What does God think of us?– Broadcast on SABC2 on April 24, 2011

Do you want to meet Jesus? Theo Geyser invites you to meet him here.

About sixteen years ago Coetzee Zietsman, one of the cameramen of the series, “What does God think of us?”on SABC2, produced a similar program for SABCTV. It was probably one of the most shocking programs ever to hit the TV airwaves in South Africa. It showed in graphical detail how South African sangomas (witchdoctors) are initiated into the occult practice of communicating with their dead ancestors. One of the methods used to appease the ancestral spirits and to determine whether they approve of the candidates who have been chosen to become sangomas is the following:

The candidate is told to lie on the ground, usually on her left side opposite a goat which is lain down in a similar position on its right side. Both are covered with a single animal skin that serves as a blanket. The focal point in the ceremony is the goat because it allegedly functions as a medium through which the ancestral spirits communicate their wishes. The candidate must then simulate sex with the goat. If the goat reacts in a positive way, so to speak, it is a sign that the ancestors are pleased with the candidate and that she may proceed to the next part of the ceremony. The goat’s jugular vein is then slit and while a gush of blood spurts out freely the candidate puts her mouth to the gaping wound and starts to drink the blood. Sometimes the blood is caught up in a beaker for her to drink.

Thanks be to God, there are many black South African citizens whose spiritual eyes have been opened to the dangerous and demoniacal bondage they’ve been exposed to while they were sangomas and witchdoctors. Unfortunately they are but a very small number who have escaped the clutches of Satan and now refuse to worship their ancestors. Not only were they saved for all eternity through the unadulterated preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ but have been completely liberated from their demon possession. They know exactly what it means when God says: “You will know the truth and the truth will set your free.” The million dollar question however is: do many white so-called Christ-followers know this? Apparently not.

The opening scene of “What does God think of us,” that was broadcast on SABC2 on April 24 shows how a former sangoma who had been saved by the grace of God burns all the paraphernalia she used to supposedly communicate with their dead ancestors. I have written this comment on the program to show you to what extent Theo Geyser, the presenter of the series, will go to demean biblical missionary work amongst all the nations and to sneer at Christians (black and white). There’s a similar incident in Scripture where new converts to Christ Jesus willingly burned their books on magic in public.

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were carried away to the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them. Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to invoke the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul proclaims.” Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this. But the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I recognize, but who are you?” And the man in whom was the evil spirit leaped on them, mastered all of them and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. And this became known to all the residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks. And fear fell upon them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was extolled. Also many of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices. And a number of those who had practiced magic arts brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted the value of them and found it came to fifty thousand pieces of silver. So the word of the Lord continued to increase and prevail mightily. (Acts 19:11-20) (Emphasis added)

Acts 19:19

Fear, holy fear, opens blind eyes to the Truth and sets bound people free as we’ve seen from the above incident in Scripture. However, few people are aware of the fact that a very important scene from this incident had been removed from the Bible. It depicts a young man who, while the new converts were piling up their magical paraphernalia onto the bonfire, approached them gently and with an unheard of compassion and love in his vocal chords said the following journey-friendly thing:

What this young man said, and you may have recognized the voice as that of Theo Geyser, a leading figure in the Emerging Apostasy (Church) in South Africa, is so extremely important that I must put his words in writing. Here’s what he said – again.

I was wondering. Is this the best way to engage a culture, to burn somebody’s religion and to send somebody to a burning stake (Theo obviously does not know the difference between the burning of magical arts and paraphernalia in public and the burning at a stake of a human being. Suffice is to remind him that the burning of human flesh emits an entirely different odor than the burning of magical books and paraphernalia) by condemning them and to get them on your side and sing a hallelujah chorus (Theo, Theo Theo, the whole purpose in the burning of magical arts is not to get people on your side but to get them on Jesus Christ’s side who condemned the practice of magical arts thousands of years ago in Deuteronomy 18. But then again, you wouldn’t know what the real Jesus of the Bible said because you have long-gone rejected everything He taught and prefer to follow a false Christ). What if the approach need (sic) to be like Jesus, to be more interested in the person than in the method or the expression of their faith? (Well, Theo, wouldn’t you agree that Jesus is more interested in the magnifying and exultation of his Name? Look again at what happened in Ephesus. The burning of their magical arts and their abandonment of the expression of their old faith lead to the greater advancement of the Word of God and to its prevalence amongst God’s people). What if this can be one of the biggest opportunities to broaden your horizon, to meet God and to be changed and be changed yourself in that circumstance? I’m wondering and I think maybe that is the way we need to go if we have a conviction that we can’t take Jesus to anybody but that he’s already present in somebody’s life. Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.

Theo Geyser was in the very fortunate position to personally be with Jesus when He said certain vitally important things to his disciples. Once again I must inform my readers that these precious moments with Theo Geyser, Jesus and his disciples have been omitted from the original Bible but are now incorparated in every new post modern mystical IMAGINE VERSION of the Bible. Why it was left out in the orignal Bible no-one knows? Maybe you can tell me. You will recall that prior to his ascension Jesus said the following:

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20) (Emphasis added).

Suddenly a young man whose vocal chords resonated with deep compassion and love shouldered his way through the disciples, stood right in front of Jesus and said:

Jesus, aren’t you just a little bit and slightly deluded? Do we really need to go into the whole world to bring you and your message to the lost sheep of Israel and to all the gentile nations out there? Surely, you must have heard what I said recently in my exquisitely “Christ-like-orientated” TV program “What does God think of us” on SABC2? I said: “If we have a conviction that we can’t take you to anybody but that you’re already present in their lives, then we may even get an opportunity to meet you in the life of a sangoma or a witchdoctor. A witchdoctor is nothing else than a healer. You should know that; you yourself are a healer (You should read “The Life of a Galilean Shaman: Jesus of Nazareth in Anthropological-Historical Perspective”, written by Pieter Craffert. It’s just so adorable what he says about You).

Jesus listened in sheer wonderment to Theo Geyser’s emerging/emergent wisdom and said with great appreciation.

Thanks for reminding me, Theo. Hadn’t you done so I would have sent my disciples out into the world for all the wrong reasons. In fact, the entire world loves me so much that I have decided to appoint you as a watchman over all my biblical pronouncements, lest I say something that might offend the world. I really do not want the world to think that I am a fundamentalist. The first thing I want you to do is to remove the atrocious portion in Scripture where I declare that the world hated me before it hated you (John 15:18). That’s an infamous lie! I now humbly admit and ask your forgiveness. Will you do that? You’re quite right. The world does not hate me because I am already in the lives of every single person on earth, even those who call themselves sangomas and witchdoctors. I now realize that there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between the secular (profane) and the religious. Ha! ha! Once again I must admit that I did not know this until I read Stephan Joubert’s excellent prizewinning book “Jesus, a Radical Leap.” Have you read his groundbreaking book? I can assure you, aside from my Book that I wrote, his is the most important of this century. Not even the books by Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, Rob Bell (“Love Wins”) and all the other emergent brothers come close to the illustrious magnificence of his book. On page 150 he wrote:

• One correction: Terms like “the real world” and a “religious world” never existed then. Jesus never made a distinction between “us” and “them,” or between the world of the church and the lost world out there. The separation between holy and profane is an artificial creation of the later church with all their cathedrals, cloisters, titles, holy days and limitless perimeters between church and world. Listen carefully, Jesus never instituted it and neither did He approve of it or promote it.
  

