Is love without correction real love?

The following comment is in response to Rev. Guillaume Smit’s blog entry here and the progamme broadcast on Sunday 4 October on “Kruis en Dwars” (Radio Sonder Grense).

Proverbs 15:10

There is severe discipline for him who forsakes God’s way; and he who hates reproof will die [physically, morally, and spiritually].

2 Timothy 3:16 – 4:4

Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action), So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work. I CHARGE [you] in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, Who is to judge the living and the dead, and by (in the light of) His coming and His kingdom: Herald and preach the Word! Keep your sense of urgency [stand by, be at hand and ready], whether the opportunity seems to be favorable or unfavorable. [Whether it is convenient or inconvenient, whether it is welcome or unwelcome, you as preacher of the Word are to show people in what way their lives are wrong.] And convince them, rebuking and correcting, warning and urging and encouraging them, being unflagging and inexhaustible in patience and teaching. For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold, And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions. (Emphasis added)

One of the most infamous clarions of our post-modern pastors and shepherds is “Love one another regardless . . .” — regardless of how God’s Word is manhandled; regardless of how Jesus Christ is maligned; regardless of how the Christian faith is infiltrated by false apostles and teachers who mislead and lead the unsuspecting to the slaughterhouses; regardless of the proliferation of false doctrine in the church  . . . regardless. . . . regardless . . . regardless, ad infinitum. What kind of love is this? What should Christians do when they see their brothers and sisters heading for disaster when they are deliberately led astray by a bunch of wolves in sheep’s clothing? Should they lovingly and tenderly put their arms around them and say . . . ?: “My dear brother or sister, I love you dearly and would never hurt you in anyway. I respect your views and therefore am quite prepared to assist, encourage and even accompany you on your chosen spiritual journey.”

The unholy and unhealthy emphasis on this kind of love stems from an unholy and unhealthy aversion to biblical correction, reproof and exhortation. In fact, whosoever dares to correct, reprove and exhort the wayward Christian is immediately singled out as an unloving, uncompassionate and patronizing fundamentalist. I have often pointed out that true brotherly love cannot be separated from a love for and obedience to God’s Truth. John, the apostle of love, had no greater joy to see his spiritual children walk in truth (3 John 1:4). Shouldn’t he rather have been overjoyed to see them walk in love? No! there was no need for him to exhort them to walk in love because their walking in the truth was proof enough that they were already walking in love. When Jesus prayed His High Priestly prayer for his immediate disciples and all His disciples throughout the ages, He did not ask His Father to sanctify them in His love, but in His Truth (John 17:17), simply because sanctification in His Truth equals sanctification in His love —  and this is exactly why Jesus once said:

John 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments..
John 14:21 He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.”
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s.

Obedience to God’s Truth proves that you really love Him as well as His children. Despite these very serious warnings the enlightened emerging fraternity spurn absolute truth. Feigning humility they claim that no-one can know the truth and are inviting Christians to question their own belief. This is how Brian McLaren interprets love.

I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all!) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu or Jewish contexts . . . . rather than resolving the paradox via pronouncements on the eternal destiny of people more convinced by or loyal to other religions than ours, we simply move on . . . To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them whoever they are, to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love as mine has been entered by the Lord. (Emphasis added)

Once again we should ask ourselves the question: What kind of love is this, a “love” that disobeys Christ and his command to go into all the world and make disciples of all the nations, and to teach them to obey everything He commanded? It not only amounts to a false love but also a false humility. Jesus Christ did not become one of us to embrace other religions (Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or whatever) or to show His solidarity with them by joining them and enter into their world without judgement. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that everyone (of whatever religious persuasion) who rejects His cross (the power and wisdom of God) as the only way unto salvation, is continually living under the wrath of God.

John 3:36 And he who believes in (has faith in, clings to, relies on) the Son has (now possesses) eternal life. But whoever disobeys (is unbelieving toward, refuses to trust in, disregards, is not subject to) the Son will never see (experience) life, but [instead] the wrath of God abides on him. [God's displeasure remains on him; His indignation hangs over him continually.]

