next 2000 years. Today’s “truths” espoused by our highly esteemed and educated post modern theologians will be frowned upon by the next generation. Hence the spiritual journey on which the post modernists have embarked to wrestle with the complexities of life and to seek new truths that compliment these complexities is an endless journey to never-never land. The best they can do on this journey is to agree to disagree and gleefully continue on their road of never ever finding a solidly fixed truth. They have become like silly women who are laden with sins and ever learning but never coming to the knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 3:6-9). Here is what Chris Jones had to say about this journey to never-never land.

How do we manage it? For me it is important that we think anew and more intensely about who we are, what this life is all about and to which we are called in the midst or our diverse opinions. We ought to try and understand what it means to live and journey with Jesus.

It remains a journey — a departure rather than an arrival. It is a journey on which the inner circle must be prepared to set their sights from without. It is a journey of continued learning and unlearning [and] of pioneering new horizons.

It is a path everyone of us must journey with our entire humanness.

[It is a journey on which] certain thoughts should not be overrated because then it becomes like idols. And where the truth is made more veritable than what it is this journey becomes one to never-never land.

On this journey a person must experience the surprises of the the Spirit.

Whispering winds that come from and go to places of which we do not know or foresee. We must be free to embrace the rhythms of doing and rethinking, and especially innovative thinking.

These are indeed poetic thoughts and words but do they measure up to the standards of innovative thinking? Denials, abjurations and renunciations can hardly be reckoned as innovative thinking and a journey with no destination or goal in sight is completely unreliable and deceitful. And this journey on which we are supposed to embark with our entire humanness is replete with denials, abjurations and renunciations — vis-vis denials of the historicity and literalness of the Genesis narrative, denials of the virgin birth, denials of the deity of Jesus Christ, denials of his bodily resurrection, denials of a large portion of Jesus Christ’s words and sayings in the Bible, denials of the infallibility of the Bible, denials that the Bible is the Word of God, denials of the authorship of many Bible books, denials . . . denials . . . denials. Anyone who boasts that these denials are highly educated, scholarly and innovative thoughts are not only deceived but are misleading multitudes. In fact, their so-called “innovative” thoughts and ideas are as old as Satan’s lie in Genesis which in essence forms the basis of all denials — “Did God actually say . . .?”

An online dictionary defines the word “denial” as follows: “refusal to believe a doctrine, theory or the like.” Having said this and bearing in mind that the Bible is a doctrinal treatise on how to know God (to be saved) and how to live according to his dictates the innovative thinking of Chris Jones’ highly educated theologians is nothing but an outright refusal and rejection of God’s doctrines. No wonder their journey is a departure rather than an arrival, as Chris Jones  so wonderfully succinctly put it — a departure from the Truth and an arrival at never-never land. And no wonder Paul said of them:

Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. (Romans 1:22)

Let’s for a brief moment consider Jones’ words with much respect and integrity: “The innovative theological ideas referred to above, are without exception based on years of research, reflection and prayer.” Ah! his pious claim that they had done their research with reflection and prayer immediately puts the stamp of approval on their new found truths which are, in any case, going to be renounced by the generations to come on the strength and convictions of their own prayers. Who can argue with prayer when it suggests that they had spoken to God about their new found truths and He has irrefutably shown them that their particular truths are the correct ones and not those of the first century apostles who supposedly did not receive the truth by prayer but by means of shamanic induced altered states of consciousness? Marcus Borg, one of the DRC’s (and the Emergent Church’s) blue-eyed boys and darlings has this to say about Jesus in his book “Meeting Jesus Again For The First Time:”

Spirit persons are known cross-culturally. They are people who have vivid and frequent subjective experiences of another level or dimension of reality. These experiences involve momentary entry into non-ordinary states of consciousness and take a number of different forms. Sometimes there is a vivid sense of momentarily seeing into another layer of reality; these are visionary experiences. Sometimes there is the experience of journeying into that other dimension of reality; this is the classic experience of the shaman. Sometimes there is a strong sense of another reality coming upon one, as in the ancient expression “the Spirit fell upon me.” Sometimes the experience is of nature or an object within nature momentarily transfigured by “the sacred” shining through it…. What all persons who have these experiences share is a strong sense of there being more to reality than the tangible world of our ordinary experience. They share a compelling sense of having experienced something “real.” They feel strongly that they know something they didn’t know before. Their experiences are noetic, involving not simply a feeling of ecstasy, but a knowing. What such persons know is the sacred. Spirit persons are people who experience the sacred frequently and vividly. They mediate the Spirit in various ways. Sometimes they speak the word or the will of God. Sometimes they mediate the power of God in the form of healings and/or exorcisms. Sometimes they function as game finders or rainmakers in hunting-and-gathering and early agricultural societies. Sometimes they become charismatic warriors and military leaders.  What they all have in common is that they become funnels or conduits for the power or wisdom of God to enter into this world. Anthropologically speaking, they are delegates of the tribe to another layer of reality, mediators who connect their communities to the Spirit.

So there you have it: Jesus and his disciples received the truth through altered states of consciousness while today’s post modern super apostles whose innovative ideas are without exception based on years of research, reflection and prayer gained their new truths by speaking to God in prayer. But then again we should ask ourselves: If the apostles had received the truth of God through much prayer and reflection and similarly todays post modern innovative thinkers have also received their new truths through prayer and reflections, and assuming that the generations to come are going to receive new truths through much prayer and reflection, what kind of a God is the Father of Jesus Christ who chops and changes his opinion of the truth with every new culture and generation who claims to be in a state of much prayer and reflection? Yes indeed, our learned and prayerful friends would say, the disciples experienced Jesus’ metaphoric resurrection while they were in a shamanic states of altered consciousness and today’s post modern super apostles know this as a fact through much reflection and prayer. Once again, who can argue with that? Case closed! May God have mercy on their pitiful souls!

How Chris Jones can plead for an understanding of what it means to live and journey with Jesus when most of the post modern theologians’ so-called “innovative” thinking   is nothing but denials of the doctrines of the Jesus with whom they claim to be on a journey, goes beyond normal reasoning. The only conclusion to make is that their Jesus with whom they are on a journey is not the Jesus of the Bible but another Jesus. Who is this Jesus? Well, his followers call him the Maitreya who invites them to go on a journey with him.

My task will be to take you on a journey into Truth, into the Blessed Country of Love, and there to show you to yourselves as God.

http://www.youtube.com/v/VF_Bb4N7XI4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US”></param><param

The notion that past truths are no longer fixed, poses an immense problem with Jesus Christ’s claim in Hebrews 13:8 that He is the same yesterday, today and forever. If that were not the truth not a single truth in the Christian faith could have remained fixed which, of course, would naturally corroborate Chris Jones’ affirmation that certain truths in the Bible can no longer be seen to be fixed or unchangeable. If Jesus is the essence of truth and if his claim that He has remained unchanged and inflexible throughout the ages is true, then every single truth in the Christian faith has remained fixed and unchanged throughout the ages because He is the Word of God who was made flesh. Jesus Christ’s immutability is the irrefragable assurance that every single truth in the Bible is the unchangeable truth and has remained fixed throughout the ages.

---

(1) Paper delivered at the  VCHO, 25 Augustus 2007 Pretoria: “The denial of Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead – A Theological background.” Ferdie Mulder. BTh 2004; MTh 2006 Pretoria.