  Stephan Joubert

Wow! I must admit that this is a real eye opener to me. Indeed I will listen to Stephan Joubert very carefully because even I can learn from such a great guru as he. I never knew that I championed the idea that we should never distinguish between the religious and the profane. Therefore I would like you as my appointed watchman to remove the following portions in Scripture that in fact do make a distinction between the profane and the religious. I really do not want my readers to think that I was such a sour spoiler of their fun loving lives. In addition, I would like to apologize on behalf of my Father who said “Be ye holy, because I am holy.” What He actually meant was “Be ye paradoxically holy/profane because I am paradoxically holy/profane.” As a token of My and my Father’s sincere apologies I want you to  erase these portions in Scripture as soon as you can. If you really love Me and want to follow Me, you’d best do it at your earliest convenience.

Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12:2).

But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. (James 3:14-16).

You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? (James 4:4-5)

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  (1 John 2:15).

I must say, I do not like what you said in your closing statement to your program ”What does God think of us.”  You said: Christians often tell me that whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God and you must get away from them and isolate yourself. But don’t you think you have gone a little too far in your endorsement of an all inclusive religiosity by your statement that people may find me in the demoniac practices of a sangoma or a witchdoctor? Don’t you realize that the verse you are referring to is a direct command of God the Father? Therefore, you’re wrong to imply that it is merely Christians who tell you this. Let us quote the verse in its proper context and stop misinterpreting what it really says:

• Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

As you can see idolatry is the issue here. Idolatry in all its forms – and you may check this out with your buddy, Trevor Hudson – is detestable in the eyes of God the Father. He hates idolatry so much that He sent Me to die on a wooden cross (the wooden cross you and your friend, Koos van der Merwe hailed with reverence in your song years ago) so that I may deliver sinners whom Satan and their bondage to their idolatrous ways. Have you never read the scripture that says “To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil” (1 John 3:8b). And yet you glibly counteract Paul in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18 by saying: “I wonder whether that isn’t perhaps the biggest way in which my life testifies against Christ, that such an approach is anti-Christian. Because the whole Gospel  message is that He became human. He doesn’t try to convert the culture in some way but He gave His life for it.”

Do you really think I laid down my life on a cursed wooden cross so that people may remain locked in their culture of idolatry and rebellion against my Father? Are you really so deceived to be convinced that I am already in the lives of people who openly rebel against my Father who loathes and detests their idolatry? Do you mind if I asked you a few more questions? I’m sure you wouldn’t. In any case, you will have to give an account of every word you said on your program in the Day of Judgment.

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matthew 12:36-37)

Here now are my questions.

1) Why didn’t you repudiate two members of the Regina Mundi Roman Catholic Church who respectively said: “Without my ancestors, I can’t do anything” and “We see the ancestors and God as the same thing”? They unashamedly spat in My face and openly rejected Me who once said: “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 5:15).

2) In the light of what one lady said: “We see the ancestors and God as the same thing” why didn’t you repudiate Prof. Tinyeko Maluleke who tried to make a difference between “venerate” and “worship” but didn’t quite succeed. In his own words: “I don’t think that Africans have ever worshiped ancestors in the same way they worship God.” Are there two ways of worshipping – one in reverence for the ancestors and the other in reverence for God? This is the kind of dualism you find in every pagan religion and cult. They allegedly worship God but also something or someone else. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, denies that they worship Mother Mary but they do in fact worship her.

How can you possibly teach people that I am already in the lives of even the worst kind of idolaters. Have you never heard me say:

• You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. (Romans 8:9)

In conclusion I would like to quote to you an excerpt from an article written by Tom McMahon and Dave Hunt in their monthly newsletter “The Berean Call.”

RELIGION IN THE NEWS

A report and comment on religious trends and events being covered by the media. This week’s item is from Ecumenical News International. A South African archbishop has suggested that a Libation of Blood, a ritual pouring as a symbolic sacrifice honoring the ancestors of black Africans should be incorporated into local Catholic liturgies such as the mass. Archbishop Buti Tlhagale of Bloemfontein said recently, sacrifice to the ancestors continues to be a very common practice among Africans. The slaughtering of an animal, a cow or sheep takes place wherever there is a funeral or marriage feast, or in times of illness, unemployment, family feuds or the birth of a child.

Tom:

Dave, as a former Catholic, I think this is pushing it a little bit. I’m sure there are, particularly traditional Catholics out there who would just go crazy over something like that. But the Archbishop, he makes a point in the article, I’ll pick up on that. He said the practice should be considered in the context of enculturation according to which local indigenous culture and values are a means of presenting, reformulating and living the Christian faith, he suggested. Now Catholic, or otherwise this is not the Christian faith.

Dave:

Well, of course black Africans are making sacrifices to their ancestors. Of course they are still involved in ancestral worship, does that make it right? We’re supposed to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. We are supposed to deliver people from ancestral worship, from the false ideas. I mean, by this idea then, enculturation, you would accept anything that anybody does. Any witchdoctor, whether it’s in Africa, the South Pacific or in Scandinavia, people have had all kinds of pagan practices down through history, today in North America, North American witchcraft, Indian witchcraft, the medicine men and so forth. This is so much a part of their culture; you cannot separate it from their culture. Therefore, because it’s part of the culture, does that mean then we must incorporate it into Christianity? It doesn’t mean that Christianity is going to destroy culture, meaning some of the purely cultural customs, how you live you know, the houses you live in, the kind of clothes you wear, the tools you have, the way you do your farming. This is culture, but you can’t say because their religion is part of their culture, therefore we must not interfere with their religion. That doesn’t make sense at all because religion will take people to hell. Now, what we’re doing then, according to this Archbishop we are going to compromise Christianity. We’re going to confuse it. We’re going to mix the pagan practices in with Christianity. So, then what are we honoring here at the Mass? I’ve got a lot of problems with the Mass, first of all because it denies the sufficiency and the once for all sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. But it is being made even worse now because we are mixing pagan practices in with this. Tom, we were in Africa recently and this is a major problem there that evangelicals recognize. You’ve got people who come from America, maybe a Benny Hinn or someone else, well meaning and they have these huge crusades and people, supposedly, believe in Jesus, and you give the reports of the thousands or hundreds of thousands who got saved, and the next thing you know these people are back to their ancestor worship. They are back to the belief in the pagan deities that they had before. Have they become Christians? I don’t think that you can be a Christian and also a pagan at the same time. I don’t think you can believe in the true God and in false gods. And in fact, God says that in the very first commandment that He gives to the people ofIsrael. You shall have no other gods before me, I am God, and there is none else. And now we’re going to say well, but because they had these beliefs, it was part of their culture then we’re going to incorporate it with Christianity. That won’t go! It certainly doesn’t agree with “earnestly contending for THE faith once for all delivered.”

Tom:

Dave, there’s another point here. This bishop is black, he’s African, he grew up in this culture obviously, but now he has a Catholic world view, there are many things within Catholic ritual and liturgy that are consistent with pagan worship.

Dave:

They incorporate it wherever they go.

Tom:

Well, for example, ancestor worship, praying to the saints, praying to the dead, this is what ancestor worship for the Africans is. So I could see how this bishop would say, “Look, we can enculturate here, because we do have some common ideas. But these are not Biblical ideas, the Bible condemns as necromancy, communicating with the dead completely.

Dave:

Tom, it’s not just the bishop, the Pope when he visited West Africa he said to the voodoo priest, “You don’t have to give up anything to become Christians, and you worship ancestors, so do we.

Tom:

Well, they would say, venerate. What’s the fine line between those?

Dave:

You go to Haiti, they say Haiti is 85% Catholic, 110% voodoo, and every voodoo ceremony begins with prayers to the Catholic saints. You go to Rio de Janeiro on a holiday, and you will see the Catholics on their knees on the ground by the graves praying, not only to their dead ancestors, but to the saints as well. So, Catholicism has in fact incorporated, this is nothing new, it has incorporated the culture, the religion wherever it has gone, and that is not Biblical and it is destructive of the true faith.