Jesus also said: “If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples (John 8:31). Those, like Brian McLaren and many other Emergent Church leaders, who assert that you can be a follower of Jesus without having to abandon your particular religion that denies Jesus’ deity, his virgin birth, his resurrection and ascension are flagrantly disobeying the One they claim to follow. What kind of love is this?

The most common reaction amongst post-modern preachers to Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible, eternal and absolute truth of God and that anyone can know the truth, is usually ridiculed and derogatively branded as fundamentalists who think they are the keepers and defenders of the faith — and of God. Dr. James Kirkpatrick, residential pastor of the South East Pretoria DRC and Chairman of the “Komitee vir Leer en Aktuele Sake” has probably appointed himself to the elevated position of defender of the post-modern belief that no one can claim to know  the truth of God absolutely. He had the following to say on the programme “Kruis en Dwars” (Radio Sonder Grense, 04/10/2009).

Questionnaire: James, do you think the church is sufficiently guiding believers to be emotional and intelligent when their faith is involved?

James Kirkpatrick: You know, I rather think, to answer the question, it will depend on what the church teaches the people about God, what it teaches people about the relation between the church and . . . the world at large, because if you convey the message that we are called to sort of defend God; we must intervene when God is sort of  attacked, then people are going to have that kind of reaction to think that they are advocates; they must intervene in behalf of God. If you present people with another image of God who does not need it and who is bigger and does not need to be defended by people, then that kind of conduct will be unnecessary. When you also consider again how people look at the truth as an absolute thing . . . that they alone have [the right to it], then they are going to react with that kind of emotion, because they are right and must tell the world what the truth is. But if you make them understand that each one of us see in part [only], that we have our perspective and that one must communicate with others with a a cautious and honest attitude so that the Gospel should not be discredited, [their attitude would change].

The most disturbing and baffling thing about James Kirkpatrick’s lecture on his own absolute truth that no one can claim to know absolute truth, is that he claims to be a guardian of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and is duty bound not to bring it into discredit. Perhaps he might not know it, but the “best” way to discredit the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to suggest to the world that He was a liar when He said: “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Worse still is his suggestion that He lied when He said: “But when He, the Spirit of Truth (the Truth-giving Spirit) comes, He will guide you into all the Truth (the whole, full Truth). For He will not speak His own message [on His own authority]; but He will tell whatever He hears [from the Father; He will give the message that has been given to Him], and He will announce and declare to you the things that are to come [that will happen in the future]” (John 16:13). Who is the liar? — Jesus Christ who conquered death on the cross, was buried but never experienced decay in the grave, rose again from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of God the Father or a man who is going to die and whose body is going to see decay while it is ransacked and eaten up by maggots? Shocking . . .? Perhaps . . .! but I sincerely hope this gives you an idea of what the difference is between God and man who audaciously demands that no one can know absolute truth. No wonder Psalm 2 says: “He Who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision [and in supreme contempt He mocks them]”

Those of you who may still have some vinyl records will know what I’m talking about. The slightest scratch in its grooves causes the record to get stuck in a monotonous repetition of some words in a song. The post-modern song of 1 Corinthians 13: 9 sounds like this — “For we know in part” – “For we know in part” — “For we know in part.” They are so heavily stuck in this groove that they conveniently forget the above passages I quoted from Scripture to prove that anyone can know the truth and nothing but the truth.

In order to say that no-one can know absolute truth with conviction, James  Kirkpatrick must of necessity regard his own opinion that no one can know God’s truth absolutely as an unquestionably absolute truth. Should he however, out of sheer post-modern humility, not regard his own opinion as an absolute truth, he must of necessity admit there is a possibility that mankind can indeed know and understand God’s absolute truth because his own belief cannot absolutely disprove that one can know God’s truth absolutely. Should he however regard his own opinion as an absolute truth then he has merely replaced God’s absolute truth with his own absolute truth and that, to say the least, is arrogance and conceitedness at its very best.

