A Biblical appraisal of the Mosaïek Conversations held at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg in Sept. 2010
What is the most water tight proof that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? PROPHECY! If we take into account that every single prophecy concerning the first advent of Jesus Christ, His birth, death on the cross, resurrection and ascension were fulfilled one hundred per cent, we may know with absolute certainty that all the prophecies relating to His Second Advent will also be fulfilled one hundred per cent.
The most alarming and saddening fact about His Second Advent is that it will be preceded by a great falling away (2 Thessalonians 2:3). This was foretold by Paul more than two thousand years ago. One would have expected the very opposite to be more feasible and that His followers would grow in grace and greater wisdom, especially when seen in the light of the great joy that awaits those who believe in Him and are expectantly waiting for His return at the Rapture. Sadly, this is not the case. The Emergent Church rejects the Rapture and are instead on a contemplative journey to establish the Kingdom of God on earth here and now Wow! No wonder Paul wrote:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools [professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves]. (Romans 1:22; Amplified Bible)
Ironically, the paraphrase of Romans 1:22 in “The Message” by Eugene Peterson (one of Stephan Joubert’s and the Mosaïek pastors’ heroes) describes exactly what they are doing on their emergent journey.
What happened was this: People knew God perfectly well but when they didn’t treat him like God, refusing to worship him, they trivialized themselves in stillness and confusion so that there was neither sense nor direction left in their lives.
Isn’t that uncanny? Although it was not Eugene’s Peterson’s intention, him being an emergent himself, to categorize the Emergent Church’s journey with his paraphrase of Romans 1:22, he did so unwittingly. Allow me to paraphrase Peterson’s paraphrase of Romans 1:22.
What happened is this: The Emergent Church knows perfectly well who God is but they don’t treat Him like God, refusing to worship Him the way He commanded them to worship Him in his Word (John 4:24; Hebrews 10:19-23). Instead they have trivialized themselves with practices like silence and stillness in their so-called contemplative prayers, believing that it (the stillness/silence) is the first language of God and that it brings them into the presence of God. This led to confusion known as the cloud of unknowing where nothing is certain any longer. Not even the propositional truths in God’s Word are relevant in our societies. (Stephan Joubert attests to this in his now famous declaration: “We need to stand up for the truth.” People like saying that. However, “standing up” is equal to religious protest for some. It is to unmercifully [and tactlessly] tackle sin and injustice. Does that help? No! I would be able to quote a couple of studies that show how those “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]). Their confusion has navigated them onto a journey that neither has sense nor direction. It leads to a futuristic kingdom of great imaginations and wishful thinking.
When speaking of the RAPTURE we are immediately touching on a topic that seems to be one of the most potent reasons for the falling away. More and more Christians who see themselves as biblically sound evangelicals are shunning the doctrine of the Rapture as mere escapism and opting instead for the notion that the Christian Church should take hands with other religions to make the world a better place or, as the EC fraternity refer to it, to bring in and to expand the Kingdom of God on earth. Rick Warren, as you know, was one of the most important personalities who spearheaded the GLOBAL PEACE PLAN which gave the quest for common ground between religions a huge lift-off on its palatability launching pad. Palatability is the key word to the successful inauguration of the Kingdom of God on earth, so they say. However, the great tragedy in the quest for common ground amongst all the religions is that the Christians are making all the major compromises while all the other religions refuse point-blank to betray their own doctrines. Nonetheless, the question we need to ask ourselves is whether those who are falling into the fathomless chasm of apostasy are Christians in the biblical sense of the word or are they unbelievers who are masquerading as disciples of Jesus Christ? (2 Corinthians 11:13, 14). I tend to believe that they are not genuine Christians and I say this on account of Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 7:10:
For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (Emphasis added).
A person who is truly born from above will never regret his or her salvation. They will never be dissatisfied with God’s propositional truths in his Word and venture to rethink and adapt it to suit the whims of men and their corrupt cultures. They refuse to walk in the old paths (Jeremiah 6:16) and have instead opted for new paths that are leading them to destruction.