An afterthought to consider very seriously.

There’s something I fail to understand. While you (Theo Geyser)  herald with aplomb and satisfaction the enculturation of pagan magical arts and ancestral worship into the Regina Mundi Roman Catholic Church and obviously into other RC cathedrals, cloisters, seminaries etc., Stephan Joubert speaks very lowly of Roman Catholicism’s cathedrals, cloisters and hierarchal structures because it was allegedly the RC Church who  instituted the distinction between “us and them” and “the real world and the religious world.” (Jesus, a Radical Leap, p. 150). You say the Roman Catholic Church is effectively wiping out the perimeters between the real world and the religious world while Stephan Joubert says the very opposite – that they are strengthening the limitless perimeters between church and world.

A suggestion

The Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg and the Invia Church in Stellenbosh seem to have a calling to unite all cultures and religions under one banner. To speed up their efforts I would like to suggest that they incorporate into their own church services (especially the ones in which their guru Trevor Hudson speaks out against idolatry) the entire ritual sangomas and witchdoctors go through to initiate them into the occult arts of communicating with the dead. That would at least be a new and fresh way to meet Jesus and to bring their members much closer to Him. The following video may serve as a guide to show them how they should do it.

Or maybe they would like to show their congregations the following video as an educational tool. But please do remember Theo Geyser’s words of great wisdom: “Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.

Now remember this folks: “Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.”

So-called muti murders are rampant in South Africa. Is Theo Geyser and his buddies at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg and the Invia Church in Stellenbosch suggesting that Jesus Christ is a murderer? Maybe we should change John 8:44 so that it may say the following:

Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus. He (Jesus) 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.

Are you shocked? You should be because this is exactly what Theo Geyser and his buddies at Mosaïek and Invia, who refuse to repudiate him in public, are saying when they declare with loving compassion that ““Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.” Watch the following video clip and decide for yourself whether Theo Geyser’s statements are blasphemous and the contemplative stillness of his buddies on this matter are equally blasphemous.

Please click on the YouTube button at the bottom right to watch this video.

Here’s another shocking movie showing how human body parts are sold for muti purposes. Please excuse the use of God’s name in vein in this film.

Would the following persons please tell us whether they agree with Theo Geyser when he says: ““Maybe a sangoma can be an opportunity to meet Jesus.” If not, please show us your integrity and the sincerity of your statement that you are followers of Jesus Christ by repudiating him in the strongest possible language in public. Or perhaps they would like to read the following before they take a decision.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/terror-after-muti-murders-1.393214

Stephan Joubert

Ron Martoia

Johan Geyser

Johan Geyser & Trevor Hudson

Dries Cronjé

Jacques Bornman

Etienne Schoeman

  AND

All the members of the Mosaïek and Invia churches.

If you really and truly love the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible you will repudiate Theo Geyser in public. If not, you must be in close cahoots with him and his blasphemous remarks.

Listen again to these words, Theo Geyser and the rest of his buddies.

What does God think of us?- Broadcast on SABC2 on April 17, 2011

That old serpent

WHAT DOES GOD THINK OF US? This is the title of a series of programs presented by Theo Geyser on SABC2 and may I add, a very controversial series that misrepresents the God of the Bible in the most brazen way imaginable. Even the title is a misrepresentation of the real content of the series. Instead of telling viewers what God thinks of us Theo Geyser tells his viewers what they should think of God and his doctrines, in this case the doctrine of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. Last Sunday, April 17, he had an emerging conversation with Rowan Smith, retired Dean of Cape Town of the Anglican Church, and Ben du Toit of the Dutch Reformed Church, as well as several passersby whom he interviewed in the streets of Stellenbosch.

So, what should we think of God? Last Sunday’s topic of discussion was about Jesus Christ’s virgin birth. Was it a literal birth or just a metaphorical or mythical story the Great Author of the Bible conjured up to teach the poor scientifically illiterate creatures in the pre modern world how to cope with the complexities of life and how they should run their lives on their spiritual journey? Perhaps we should begin with Theo Geyser’s closing statement. It not only sums up the entire content of the program but solidifies his personal view of Christ’s virgin birth.

I’m standing in the parking lot. I spent the whole day here chatting to people. What I can understand of the virgin birth this is the best place to talk about it, because God comes to people. And when you find God, you find Him in the dust and amongst ordinary people.

What helps me personally in this debate is to hear Christians who think differently, who say: “Maybe its metaphorical, maybe poetic.” That can also help us. The fact that something is presented in a myth doesn’t mean there is no truth in it. In the lesson of Adam and Eve, whatever it is, there are principles that can help me in my life.

What I also heard is that there are more important things to talk about than only two verses in the Bible on which I should base and build my whole life. And perhaps that’s what God thinks about: What are the important things on which we build our lives?

What on earth is this man saying? Allow me to sum it up as follows.

Because it was God’s purpose to veil or shroud the virgin birth of his Son in a cloud of mystery, he deliberately and covertly included only two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible. The reason He did this was because He feared that mankind would interpret the virgin birth of his Son in a literal way only. That would be too condescending and a travesty of man’s freedom to interpret the Bible in any which way he pleases. In fact, by the inclusion of only two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible He was thinking to accommodate the post modern scholars, pastors and church clergy who, by virtue of ultra modern scientific evidence, no longer have a pre-modern mindset (flat earth worldview) like that of Jesus and his disciples. The two-versed virgin birth in Scripture presents them with a new found liberty which allows them to spread wings of metaphorical and poetic beauty so that they may fly soothingly into a dark mist of apostasy.

To prevent an only literal interpretation He — this God who is found in the dust of insecurities, double-talk, inconsistencies paradoxes and amongst ordinary people — included only two verses in his Word so that man may feel free to interpret it in a metaphorical and/or poetical way as well. That too can help us to speed up our downward spiral into apostasy. The million dollar question, of course, is why He didn’t have his prophets and disciples include hundreds or even thousands of verses on the virgin birth in the Bible? Why didn’t He? Well, maybe the following explanation will help you understand this little enigma a lot better. If God had included more than two verses about the virgin birth in the Bible no one, not even Theo Geyser, would have been able to question God’s track record of never ever telling lies. However, less than four or three makes Him vulnerable to criticism and the liability that He is quite capable of telling lies. Three or four verses could have been a better foundation on which to build our lives and our faith, but only two? . . . . Nah! no one can build his life and faith on only two verses because that alone cannot convince us that God never tells a lie.  The fact is, even if He had included more than two verses on the virgin birth in the Bible, man’s deceitful and desperately wicked heart would have caused him to give birth to some other brilliant reason for not believing in a literal virgin birth. So, what the heck, give them two verses only.

The main reason, however, why God included only two verses on the virgin birth in the Bible, is because it, together with the salvation of mankind, are not the most important things to talk about. Surely, they do not need a virgin birth and its inextricable connection to salvation when there are more important things to talk about, things like how we should build our lives.

The emergent brotherhood of two-versed virginity fame has the audacity to question the veracity of only two verses in the Bible but do not care a hoot to take only one word and embroil their whole argument against the virgin birth around it. In the opening scene of the program it was said that the Hebrew word “Almah,” which is used to describe Mary, means “young woman of marriageable age.”

Recently some Christians have started questioning this literal interpretation of the birth. According to them the textual tradition isn’t ironclad. The Hebrew word “ALMAH” is used to describe Mary which translated means young woman of marriageable age. The churches we spoke to are divided on the issue. There is no definitive answer coming from the Christian community. Why is it then that the virgin birth constitutes one of the cornerstones of Christianity and is repeated Sunday after Sunday in many Christian churches as part of the apostolic creed.