What did Paul mean when he said: “Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.” (1 Corinthians 13:8-10). He could not possibly have meant that mankind can only partly know God’s truth and therefore no-one can claim to have a monopoly on His truth and neither can anyone correct others whose opinions, perspectives, beliefs and interpretations are equally valid and truthful. Had Paul meant to say that we can only partly know God’s truth, especially in regard to salvation and sanctification, he would have contradicted Jesus Christ who said; “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” and ““But when He, the Spirit of Truth (the Truth-giving Spirit) comes, He will guide you into all the Truth (the whole, full Truth). For He will not speak His own message [on His own authority]; but He will tell whatever He hears [from the Father; He will give the message that has been given to Him], and He will announce and declare to you the things that are to come [that will happen in the future]” Paul simply compared the temporal means of conveying God’s truth, i.e. prophecy (preaching of the Gospel), tongues, and knowledge with the ultimate goal which is godly or divine love (agapao). Prophecy (the preaching of the Gospel), tongues and knowledge are merely temporal means to convey God’s truth, especially with regard to His salvation and sanctification of repentant sinners. These are all necessary parts of our temporal and broken world. Obviously these temporal means of conveying God’s truth will no longer be necessary in God’s eternal heavenly home. There only one thing will remain — God’s magnanimous divine love.

Another often repeated cliché used against fundamentalists is “There’s no need to defend God. He can defend Himself.” Apart from the fact that it is a silly and naive statement, it demonstrates an ignorance of biblical truth with regard to the command that Christians should earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). How are Christians supposed to contend for their faith? Well, read again the passage from 2 Timothy 3:16 – 4:4 I quoted to you in the beginning of my comment.

Metanoia – Part 2

Considering the fact that Jesus used the word “metanoia” in his very first public sermon, it is arguably one of the most important and potent words in the Bible. Having said that, we should be very careful how we interpret it and how we use it in our own evangelizing outreaches. Unfortunately the Emerging Church has very stealthily changed its intended meaning, not by changing its meaning per se but by changing its application, and a person who has contributed to this subtle change in meaning is Eugene Peterson, the author of the paraphrased version of the Bible, The Message. Like most Emergent Church devotees Dries Cronjé of e-church fame, regards The Message to be his favourite Bible paraphrase because it supposedly “uses language that’s compatible with the language we speak today to communicate the timeless truths of the Bible” . . . but does it faithfully portray the eternal and infallible truths in the Bible? I really don’t think so. To substantiate my confident affirmation that it is not a trustworthy paraphrase of God’s Word, I would like to quote the same verse Dries Cronjé used on his blog and compare it with some other translations of Mark 1:14 and 15.

After John was arrested, Jesus went to Galilee preaching the Message of God: “Time’s up! God’s kingdom is here. Change your life and believe the Message.” (The Message)

After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (New International Version)

Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” (New American Standard Bible)

Now after John was arrested and put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the good news (the Gospel) of the kingdom of God, And saying, The appointed period of] time is fulfilled (completed), and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent (have a change of mind which issues in regret for past sins and in change of conduct for the better) and believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to) the good news (the Gospel). (Amplified Bible) (Emphasis added throughout)

It is obvious that Eugene Peterson, in keeping with the Emergent Church’s doctrine of Kingdom Now Theology, deliberately changed the entire last sentence in this verse to convey their idea that God’s Kingdom is already here in our midst. The words “Times up” is a far cry from “the kingdom of God is near,” and “the kingdom of God is at hand.” If the Kingdom is already here, then we should stop praying the prayer Jesus taught us: Let thy Kingdom come, let thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.”  As we shall see, this infamous alteration of the meaning of Jesus original words inevitably leads to a change of meaning of the word “metanoia.” Listen carefully to what Dries Cronjé says in the following few paragraphs and you will immediately see what I mean. Read the entire article here.