One of Gautama Buddha’s famous sayings on his path or journey was: “It is better to travel than to arrive.” A well-known offshoot of this is the maxim: “Life is a journey, not a destination” or “It’s the journey, not the destination.” It reminds me of the hit song, Caravans, some time ago with the nostalgic chorus lyrics: “I don’t know where I’m going but I’m going.” It conjures up a picture of a group of desert nomads on a bunch of thirsty camels (a caravan, as it is known) on their way to nowhere. Can you imagine Moses singing the words “We don’t know where we’re going but we’re going” to the Israelites in the wilderness? You rarely find Emergent Church pastors preaching on heaven and hell as final destinations. Their main objective is to remind their audiences of the life they need to live here and now, this side of the grave. One may safely say that their sermons always lean heavily toward a Kingdom Now Theology than a Final Destination Theology. A good example is a sermon Stephan Joubert delivered at the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg on Sunday, 10 July this year. His sermon formed part of a series called “Our questions about . . .” in which several other preachers, amongst them Ron Martoia, Trevor Hudson, Manie Botha and Johan Geyser tackled topics such as “Our questions about the Bible;” “. . . about sin;” “. . . about heaven and hell;” “. . . about church” etc. In Stephan Joubert’s sermon on questions about heaven and hell it is evident from the very outset that he had no intention to present his audience with a biblical exegesis of heaven and hell. Instead, he used his sermon to defend Rob Bell’s highly controversial book “Love Wins” and guess what? . . . he begins his sermon by saying that Bell’s book “has more to do with life on this side than with life on the other side.”
The conversation about heaven and hell gained momentum a couple of months ago, especially in the USA, when the well-known preacher, writer and video maker, . . ., Rob Bell, wrote a book entitled “Love Wins.” The book wasn’t even published yet when the fat was already in the fire and sparked a conversation about whether he was a universalist, meaning that he believes in the salvation of all mankind after death. Now, interestingly enough, I think when I read the book, it has more to do with life on this side than with life on the other side. But it is evident that in America and perhaps also in South Africa peoples’ correct way of thinking is measured by what they believe about the other side and not so much about how they live and how they follow God on this side. [May I remind Stephan Joubert that Jesus, whom he claims to follow, placed an exceptionally high priority on the other side, i.e. His personal abode in heaven. Not only did He die on a cursed tree to make it possible for all mankind to escape the jaws of hell and to be with Him in heaven for all eternity; He also expressed a profound desire for all his true followers to be with Him in heaven when He said: "Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. (John 14:1-3). It is His heart’s desire that His true disciples be with Him where He is. Indeed, His entire mission in heaven at the right hand of God is to prepare a place for His true followers in heaven].
It is not my intention to evaluate Stephan Joubert’s sermon in the light of Scripture in this commentary. My main objective is to to deliver an in depth critique on the Mosaïek Church’s Conversations held on their premises last year in September. The reason I used a snippet from Stephan Joubert’s sermon is to show you to what extent Gautama Buddha’s maxim “It is better to travel than to arrive” has influenced the Emergent Church’s Kingdom Now philosophy. Furthermore, I used the snippet to prove to you that Stephan Joubert’s assumption that Rob Bell’s book “Love Wins” revolves mainly around this life and the way you live it, is totally wrong. In fact Rob Bell’s own introduction in the preface to his book, proves that Stephan Joubert has misread and misunderstood his book. Listen to this.
Bell’s book leaves its readers with the impression that Jesus came to this world to just love everyone, regardless of what they have done and what they are doing. Notice that Bell only quotes the first part of John 3:16 “For God so loved the world . . .” and conveniently omits the rest of the passage “so that everyone who believes on Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Jesus said that He came to this world to seek and to save the lost (Luke 19:10). If everyone eventually makes it to heaven because God just simply loves everyone, then His cross saves every person automatically without them having to believe in Him. Bell’s rendition of John 3:16 would then have to read as follows: “For God so loved the world that everyone may go to heaven.” Calvinists see the the cross of Christ in a similar way, i.e. that His cross saves the elect automatically without them having to believe prior to their regeneration. If the cross of Christ did not save all the elect automatically his death would have been a failure, so they say.