To understand their grossly distorted view and the discrepancies in their argument against a virgin birth we need to take into account the post modernists’ morally bankrupt view on the necessity for purity (virginity) before marriage. How can you expect them to have a biblical view on virginity before marriage when they have no qualms whatsoever about homosexuality? You see, the primitive pre-modern view with regard to marriage amongst God fearing Jews was that women should remain a virgin until she got married. If not, she was summarily stoned to death. Was this not the reason why Mary’s betrothed was willing to divorce her?

Barnes says:

Adultery has always been considered a crime of a very heinous nature. In Egypt, it was punished by cutting off the nose of the adulteress; in Persia, the nose and ears were cut off; in Judea, the punishment was death by stoning, Lev 20:10; Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40; Joh 8:5. This punishment was also inflicted where the person was not married, but betrothed, Deu 21:23-24. In this case, therefore, the regular punishment would have been death in this painful and ignominious manner. Yet Joseph was a religious man – mild and tender; and he was not willing to complain of her to the magistrate, and expose her to death, but sought to avoid the shame, and to put her away privately.

“The word “ALMAH” may very well refer to a young woman of marriageable age but what many so-called Christians fail to acknowledge is that the young marriageable women in the ancient Jewish, pre-modern, primitive, unscientific age were — unlike today’s post modern highly sophisticated and super scientifically superior age — expected to be chaste and pure before their marriage, or else they were stoned to death. Apart from this, the word in ancient Hebrew does not only mean a young woman of marriageable age but also refers to a young maiden who is a virgin. Once again, let’s listen to what Barnes says:

The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one “in the unmarried state;” Gesenius, that it means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed the word בתולה  bethûlâh, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was “then” unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us to understand it of one who was “not then married,” and who was, therefore, regarded and designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it ‘virgo.’ The Septuagint, η αρθένος  hē parthenos, “a virgin” – a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew בתולה  bethûlâh in Exo 22:16-17; Lev 21:3, Lev 21:14; Deu 22:19, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:28; Deu 32:25; Jdg 19:24; Jdg 21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius’ Concordance); of נערה  na‛ărâh, a girl, in Gen 24:14, Gen 24:16, Gen 24:55; Gen 34:3 (twice); 1Ki 1:2; and of עלמה  ‛almâh, only in Gen 24:43; and in Isa 7:14.

I’m sure if you asked Theo Geyser whether he believed that Jesus died for his sins on the cross he would immediately say: YES! of course. My next question would be: How does that tie in with your paradoxical view that a metaphorical and poetic view of the virgin birth is just as true and valid as a literal view of Christ’s virgin birth? A metaphorical and poetic view of his birth would inevitably lead to a metaphorical and poetic crucifixion and subsequently also a metaphorical and poetic death for the sins of the world. Imagine someone having to appear before God’s judgment seat saying: “I never believed in a literal virgin birth but I have always believed in a metaphorical and poetic view thereof. I guess that makes me a sinner whose sins have been paid for metaphorically and poetically on the cross. Therefore I am a full-blooded metaphorical and poetic saint which gives You (God) the boldness not to cast me into a metaphorical and poetic hell but to grant me entrance into the blissful glories of your metaphorical and poetic heaven. Guess what God is going to say to this metaphorically and poetically forgiven sinner?

How do these metaphorical and poetic phantasmagoria believers in a metaphorical and poetic virgin birth read their Bibles? Surely they must have read, if ever, in the Old Testament that the lamb slain at Passover had to be without blemish which clearly shows that the Lamb of God to whom the Passover lamb pointed in advance had to be blameless, sinless and without any stain or blemish of sin. Our post modern ultra scientifically educated scholars are forever reminding us that we should read Scripture in its proper context. Are they doing what they are preaching? You must be joking! If they had remained faithful to their own golden rule of proper context they would at least have noticed that the entire sacrificial system in Leviticus categorically states that the Lamb of God had to be sinless. There is no man born of the seed of a man and a woman who is without sin. We are all born in sin. We all enter this world tainted by sin. There is only one Person who could pay in full for our sins and that is a completely sinless and yet fully human Person – Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God who is God Himself and equal with his Father, and hence his virgin birth. Anyone who claims he/she is saved and a Christian and rejects a literal virgin birth is deceived and needs to repent of their evil disbelief/unbelief so that God may pardon and save them.

Instead of asking “What does God think of us” we should rather ask “What does God think of false followers of Christ and false apostles and teachers?” Listen to what Paul says:

Theo Geyser and his buddies at Invia in Stellenbosch, the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg and on e-church may venture to find a virgin birth that satisfies and includes everyone’s whim, they will never find one. But then again, they have enough time to seek for one because in their spirituality the spiritual journey is more important than the destination. So heaven and hell can wait because they are endlessly seeking for a virgin birth that is not divisive but will bring everyone together in their glorious utopia which they call the Kingdom of God. May God have mercy on their pitiful souls.

Members of the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesbburg, of the INVIA community in Stellenbosch and of the e-church website, how long are you going to follow these false apostles and teachers? They are not leading you to an euphoric Kingdom of God here and now; they are leading you straight to hell and I assure you it is NOT a metaphorical and poetic place; it is real and it  is indiscribably terrible and it is eternal. Don’t let Rob Bell and his buddies whose LOVE supposedly WINS tell you that everyone is going to heaven, even those who remain unrepentant unto death. Its a lie from the pit of hell itself.

Idolatry: Can the blind lead the blind?-Part 3

In the Emerging Church’s pantheon of idols there is one chief idol that overshadows all the others. His/her/its name is PARADOX. On page 32 of his book “New Dreams for New Realities” Nelus Niemandt defines PARADOX as follows.

Paradoxes mean that two things, that seem to contradict one another, are simultaneously true and valid. It is a case of “the one and also the other.” We live in such an “and/also” world. The one thing is true and also the other. Opposites are both true and valid. Life and reality can no longer be placed or explained in black/white categories.

The oldest known PARADOX is the one in Genesis 2 and 3.

GOD:  . . .  thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die (Genesis 2: 17)

SATAN: Ye shall not surely die: . . . (Genesis 3:5).

According to the Emergent “Confusionists,” or rather “ Crazy Mixed-up Kids,” what God and Satan said are both true and valid.

See if you can spot the paradox in the following statement:

The Gospel of emerging churches is not confined to personal salvation; it is social transformation arising from the presence and permeation of the reign of Christ. – Eddie Gibbs & Ryan Bolger (as quoted in Stephan Joubert’s book “Jesus, a Radical Leap”,” p 152)

If personal salvation is the only means to transform a person’s innermost being, to the extent that you become a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17), then it is impossible to transform an entire society without confining your gospel to personal salvation. If a journey begins with the first little step then surely the transformation of entire societies begins with the transformation of the individual. Societies are made up of unique individuals who need to be transformed individually before entire societies can be transformed. Could that great city Nineveh have been transformed if its King and every subordinate had not repented toward God and his Gospel individually? Nay! saith the contemplative brotherhood who have learnt to speak the first language of God in silent solitude, we are able to transform entire societies without having to preach the Gospel of personal salvation. We only need to incarnate or permeate societies with Jesus Christ’s presence and his reign (Kingdom of God).OK! and how do you aim to do that? Well, as Ron Martoia said so eloquently:

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, (What he should have said, is:  ”. . . and recognize that they are not there [in hell] yet). (Emphasis added). (Read here.)

And as Stephan said with equal contemplative clarity:

[The] “standing up for the truth” efforts of religious people have no real healing effect on society. It only serves to highlight the boundaries between “us” and “them.” It makes religious folks come across more judgmental than ever. But it does not embody Jesus’ words that we need to let our light shine before people in order for them to see our GOOD WORKS and glorify our heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16).