The Greek word for “change your lives” in the verse above (which is also translated in other bible translations as ‘repent’) is metanoia.

It comes from two significant words. Meta means ‘after’ or ‘beyond’, and noia means ‘mind’. In it’s regular usage meta was also often used for the word ‘change’ (Thomas Moore explained this to me in his latest book, Writing in the Sand).

Therefore, true repentance or metanoia is to change your mind or to shift your vision. Jesus says we must metanoia and believe his message — a message of the kingdom of God being here, now. This kingdom is a new reality we can enter if we live according to the new kingdom instructions (or commands). What we need as a start is metanoia, something Thomas Moore calls a radical shift in vision.

Although Cronje acknowledges that “metanoia” is rendered as “repent” in other Bible translations, he emphasizes that the act of repentance actually means to radically change your vision which translates into a firm belief in — not the Gospel — but in the message of the Kingdom of God as being here now. This opens a whole new can of worms, simply because it facilitates their intention to steer away from the real meaning of “metanoia” as a radical change of mind and heart in order to enter into the Kingdom of God (2 Corinthians 5:17; Colossians 1:13). “Metanoia” as a change of mind always goes hand in hand with a regret for one’s past sins and a change in conduct for the better. In contrast to this, a change of vision suggests that everyone (of all religious persuasions) are already in the Kingdom of God that is already here and that they only need to change their vision (mindset; to go beyond your present state of mind) in order to benefit from the blessings of God’s Kingdom. The Kingdom is already a new reality anyone can enter by living according to the new kingdom instructions (or commands). “What we need as a start,” according to Dries Cronje,“is metanoia, something Thomas Moore calls a radical shift in vision.” Of course, another way of describing this shift, is to say that we need a paradigm shift, which involves, according to Rob Bell’s and Brian McLaren’s Universal/Interfaith belief, merely that Jesus be added to all the other religions. Rob Bell says:

A lot of people see Jesus as just for Christians but I keep discovering that his teachings are really about what it means to be human. – Rob Bell, Manchester Evening News (June 15, 2007)

In a book by Oppenheimer and Sandy Simpson titled Idolatry in Their Hearts, they show how widespread this new missiology has become. Listen to some of the comments made by a few new missiology evangelists: Read here.

New Light embodiment means to be “in connection” and “information” with other faiths…. One can be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ without denying the flickers of the sacred in followers of Yahweh, or Kali, or Krishna.”-Leonard Sweet

I happen to know people who are followers of Christ in other religions.-Rick Warren

I see no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity. . . . I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can.-Thomas Merton

Allah is not another God…we worship the same God. The same God! The very same God we worship in Christ is the God the Jews—and the Muslims—worship.-Peter Kreeft

In the emergent vocabulary the word metanoia no longer means a change of mind in order to be saved from your past sins and lost status so that you may be granted entrance into the Kingdom of God, but a radical shift in vision (paradigm shift) with the purpose of including all religions in the already present Kingdom of God. This is apparently what it means to be truly human —a hotchpotch of religions serving and worshiping a god that is not the God of the Bible.

The principle of following Jesus Christ has also undergone a very serious paradigm shift or radical visionary shift within the ranks of the Emergent Church. This is how Dries Cronje articulated it:

So, as we start our journey here with Jesus’ very first command in Mark, realize that to be a serious follower of Jesus you have to first undergo a radical shift in vision. How we go about that practically is part of the mystery that’s the whole reason behind this category of echurch. I hope that the teaching offered here will help you with this shift in vision. We’ll be looking into some practical details as we progress, but keep in mind that the spiritual journey is a mystery with only the very next step being revealed most of the time.