In Bell’s rendition of John 3:16 there is no mention of unbelievers perishing in hell because of their rejection of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18), simply because they get a second chance after death. God loves the world; yes that is true, but his love has purpose in it and that purpose is to save the lost who are on their way to hell. Those who reject his love and refuse to return his love with obedient and love cannot benefit from his saving love, not because He wants them to perish but because they have themselves chosen to bear the brunt of his righteous judgements. It is not a case of not wanting all sinners to be saved but one of sinners being unable to go to heaven because they prefer to live and die in their sins. Jesus said:
“. . . I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come. Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. (John 8:21-24)
Mosaïek Conversations: Session 1 “The movements of the Journey” – Johan Geyser
Let us now open the curtain on the first scene or session, written and choreographed by Johan Geyser. He calls it “The Movements of the Journey.” Guess what were the very first words that came from his mouth? Yep! you’ve guessed it! His first words were “Our life is a journey.” That’s it! Nothing more and nothing less. He may as well have said: “We don’t know where we’re going. That’s not so important. The thing that matters most is that we are on a journey.” Please note that Johan Geyser hardly or ever used the Bible as the only authoritative map for this journey but rather used Martin Buber’s drivel to describe their journey. Who was Martin Buber? In his book “Faith Undone” Roger oakland says of Buber:
Buber’s mysticism led him to believe that God is in all things and all things are God, that all paths lead to God because ultimately all is God. . . . mysticism is not just attracting the emerging church-it is the emerging church.
In Buber’s book Ecstatic Confessions: The Heart of Mysticism, he states:
There is no God apart from the world, nor a world apart from God . . . In the highest mystical ecstasy the Ego experiences that it has become God . . . Why not? . . . there ceases to be a difference between the world and myself. “That I become God.” Why not?
At the core of this journey, as Martin Buber coined it, is our on-going relational interaction with God, with others in our immediate community and with the world at large. According to Buber it can either be an “I-Thou” relationship or an “I-It” relationship. The “I-Thou” relationship is the ideal one because in it the “I” and the “Thou” are intrinsically interwoven and unified. Contrastingly the “I-It” relationship is an undesirable one because it is built on detachment and separation. If, as Johan Geyser said, relationships are the only things that last forever and the only things we can take with us, it is obvious that we should hanker for an “I-Thou” relationship rather than an “I-It” one. In fact, according to Buber, the “I-Thou” relationship, in which God is the eternal “Thou,” the relation between the individual (the “I”) and God (the eternal “Thou”) is a universal relation and foundational for all other relations. A genuine “I-Thou” relation with God fosters a real “I-Thou” or “I-You” relationship with the world, the result being a philosophy of personal and transpersonal dialogue or conversations as a means to define personal responsibilities and to lay the foundation for ethical inquiry (a quest for the truth). In layman’s terms this simply means that propositional truths like those we find in the Bible tend to create “I-It” relationships of detachment and separation whereas an “I-Thou” relationship enhances open dialogue and unity, as well as motivates the journeyers to find new compromised “truths.” That’s why the charlatan, Theo Geyser who is the brother of the other emergent charlatan, Johan Geyser, could say:
We’re actually in a desperate need, in the biblical narrative, to sort of get an inclusive thing. We need a virgin birth that gets everyone together and not divide us. (What does God think of us?- Broadcast on SABC2 on April 17, 2011)
I’ve heard about many fools who’ve tried to change the meaning of the many supernatural things (miracles) God has wrought throughout the ages, but never, never have I heard of a fool who would venture to change the virgin birth of Christ in such a way that it unites everyone into one big brotherhood of fools. Is it possible? Is it possible to change something that occurred more than two thousand years ago? Yes! the fraternal mystics in the Emergent Church would say. “We only need to sit quietly at the feet of our ‘Love Wins’ guru, Rob Bell, to learn how it is done.” And how does the “Love Wins” guru change the virgin birth of Christ into a paradigm shattering and unifying miracle? Listen to his Nooma video #15 and pay careful attention to his not so very subtle demotion of Christ’s virgin birth, death, resurrection and ascension. He says:
And so in the first century to claim that your god had risen from the dead and ascended into heaven just wasn’t that unique. The claims of these first Christians weren’t anything new.