If ever there was a Joubert-Paradox, this is it. Allow me to explain. The word of God says: “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20). In other words, anyone who fails or refuses to stand up for the truth or contend for the faith that was once delivered to us by the apostles, is completely void of any light. Indeed, his/her life is goverened by darkness. And yet the Joubert paradoxical tension between to apparent contradictory things is stretched to its limits when Joubert says that they who do not stand up for the truth are the true light-bearers in this world.

Stephan Joubert quotes Jim Henderson in his book Jesus a Radical Leap (p. 150) who said:

It’s not the number of conversions that count; it’s the number of conversations! (Evangelism Without Additives, 2007) (Emphasis added)

Fancy that! That’s exactly what Peter said on the Day of Pentecost?

“Ok, I really don’t want any of you to get caught up in numbers. I am not concerned about the number of conversions. It’s the conversations amongst you that count. So please, would you be so kind to form little groups of 10 people, 300 groups in all, and begin to converse with one another about your contemplative journey as well as your never-ending quest for the truth.  Remember! There are no absolutes. It is always one truth AND/ALSO another truth that seems to contradict the other but are in fact both true and valid. Therefore salvivic belief in God and his Son is a valid response to His Gospel but so is the rejection of God and his Son equally valid. I also would like to warn you against any arrogant claims that you have stumbled upon the ultimate Truth. Such arrogance only leads you to stand up for the Truth which has no real healing effect on society.”

Imagine the angels in heaven shouting with joy over the number of conversations sinners are having amongst themselves in stead of over the conversion of one sinner (Luke 15:10). This is the kind of nonsense you have to put up with when you start altering the Word of God to accommodate the cultures of the world.

And then, of course, there is  Brian McLaren whose glorious statements exceed the wisdom to overflowing of the emergent at the Mosaiek and e-church:

“Jesus seems to say, ‘The kingdom of God doesn’t need to wait until something else happens ^{(in reference to the Second Advent of Jesus Christ).} No, it is available and among you now…. Invite people of all nations, races, classes, and religions to participate in this network of dynamic, interactive relationships with God and all God’s creation!” . . .  the kingdom of God will be radically, scandalously inclusive. As we’ve seen, Jesus enjoys table fellowship with prostitutes and drunks . . . He affirms and responds to the faith of Gentiles.¹

If the truth with regard to the salvation of individual lost sinners are no longer sufficient for the transformation of societies, what is? Ah! don’t fret because the brotherhood of contemplatives who have learnt to speak the first language of God in silent solitude have found the answer to this complex problem in . . . in . . . in . . . YES! BUDDHISM.

The Emergent Church has an insatiable obsession to care for the poor, the destitute, the downtrodden, the marginalized, the outcast and the suffering in our world. Like Mother Teresa whom they revere greatly for her work amongst the poor in Calcutta, India, they too have a passion to alleviate and even put an end to the suffering of the poor. Jesus Himself said that the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him because He anointed Him to preach the Gospel to the poor (Luke 4:18). Please note, He did not say that He was anointed by the Holy Spirit to put an end to their suffering and poverty (John 12:8), but to preach the Gospel of salvation to them. Neither did He say that He wanted to teach them the contemplative art of conversations but to preach the unadulterated Word of God to them so that they may be saved for all eternity. Who are the poor? In Matthew 5:3 the “poor” are categorically identified as “the poor in spirit” with reference, not necessarily to the poor only, but to every person who knows and acknowledges that there is nothing in himself to please or appease God and therefore must rely entirely on the mercies of God. The man who beat on his breast and cried out in complete abandonment “Be merciful to me a sinner” was a tax collector (publican) who filled his pockets with filthy lucre and therefore was not poor. If Jesus focused his attention on the poor only it would follow that they alone are the lost because He came specifically to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). All the others, the rich, the religious and the have-all’s would have been left-out of his mercy-mission to the lost which is completely untenable.

So how does the emergent fraternity’s compassion for the poor tie in with Buddhism? Let’s begin with Richard Rohr (I refuse to call him Father Richard Rohr in obedience to Jesus Christ who commanded us NOT to call anyone “father” in the spiritual sense of the word  . . . “for One is your Father, even He who is in heaven” [Matthew 23:9]). Richard Rohr, who together with personae like Eckhart Tolle is greatly honored and respected by the e-church fraternity Dries Cronjé and Stephan Joubert, was one of the key speakers at a conference in January 2008, in Albuquerque, on “Jesus and Buddha: Paths to Awakening: Finding the Four Noble Truths in the Heart of the Gospel.” (Emphasis added).

You may recall how I briefly sketched the journey the Gautama Buddha undertook on his quest for enlightenment with regard to the reasons for the suffering in the world. Just as a reminder I would like to repeat what I had said in my previous comment (Idolatry: Can the blind lead the blind-Part 1)

At the age of 29, Siddhartha abandoned his palace, his wife and his son on a quest to find the truth about suffering. He later teamed up with five companions with whom he decided to live an austere life of asceticism. They believed they could reach enlightenment through deprivation of worldly goods, including food and through acts of self-mortification. . . .

When Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha and his companions realized that their severe deprivation of food quite naturally leads to death (the Buddha’s consumption of a leaf or a nut per day nearly caused his death), they resorted to the Buddhist Middle Way, a path that allowed them to lead a more moderate way of self-mortification. Wikipedia notes:

Following this incident, Gautama was famously seated under a pipal tree – now known as the Bodhi tree – in Bodh Gaya, India, when he vowed never to arise until he had found the truth. . .

According to Buddhism, at the time of his awakening he realized complete insight into the cause of suffering, and the steps necessary to eliminate it. These discoveries became known as the “Four Noble Truths,” which are at the heart of Buddhist teaching. Through mastery of these truths, a state of supreme liberation, or Nirvana, is believed to be possible for any being. The Buddha described Nirvāna as the perfect peace of a mind that’s free from ignorance, greed, hatred and other afflictive states, or “defilements” (kilesas). Nirvana is also regarded as the “end of the world,” in that no personal identity or boundaries of the mind remain. In such a state, a being is said to possess the Ten Characteristics, belonging to every Buddha. ((Emphasis added).

You may read a summary of the Four Noble Truths here. I am not going to discuss each Noble Truth separately but would like to draw your attention to the fourth Noble Truth that says the following:

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

There is a path to the end of suffering – a gradual path of self-improvement, which is described more detailed in the Eightfold Path. It is the middle way between the two extremes of excessive self-indulgence (hedonism) and excessive self-mortification (asceticism); and it leads to the end of the cycle of rebirth. The latter quality discerns it from other paths which are merely “wandering on the wheel of becoming”, because these do not have a final object. The path to the end of suffering can extend over many lifetimes, throughout which every individual rebirth is subject to karmic conditioning. Craving, ignorance, delusions, and its effects will disappear gradually, as progress is made on the path.

The end of suffering, therefore, will be accomplished by the Four Noble Truths which, according to Richard Rohr and his contemplative accomplices are found at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If it is true that the Four Noble Truths and its aims are akin to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then there are no boundaries between the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Kingdom of God. And that’s exactly what one of e-church’s gurus, Eckhart Tolle, teaches.

The End of Suffering

To recap what Eckhart Tolle said about the Kingdom of God, the following excerpt will suffice:

When you are ready to hear that message, and that’s really the message that is in every religion – the central message of Buddhism is the end of suffering and even the central message of the teaching of Jesus is finding the pearl of great price, finding the Kingdom of Heaven that is within you here and now as Jesus says –  . . . that of course is the end of living in a state of suffering.