The radical shift in vision involves a shift away from the doctrine of self-mortification, (the only prerequisite to follow Jesus – Matthew 16:24); from what you are to what you do. The what you are followers realize there is nothing good in their old Adam nature and therefore take Christ’s command to deny yourself and take up your cross (die to yourself) very seriously. Paul’s entire discourse in Romans 7 explains in great detail the futility of trying to do good without having the cross of Jesus Christ doing its mortifying work to the flesh. The what you do followers of Jesus Christ have transformed the doctrine of mortification through the cross into a social Gospel. For them it does not matter to what religion you belong for, as we’ve noticed in many of the emergent leaders’ bold statements, you can become a follower of Jesus without having to relinquish your own religion. Mysticism plays a major part because it is the unifying catalyst between all the religions in the emergent movement. The spiritual journey on which they have embarked is a mystery which in essence means that every traveller on this journey is given the opportunity to include their own spiritual experiences in this growing hotchpotch of spiritualities without having to be examined or evaluated by clear-cut doctrines. In short it means: Your spiritual experience is as valid and true as mine because we are both on a spiritual journey shrouded in mystery. Indeed, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH is emerging before our eyes.

Emergent anti-Semitism

As if the abominable perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not enough, the e-church has now opted for an abominable display of anti-Semitism. On Tuesday, the 8th of September, e-church embedded a short video that won the VFS and YouTube “What Matters to You” Scholarship Competition. Written, directed and animated by Christopher Harrell. In it Israel’s alleged holocaustic atrocities are “excellently” portrayed when the presenter crushes an animated Israeli tank busy bulldozing a Palestinian home with his fist. E- church praises the short film as an excellent video with an excellent message. And they have the audacity to call themselves true followers of Jesus Christ — a full-blooded Jew! They must be joking! The Israeli’s are once again portrayed as the brutal culprits while the Palestinians are the innocent victims. Oh! of course, Israel is not allowed to defend herself when Hitler-arian madmen like the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, call for the total annihilation and destruction of Israel.

Want to see the prize-winning short video?

It’s obvious that e-church has no respect whatsoever for Bible prophecy and God’s severe warning in Genesis 12: 3

Ge 12:3 And I will bless those who bless you [who confer prosperity or happiness upon you] and curse him who curses or uses insolent language toward you; in you will all the families and kindred of the earth be blessed [and by you they will bless themselves].

Do they have any fear of the living God and Father of Jesus Christ (a Jew) . . . at all? They proudly refer to themselves as a missional church. Really? They are using a Jew (Jesus Christ) whom they claim to follow to condemn His brethren, the Jews? The red Indians in America call this kind of hypocrisy “Men with forked-tongues.”

Read more about the Emergent Church’s infamous anti-Semitism here and here. Could it be that God’s curse in Genesis 12:3 is beginning to take it’s toll? The Emergent Chruch is beginning to show it’s true colours in an exponentially growing way. They are not only anti-fundamentlist but also anti-Truth, anti-Gospel and anti-Semitic . . . but always pro-other-religions. Are you preppared to compromise and risk your relationship with God by following these men?

Lu 17:23  And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

Lu 17:23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

Who are the real "Christian" Cyber Bullies?

If Jesus’ disciples and Paul had all been alive today and living in South Africa our dear friend and enemy-lover, Guillaume Smit, would probably have branded them “Christian Cyber bullies” and “agents of the devil.” I say this on account of Guillaum’s reluctance to quote any of them on his blog for fear that his own agenda may be opened wide and revealed to the entire world for what it really is — an attack on the core doctrines of Jesus Christ. This is what he said amongst other things:

“The damage these Christian Cyber bullies inflict, is tremendous. As these things go, they attract a multitude of readers who only want to hear the bad news about people. Their frequent quoting of Scripture hides the fact that they are only busy with slander in the worst possible form – the incessant and unsolicited attack on God-loving Christians who try to reach this generation for Christ. The Christian Cyber bully accuses other Christians of departing from biblical principles, while they negate the second most important command given by God – loving another as you would love yourself. I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” (Emphasis added). Read the entire article here.