If the first century Christians’ claims with regard to Christ’s virgin birth, death, resurrection and ascension weren’t that unique, what then did they regard as supremely unique in Christendom? Ah! the miracle to make this world a better place through service in stead of political or dictatorial coercion, as the Romans did — that is what makes Christ so unique. Theo Geyser’s plea that we should concoct a virgin birth that unites everything and everyone is already a fait accompli. How was it done? It was done by their big pal, Rob Bell, who unashamedly demoted Christ’s miraculous virgin birth to the infamous lie that all the other so-called gods (such as Mithra and Attis) allegedly also had a virgin birth. Now you can see why the emergents have placed such an high priority on relationships (an “I-Thou” relationship and not an “I-it” one) instead of on a biblical narrative of the virgin birth.
Buber believed that an “I-Thou” relationship with God can be experienced through silence and that anyone can have an “I-Thou” relationship with God through “I-Thou” moments with people, nature, art and the world. Frankly, this is a flagrant negation and rejection of God’s mediatorial work on the cross in order to remove the sin-barrier that caused the break in the original relationship between God and man. Johan Geyser does not deny this but says that it was primarily the disturbance of the relationship between God and man that introduced death into the earth and not the breaking of a command based on “Don’t do that . . . don’t do this.” Death entered. Yes, that is true, but Johan Geyser failed dismally to explain to his audience that life, God’s life in a person, can be restored through repentance and faith toward Him and His Gospel. Instead, as we shall see as we go along, his main concern was not to present the Gospel but a mystical path or journey to enhance a relationship that supposedly already exists between all men and God through a divine spark that allegedly resides in all men. All that needs to be done is to change relationships from an “I-It” relation to an “I-Thou” relation through dialogue and a true sense of interconnectedness and unity. Johan Geyser admits to the break in this relationship between God and man but brazenly denies that it was a breach of God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This is what he said:
It is clear from the very outset that Johan Geyser tried his level best to convince his audience that his point of departure was that of a Christian and to do so he said: “We think of our life as a journey with God. It’s with God!” The question is: Which God or God who? In fact, as already indicated, he does not open the conversation with God and the propositional truths in His Word, but with Martin Buber. Now, why would he do a thing like that? The answer is simple. It is to draw the alleged parallel lines between the Christian faith and Buddhism.
In his article, “Martin Buber and Asia” by Maurice Friedman (Philosophy East and West, 1976, Volume: 26, Pages: 411, SSN: 00318221) the author shows Buber’s “I-Thou” dialogue with Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism and how these on-journey encounters influenced the progression of his philosophy of “I-Thou” and I-It” relationships. Although Hinduism and Buddhism played an important part in the early development of his philosophical thinking, it was Taoism, Jewish Hasidism and Zen that continued to influence his later thought. Of these it was Taoism in particular, especially Wu Wei, (action of the whole being) that remained central to the “I-Thou” relationship. Wikipedia defines Wu Wei as follows:
The literal meaning of Wu Wei is “without action”, “without effort”, or “without control”, and is often included in the paradox wei wu wei: “action without action” or “effortless doing”. The practice of wu wei and the efficacy of wei wu wei are fundamental tenets in Chinese thought and have been mostly emphasized by the Taoist school. The aim of wu wei is to achieve a state of perfect equilibrium, or alignment with the Tao, and, as a result, obtain an irresistible form of “soft and invisible” power.