So!  . . . to a very large extent the poor are the originators of their own suffering and the only way to end their self-inflicted suffering is to teach them how to contemplatively meditate themselves into a state of a bigger metanoiac mind so that they may become aware that the Kingdom of God is already in them, here and now. Don’t teach them to repent because that word has become such bad news, especially when weird characters in long overcoats tell you to turn or burn, as Trevor Hudson says, but rather tell them to repent in the beautiful sense of the word which is accomplished through contemplative spirituality.

What is self-inflicted suffering? In South Africa, and I reckon elsewhere in the world as well, poverty and self-inflicted suffering are caused, amongst other things, by gambling, drug and alcohol addiction. Many heads of families amongst black and white citizens alike have good jobs and are quite capable of caring for their families and themselves but have fallen into the abyss of gambling, drug and alcohol addiction, The result, of course, is not only an endless downward spiral into a pit of self inflicted suffering for the head of the family but also for his wife and his children. But please remember, as Eckhart Tolle says, his self inflicted suffering is not caused by his craving for drugs and/or alcohol; his “self-created suffering is created out of resistance to what is, it is created out of an interpretation of something that is. It comes from a thought, from an interpretation, not from the situation.” And so, his self inflicted suffering will only come to an end when he is taught, through contemplative spirituality, that he does not need to seek and find the Pearl of Great Price but that the Kingdom of God is already within Him, here and now. Who needs Jesus of Nazareth when you have a great guru like Eckhart Tolle who teaches that you can conjure up the Kingdom of God in you here and now by merely ending your own suffering and changing your thougt patterns in relation to the moment of NOW (what is)? And this is the man Stephan Joubert and Dries Cronjé of e-church reveres with so much idolized delight?

Is contemplative spirituality just another form of idolatry? To answer this question I would like to take you back to Trevor Hudson’s sermon “Letting God be God in your life again” where he defines idolatry as follows:

Trevor Hudson’s definition of idolatry is spot-on but he seems to have forgotten what he had read in Acts 17 verse 29:

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. (Acts 17:29).

Please bear this in mind when I quote to you a few excerpts from Trevor Hudson’s book ”Discovering our Spiritual Identity: Practices for God’s Beloved” (pp. 93-95) and decide for yourself whether he is promulgating idolatry in the form of “an image formed by the art and imagination of man.”

THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS MADE ACCESSIBLE THROUGH THE PRESENCE OF THE CRUCIFIED AND RISEN CHRIST, AND THIS PRESENCE NEEDS TO BE INVOKED IN ORDER FOR US TO EXPERIENCE THE KINGDOM.

Can you think of some external sign which, if strategically placed in your home or place of work, would encourage you to be more mindful of God’s nearby presence?

TURNING IN A CHRIST WARD DIRECTION

The meaning of the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, once again helps us here. It means “thinking about our thinking.” Whereas prior to conversion we lived our lives without reference to Christ, there is now the desire to let him be the center of our thinking and living. Regularly turning our minds toward him is one practical way of ensuring that this happens.

This does not mean thinking only about the Holy One all the time. This could have disastrous consequences concerning the tasks we have to accomplish. I like the story which David Sheppard, bishop of Liverpool. tells about himself. He was play­ing in a crucial cricket test match between Australia and England. He had recently been ordained as a priest. In the outfield he dropped a vital catch. An Australian spec­tator shouted at him from the stands: “Hey, parstor, keep your eye on the ball and take your mind off God:’

We direct the mind Christward by fre­quently affirming the closeness of the Di­vine Presence. Whether washing dishes, doing housework, sitting in the board­room. working on the factory floor or typ­ing reports, we acknowledge God with us wherever we are. These repeated affirma­tions may find their shape in a short prayer inwardly whispered, the recall of a biblical phrase, a silent pausing. Sometimes just re­peating the name of Jesus centers our lives in that portable inner sanctuary where the Most High dwells. This way of invoking the presence of Christ is made known through an easy-to-read little book called The Way of the Pilgrim. It tells the story of a Russian pilgrim peasant who repeated the name of Jesus wherever he went and describes the experiences that resulted from this practice.

With these little affirmations” we are not trying to generate or manufacture the presence of God. The bottom line has al­ready been clearly established: in God we live and move and have our being. Or as Paul elsewhere reflects, “in him all things hold together” (Colossians 1:17). Develop­ing the practice of this mental habit means we are taking this truth seriously and act­ing boldly on it. There come times when dark circumstances, painful relationships and feelings of spiritual barrenness will mock our attempts at this practice. In such moments. continuing with our affirma­tions demonstrates a trusting faith that there is nothing “able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord’ (Romans 8:39 MV).

Habits of holy mindfulness are not eas­ily formed. In their awkward early stages they need all the help they can get. Tangi­ble symbols of the Holy help us in this re­gard. Orthodox Russian believers place an icon in the corner of each room that communities a sense of the sacred to anyone who enters. A business executive friend of mine writes out a biblical verse on his desk­top pad. A stay-at-home mom 1 know plays a music tape of Taize chants while she dusts and sweeps. (Emphasis added).

Why do you need to invoke the presence of the crucified and risen Christ when He has already promised that He would never leave or forsake his true followers? The irony is that Trevor Hudson refers to Matthew 28: 20 (p. 91) where Jesus made his immutable and infallible promise “And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” but then completely neutralizes the potency of Christ’s promise by declaring that his presence needs to be invoked in order for us to experience the Kingdom of God. It’s more like saying: “Christ’s promises are irrevocably steadfast and true but we need to invoke his promises in tangible ways in order for us to experience his presence.” And how do they aim to do that? Well, Hudson himself says that his presence cannot be generated or manufactured but that tangible symbols such an icon in the corner of each room in your home or Taize chants are little affirmations that strengthen your faith in his promises. When Jesus asked his disciples whether they also wanted to turn their backs on him and leave, Peter said: “Lord, to whom shall we go? you have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68). He did not say: “Lord, give each of us a little icon of yourself and we will place it in a strategic corner of our home to serve as little affirmations of your words of eternal life. We desperately need to direct our minds Christ-ward by frequently affirming the closeness of Your Divine Presence” No! Jesus Christ’s words (promises) are sufficient to carry his disciples through the debris, problems, inconsistencies and complexities of this world right into the hereafter of eternal bliss and into the never-ending presence of God. Did He not say that his followers should remind Him of his promises (Isaiah 62:6), not that He had forgotten them but that they should know and understand that it is the only way of affirming his promises? His promises are not affirmed by means of external signs (Matthew 16:4), icons or chants but through his followers’ steadfast faith in his promises and their unwavering clinging to his promises, even to the extent that they remind him of his promises day and night. This, however, poses a huge problem for the emergent fraternity, because they do not see the Word of God as a book of certitudes or certainties. To them the Bible (God’s Word) is in flux; whatever it says to you today is not necessarily what it may say to you tomorrow and yet both these sayings, although they may paradoxically seem to contradict each other, are both true. It follows that you can never be certain but merely grapple with Bible truths that seem to be true and valid for today. Hence the emergents’ never-ending quest for the truth on a spiritual journey that is said to be more important than the destination. Here’s what Johan Geyser said in a sermon he delivered at the Mosaïek Church.

Look what happened in the first church. Heathen are saved and now [when] they read [that] the old Christians believed that the covenant guys must be circumcised, the new male Christians said: we do not agree with you. We do not think it should happen and one wonders why. Then they said, Ok, let’s see what the Bible says. Then they took the Bible and they all began to wrestle and to think and talk together and when they had finished (Acts 15:25). they said: It seems right to us and to the Holy Spirit.”  Wow, one gets the impression that the entire future of the church relied on this decision. The only thing you could come up with is: “It seems right.” There’s no authority: Thus says the Lord. This is what the scriptures say. No! it looks to us. They are convinced but they are very humble. They are open. This is where we are now in our journey with the Lord. But let us go along with this thing. This is what the community is now convinced of. Our great peace is [that] the Holy Spirit has worked a great peace in everyone’s heart and we say: Yes, this is the path, this is the next step, this is where we are going. That journey hasn’t ended. We are being challenged by completely new things – new things that are not in the Bible, like cloning, oh we can go on forever [and] mention long lists. And what must we do? And in the community we must converse and we must all come to a place where we say: this is where I am now. This is my conviction and now I begin to act. And it’s a journey; it can change. Three or four years later it may be something different. It’s not wrong. The things are not solidified in concrete slabs. It’s a road we have to take.

The Rabbis have a prayer they pray when they do not understand the Bible. If there’s a verse they do not understand, they ask: Lord, please help me at the right time that this thing may open up to me so that I may know what its about. We must learn how to live with uncertainties; we must learn how to live with paradoxes. There are things I believe I do not know how to bring them together. Sometimes I feel that both the things are correct. That’s all I know and its OK. There’s mystery, there’s paradox, we do not know, we are on a journey.

This kind of gibberish usually ensues when you deliberately divorce God’s Word from his character. The Calvinists are guilty of the same thing. Single verse eisegeses has always been a risky business. You cannot take a single text and embroil an entire exegesis around it. First off, the disciples never said “It seems right to us and to the Holy Spirit.” In all the known translations of the Bible verse 28 of Acts 15 reads as follows.

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

The Holy Ghost is mentioned first and not the other way around as Johan Geyser suggested. It clearly shows that the Holy Spirit took the initiative in solving the entire dispute in Jerusalem and not the disciples. There are two diametrically opposing ways of approaching the problem. You can either ascribe to the Holy Spirit a sense of uncertainty, doubt, vagueness, indecision, hesitation, ambiguity, insecurity and even paradox or you can believe that God sent his Spirit of Truth (John 15:26) to guide and lead the followers of Jesus into the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth (John 16:13). If Jesus’ claim that He is the same yesterday, today and forevermore (Hebrews 13:8) is true then it follows that the Holy Spirit is also the same yesterday, today and forevermore. Being the same yesterday, today and forevermore, it is obvious that their words will also be the same yesterday, today and forevermore. The decision the disciples of Jesus made then — that circumcision was not essential for one’s justification — has never changed throughout the history of the church until the present day. It was ratified for all time by Peter when he stood up and said “We are saved, just as they are.” It was one of the most amazing statements any Jew could ever have made in the presence of Gentile believers. A Jew under the Law would rather have said the opposite and in reverse order (“they are saved as we are”), but a Jew who knew God’s grace, as Peter did, would never say that. Salvation for anyone — whether Jew or Gentile — is by God’s grace alone (verse 11) and is by faith alone (verse 9; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2”8). It is the same yesterday, today and forevermore.

To declare with absolute certainty that verse 28, by virtue of the word “seemed,” gives us the leeway to learn how to live with uncertainties and paradoxes, is a travesty of the worst kind and a misrepresentation of the character of God the Holy Ghost. In any case, the word “seemed” was not used in reference to the law of circumcision. The controversy over circumcision was already resolved in verses 7 to 11. The word “seemed” was used in reference to the abstaining from meat offered to idols, from blood and from things strangled and from fornication and NOT in reference to circumcision. (Acts 15:29). Surely, Mr. Geyser, fornication is not something to shun because it seems right to us and the Holy Ghost to avoid it. There are many unbelievers who live morally sound and good lives who would tell you that fornication is not a matter of uncertainty. They would tell you outright that it is wrong and a sin. You yourself mentioned the sin of fornication a man commits in his heart when he looks lustfully upon a woman, However, you failed to apply the same unchangeable rule to homosexuals in which case a man looks with lust upon another man and a woman looks with lust upon another woman. Did you have any reservations or uncertainties about the right or wrong of fornication then? No! you suggested with unflinching certainty that fornication was absolutely wrong in the past, is wrong in our present day and will be wrong in the future. Where’s your paradox now? You are obvioulsly not on a journey in reagrd to fornication with the purpose of wrestlng, thinking and talking about it with your fellow pilgrims and to come to a conclusion that it seems right to us and the Holy Ghost that fornication is a sin. By the by, how do you know with certainty that fornication is a sin? You and I know it is a sin because Jesus Christ tells us so in his Word (Matthew 5:28). If his words, in one particular place in Scripture, leaves no room for uncertainty why should his words do so in other places in Scripture? If there’s no paradox in his words in one place in Scripture why should there be any in another place?

If  your spirituality is built on a foundation of uncertainties and paradoxes and God’s Word is so much of a mystery to you that you can only say “I do not know,” then you will of necessity seek other extra biblical avenues to find some kind of affirmation of God’s presence. When biblical faith which “is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1) is replaced by visible and tangible little affirmations such as icons and music you are not busying yourself with God and his will but with downright idolatry.

---

1) Romans and Syrophonecians and Samaritans.” (Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus: Uncovering the Truth that could change everything (Nashville: Thomas Nelson’s W Publishing Group, 1006), page 74 & 94).

Idolatry: Can the blind lead the blind?–Part 2

In part 1 of this short series on idolatry and the vice grip it has on the Mosaïek Church in Fairland, Johannesburg, I ventured to parallelize their view of the dangers inherent in an over indulgence in materialism, consumerism and pleasure with the Buddhist view of overcoming these temptations through asceticism, meditation practices and the mortification of the so-called false self. All these spiritual aspects are inherent in contemplative spirituality and are practiced by its followers, i.e. meditation, silence, solitude, asceticism (in the form of retreats), labyrinths, chanting (droning).

As you may recall, my entire dissertation is an evaluation of Trevor Hudson’s sermon “Letting God be God” which he delivered on March 13 at the Mosaïek Church. The most alarming thing about his sermon is that he boldly refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ but very subtly redefines the word “repent” which is an indispensible requirement for the quickening (resurrection) of the sinner who is dead in sins and trespasses. Here, once again is how Trevor Hudson redefined repentance.

Repentance is not merely an authorization or stamp of approval for God to be God in your life again and for Him to take center stage in your life. True repentance involves a deep faith-bound acknowledgment that God’s doctrines with regard to sin, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, sanctification, holiness, judgment, eternal bliss in heaven and eternal punishment in hell are all god-breathed doctrines which you cannot, may not and dare not discard. Bishop Lesslie Newbigin (8 December 1909 – 30 January 1998) heralded the same principle of God needing to be the center of your life regardless of your dogmatic propensities. In an interview Andrew Walker had with him in 1988 he said the following.

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

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

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

The emergent fraternity have very little respect for God’s set boundaries as expressed in his eternal doctrines. Stephan Joubert, for instance, says:

[The] “standing up for the truth” efforts of religious people have no real healing effect on society. It only serves to highlight the boundaries between “us” and “them.” It makes religious folks come across more judgmental than ever. But it does not embody Jesus’ words that we need to let our light shine before people in order for them to see our GOOD WORKS and glorify our heavenly Father (Matthew 5:16).