There is another less commonly referenced sense of wu wei; “action that does not involve struggle or excessive effort”. In this instance, Wu means “without” and Wei means “effort”. The concept of “effortless action” is a part of Taoist Internal martial arts such as T’ai chi ch’uan, Baguazhang and Xing Yi. It follows that Wu wei complies with the main feature and distinguishing characteristic of Taoism, that of being natural. To apply wu wei to any situation is to take natural action.
Here’s a question for you: How do you get Jesus to do the Taoist Wu-Wei whole being movements toward His Father, His circle of disciples and the world at large? Well, first of all you need to foster an “I-It” relationship with the Holy Bible, meaning of course that you must learn how to detach and separate yourself from the real meaning of the content and context of biblical passages the Holy Spirit intended to convey to its readers. Or at least, you must know how to rethink, rehash and repaint (aka Rob Bell) the eternal truths in the Bible. This is very important if you wish to develop a balanced and integrated Wu-Wei whole being movement toward God (not to find out what His will is but to be in His presence in a mystical “cloud-of-unknowing” sort of being of solitude and silence), toward your own inner circle (a communal whole movement being) and toward the world at large (a ministerial whole movement being, not to present lost sinners with God’s Gospel of salvation and sanctification but to dole out glasses of cold water because every single person already has a divine spark in his/her innermost being. Your ministry, therefore, is to teach the adherents to a vast diversity of religions [Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Witch Doctors etc.] that Jesus of Nazareth is already present in their innermost beings and that they only need to realize and become aware of it through mystical practices. Ask Johan Geyser’s twin brother, Theo, and Dries Cronje of e-church fame. They know it for a fact [Read here and here]).
As I already mentioned, it is of the utmost importance to foster an “I-It” relationship with Bible truths, simply because the Wu-Wei-whole-being-movements are entirely incompatible with patronizing, condescending and outrageous statements such as the following: “Do you think that I have come to give peace (unity) on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division (disunity) (Luke 12:51). Jesus must have said this when He was totally out of sync with the Taoist Wu-Wei whole being movement philosophy. But then again, we should realize that He too often moved from an “I-Thou” relationship to an “I-It” relationship. He was never consistent in his relationship with people. Luke 12:51 was one of his major “I-It” Wu-Wei movements. You cannot possibly do the Wu-Wei whole being dance with God, your community and the world at large when you have an “I-Thou” relationship with truths such as this. Nevertheless, let’s again listen to Johan Geyser’s incomparable WWW (Wu-Wei Wisdom).
Johan Geyser delivers his piéce de resistence about 20 minutes into his presentation. The ultimate purpose of the whole being movement toward God, your community and the world at large is to weave them into one unified integrated dimension of being. The ideal is to disallow any one of the dimensions to dominate the others. When this happens, that is when the fusion is complete, a fourth dimension suddenly emerges in your life. Suddenly your life is no longer limited to a three dimensional movement of being when you become aware that God is in everything, that He is everywhere and that He is at work everywhere.
Here we see that the movements of the journey are based on experience rather than pre-set dogmas or doctrines. The most disconcerting thing about Johan Geyser’s presentation is that he audaciously refers to Scripture to prove that Paul’s concern with the Church at Corinth was not so much about doctrine as it was with their consciousness (awareness) that their bodies were temples of God. Simply said, it was not God’s doctrine (propositional truth) that revealed to them that their bodies were temples of God but their own awareness, sparked by their whole being movements, which made them conscious of their bodies being temples of God. In other words, they had to experience the fourth dimension on this journey of movements toward God, the community and the world at large before they were able to know (become aware or conscious) that God is in everything and that everything is in God (panentheism par excellence). So the next time you want to persuade peoples’ of other religious persuasions that their bodies are already temples of God, don’t try to do that by quoting to them from the Bible (it only fosters an “I-It” relationship) but rather by making them aware of it through their whole being movements on their journey.