The Truth embodied in Jesus Christ is supposed to “highlight the boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them.’” If Stephan Joubert follows Jesus Christ so very closely that even the dust off his feet falls on him, as he claims so robustly, then he ought to have heard him saying:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword! For I came to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A person’s enemies will be members of his own family.’ (Matthew 10:34-36)

Or perhaps he follows him so very closely that his metanoiac (big or bigger) mind is firmly set on the dust rather than on His words. The irony in his statement above is that darkness which is but the absence of light owes its very existence to a boundary demarcated separation from the light. It is the boundary between light and darkness that makes darkness to be darkness. Those who refuse to come to the light to have their sins reproved (John 3:20, 21) cannot possibly be counted amongst the “us” who are in Jesus Christ and his light, simply because they (“the “them”) are not in the Light (Jesus) but in darkness. There can be no fellowship between light and darkness unless those who are in darkness are willingly translated into the Light through faith and repentance towards Christ and his Gospel (doctrines) (2 Corinthians 6:14). Of course it doesn’t mean that I cannot have a cup of coffee at Mugg and Bean or socialize with unbelievers. It simply means that the believers cannot and may not compromise their faith in Jesus and his doctrines for the sake of engaging the unbelievers in an intimate relationship, especially in a spiritual relationship. The Author of this separation between “”us” and “them” is none other that Christ Jesus who is the Light and in whom there is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Stephen Joubert says that the religious people who “stand up for the Truth” have no real and lasting effect on society whilst God says that those who do the Truth (not good works) and come to the light to have their sins reproved when necessary are his true light bearers and NOT those who do not stand up for the Truth.

The emergent fraternity, in the face of overwhelming evidence in Scripture that the set boundaries for your belief (doctrines) must be obeyed, have no qualms to disregard biblical doctrine. I remember when I attended a conference in the Pierre van Ryneveld DRC on the 28th August 2009 where Ron Martoia and Nelus Niemandt were the key speakers I asked Ron Martoia the following question. My question was aimed at his statement that the church should be in the business of making better humans and not necessarily in the business of leading them to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

The bottom line is that we should make better humans? Am I correct in saying that?

[He shook his head in the affirmative]

I put it to you that Jesus did not come to the earth to improve humanity but to seek and to save the lost. The word “better” implies that the thing or person to be improved is already good. All religions take credit for making good people a lot better but there is only One who is able to save the lost. In 2 John 9 we are warned that biblical doctrine is extremely important and anyone who dares to run ahead of God (is not satisfied with what Jesus taught) does not have God or his only begotten Son. [A pregnant silence follows while Stephan, Ron en Nelus look at one another, possibly to demonstrate by example that silence is the first language of God. The audience begins to laugh.]

Stephan Joubert’s response was shocking, to say the least. He immediately took upon himself the role of mother hen whose duty it is to shield her chickens from harm and disallowed any further discussion when Ron Martoia failed to answer my question. He also made a comment on twitter which proves that he disqualifies 2 John 9 as a barometer for true salvation.

Weird to see how some show up at conferences only to find reasons to disagree with the speakers and nail them on websites. Why? (Emphasis added)

If they experience questions relating to biblical doctrine as being nailed to crosses then something is drastically wrong. If they truly love and follow Jesus Christ they should not feel threatened when asked simple questions on biblical doctrine. Nonetheless, in the past and even to this day they have proved to be in firm solidarity with Brian McLaren who disparagingly refers to the biblical doctrine of salvation and even dares to change the meaning thereof. Stephan Joubert who quotes him in his prizewinning book Jesus a Radical Leap and his echurch website frequently advertises his material. This is what Brian McLaren has to say about repentance and salvation.

“Perhaps our ‘inward-turned, individual-salvation-oriented, un-adapted Christianity’ is a colossal and tragic misunderstanding, and perhaps we need to listen again for the true song of salvation, which is ‘good news to all creation.’ So perhaps it’s best to suspend what, if anything, you ‘know’ about what it means to call Jesus ‘Savior’ and to give the matter of salvation some fresh attention. Let’s start simply. In the Bible, save means ‘rescue’ or ‘heal’. It emphatically does not mean ‘save from hell’ or ‘give eternal life after death,’ as many preachers seem to imply in sermon after sermon. [Tom Lessing: Do you hear echoes of Trevor Hudson's sermon "Letting God be God again?"] Rather its meaning varies from passage to passage, but in general, in any context, save means ‘get out of trouble.’ The trouble could be sickness, war, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment, or any kind of danger or evil.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, p. 93).

Well, I feel like a fundamentalist who is losing his grip—whose fundamentals are cracking and fraying and falling apart and slipping through my fingers. It’s like I thought I was building my house on rock, but it turned out to be ice, and now global warming has hit, and everything is crumbling. That’s scary you know? I went ro seminary right out of college, and it was great, and 1 thought I was getting the truth, you know, the whole truth and nothing bur the truth. Now I’ve been a pastor for fourteen years, and for this last year or so I feel like I’m running out of gas. It’s not just burnout.. It’s more like I’m losing my faith—well, not exactly that, but I feel that I’m losing the whole framework for my faith. You know, l keep pushing everything into these little cubbyholes, these little boxes, the little systems got in seminary and even before that—in Sunday school and summer camp and from my parents. But life is too messy to fit. And I’m supposed to be preaching the truth, but I’m not even sure what the truth is anymore, and—that’s it, really, I just feel dishon­est whenever I try to preach. (A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey, p. 12) (Emp[hasis added).

They are quick to silence someone who points them to the Truth (in 2 John 9) but have no misgivings about being in cahoots with a guru who admits that he’s not so sure what the truth is anymore and who feels that he's lost the whole framework of his faith. Have they gone crazy?

True repentance embraces the entire Gospel and counsel of God and encourages the repentant to respond to it in faith. And yet the emergent fraternity are constantly redefining and changing the core biblical doctrines that relate to repentance and salvation. Rob Bell says:

“And then there is exclusivity the other side of inclusivity. This kind insists that Jesus is the way, but holds tightly to the assumption that the all-embracing, saving love of this particular Jesus the Christ will of course include all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum.

 

As soon as the door is opened to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, and Baptists from Cleveland, many Christians become very uneasy, saying that Jesus doesn’t matter anymore, the cross is irrelevant, it doesn’t matter what you believe, and so forth.

Not true.
Absolutely, unequivocally, unalterable not true.”

Regrettably, this is one of the paradoxes that is forced upon the church today — Yes! Jesus is the way (please note: he does not say the “only Way”) which represents the exclusionary side of the coin but his all-embracing, saving love “includes all sorts of unexpected people from across the cultural spectrum” which represents the inclusionary side of the coin. It is a dualistic Gospel in which a biblical repentance “has become such bad news” that it needs to be stripped of its bad association with fire and brimstone preachers in long overcoats who warn people to “turn or burn.” The dangerous dualism in their contemplative spiritualty is summed up perfetly by Stephan Joubert who said:

He (Rob Bell) says you must engage the culture. I must listen to the Buddhists. You must hear what those guys have to say. Then Christians get a big fright because they do not hear clearly what Rob Bell says. He does not say, become like them; he says, read their stuff, find out why they are so important. They too might have truth. Truth is not only in Christianity. Truth can be found in Judaism. You can find truth in atheism. You can find truth in whosoever. God’s general revelation is a little wider, but you say Jesus is Lord. [Tom Lessing: Do you hear echoes of Trevor Hudson's sermon "Letting God be God again?"]

We must find new ways. We must give form to new ways. We must find new partners. We must listen when the biggest growing spirituality in the world is presently not Christianity. And then we musk ask, why not? Why does Buddhism grow the fastest? Why do they have what we don’t have? Why does the American Neurological Society, when 40 000 of the world’s neurologists come together, invite the Dalai Lama to address them? Why do they get the Dalai Lama, the head of the Buddhists? – Stephan Joubert in a sermon he gave at the Kemptonkruin DRC on 1st March 2009.

In part 3 we will be looking at the Emergent Church’s perception of the Kingdom of God and how it resembles the Buddhist view of the cessation of suffering.