You will recall that Johan Geyser said at the beginning of his presentation that Adam and Eve’s fall and subsequent spiritual death was not the result of a command “don’t do this . . . don’t do that” but primarily through a break or malfunction in their relationship with God, themselves and the world. Simply put, they developed or created for themselves a dysfunctional reality, a reality governed by disunity, separation, division and disharmony. He then ultimately comes to the conclusion that it was not the Corinthians’ misunderstanding of a doctrine or dogma that kept them form knowing that their bodies were temples of God but a lack in their awareness or consciousness. The only means to rectify this was to awaken their consciousness (make them aware) to the fact that their bodies were the temples of God. How did Paul do it? He did not remind them of what God’s Law said in regard to fornication, according to Johan Geyser, but ventured to make them aware of the fact that their bodies were temples of God. The key to this, therefore, is not biblical doctrine but an awakening of consciousness through mystical practices.
This brings us to the ministering part of the whole movement being toward the world at large. It is evident that the EC’s ministry to the world has absolutely nothing to do with Christ’s command to make disciples of all the nations and to teach them to observe everything He has commanded us. A command equals a law and law demands observance and the act of teaching is all about telling people what to do and not to do. All these things wreak of control; it is too patronizing and condescending and divides mankind into us and them, holy and unholy, saved and unsaved. So let’s just get rid of the Law and teach people how to develop and exercise their awareness. What you must do, is make your fellowmen in the world aware of their own reality and to teach them how to live in that reality. I found the following on a Hindu site called Light Net Group, describing the purpose of cosmic awareness.
The awareness indicates it is all up to the observer as to what is important to him. The awareness indicates that the purpose of the awareness is to help entities become aware of those things that are happening in their realm of reality, in their world.
And in becoming aware, to become aware what is happening to them, the purpose of this awareness is also to help them to better understand their own place in the world of reality in which they reside, and what they themselves need to don in order to be ready for what is the reality they witness.
Eckhart Tolle’s interpretation of this “reality” is the “now” or “present moment” and how to live in it.
Now we can understand why the Emergent Church is more concerned about the journey and the movements of the journey than with the destination (which in essence is a Buddhist concept)? The destination is something that lies in the future and we have no control over the future. We may have no control over the future but God does and for us to live and be conscious only of the “now” without contemplating the future in the light of God’s word and his prophecies and not to be ready and prepared for it is not only foolish but downright dangerous. And speaking of prophecy: one of the most important prophecies in the Bible concerns the one about God’s future Kingdom on earth. This too, according to the Emergent Church, must be brought into the “now” and the way to do it is to panenthiastically universalize God’s presence (God is in all and all is in God). If God is in everything and everyone then His Kingdom is also already in everyone “here and now” and the way to experience it is NOT through the adherence and obedience to any kind or form of doctrine but through an “I-Thou” relationship with God and others. “Awareness” finds its strongest niche in experience and the latter in your own personal story or journey. So Eckhart Tolle’s advice is not to quote the Buddha, or to hope to achieve Buddha-like enlightenment at some point in the future, but to just be the Buddha, right here, right now. Similarly we are not supposed to quote and teach biblical doctrines but merely to be aware that Jesus Christ is already in everyone which makes any pointing to the future redundant. We don’t have to look to the future simply because we are already living and moving in God’s kingdom here and now. And that, my dear friends, is why the Mosaïek Church in Fairlands, Johannesburg cannot be called a Christian Church but is in fact a Buddhist retreat.
As we shall see later, especially in my critique on David Benner’s presentation “Contemplation and Transformation” the awareness of the “now” facilitates the awareness of the “I am” or “I amness” of the individual.
So, what’s to be done? Johan Geyser provides the answer when he says:
That’s precisely why his brother, Theo Geyser, could say with foolish boldness:
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, by condemning them and to get them on your side and sing a hallelujah chorus. 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? 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. (What does God think of us?– Broadcast on SABC2 on April 24, 2011)