To what do we owe Guillaum’s most recent scathing and ill-worded attack on all those who in honour of God and his command are earnestly contending for the faith that was once delivered to the saints? (Jude 1:3). Hamlet’s famous quote from Shakespeare’s book could easily have been applied to his diatribe with only a slight alteration; in stead of saying “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark” we ought to contend that “There is something rotten in state of the Emergent Church.” Could it be that Guillaume hurriedly and irritatingly grabbed the first opportunity he could find to demonize the “Christian cyber bullies” and “agents of the devil” head-on after he had read my comment “Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” . . . sodat derduisende mislei kan word?” (“Place a heavenly guard before your mouth . . . so that thousands may be misled?”)? Perhaps we should do Guillaume at least some honour and look at what he said with sincerity and circumspection. Would you join me while I scrutinize the things he said in the light of God’s word?

• “The damage these Christian Cyber bullies inflict, is tremendous.” I really couldn’t help smiling when I read this. Perhaps Guillaume should sit down sometime and quietly ponder the great possibility that it is he and his emerging friends who are inflicting tremendous damage to the church and the Christian faith. In one of my recent comments, which he seems to have found so profoundly aggravating, I merely quoted Brian McLaren who openly and brazenly heralded the groundbreaking news that he and other “deeply committed Christians” were going to join Muslims in their Ramadan festival this year. I have heard many strange and odd things in my life but Brian McLaren’s claim that he and his friends are “deeply committed Christians” is a real prize-winner. Do you know what a deeply committed Christians is, Guillaume? Please bear with me while I quote to you some groundbreaking truths from God’s Word. You have twice made it clear that you yourself are reluctant to quote relevant Bible verses, but please bear with me and read these verses with an open and receptive heart.

2 John 9 Anyone who runs on ahead [of God] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ [who is not content with what He taught] does not have God; but he who continues to live in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ [does have God], he has both the Father and the Son.

John 8:31 So Jesus said to those Jews who had believed in Him, If you abide in My word [hold fast to My teachings and live in accordance with them], you are truly My disciples.

John 14:15 If you [really] love Me, you will keep (obey) My commands.

John 14:21 The person who has My commands and keeps them is the one who [really] loves Me; and whoever [really] loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I [too] will love him and will show (reveal, manifest) Myself to him. [I will let Myself be clearly seen by him and make Myself real to him.]

Brian McLaren and his “deeply committed Christian” friends have wilfully and disrespectfully disobeyed Jesus Christ who commanded us not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, and most certainly not with their religious practices and festivals. And yet McLaren has the audacity like that of a well-perfumed skunk (1) to say “We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.” “As a God-honouring expression” while Muslims dishonour Him by refusing to admit that He has a Son who died for all (including the Muslims)? Do you as as a self-proclaimed God-loving Christian approve of Brian McLaren’s disobedience of God and Rob Bell’s brazen “unequal yoke” with the Dalai Lama (who is worshipped as a god) at his Seeds of Compassion Conference? You would do well to change your disposition from a “God-loving Christian” to a “God-fearing Christian” who honours, respects and obeys His commands, such as the one I have quoted above. Being boastful of one’s love for God while one disrespectfully dishonours and disobeys Him will most certainly be seen as a highly hypocritical misdemeanour by the Muslim world, for they know with precise and accurate knowledge what it means to obey Allah. In fact, only the so-called “God-loving” Christians do not know how to obey and honour the God of the Bible, especially when they are so fearful and reluctant to quote Him from His Word.

I have a slight suspicion that you would not repudiate Brian McLaren’s sharing in the Muslims’ celebration of Ramadan while claiming to be a deeply committed Christian. How do I know? Your approval of his book “The Secret Message of Jesus” which you advocate on your blog is ample proof thereof. Do you as a self-proclaimed God-loving Christian approve McLaren’s warped view of the Gospel when he says things like the following?

“I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be “saved?” (Read here)

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

I cannot question your sincerity when you say that you are trying to reach this generation for Christ but I do put a big question mark behind your continued affirmation of Brian McLaren who does not even know what it means to be saved. I sincerely and prayerfully hope that you know what it means because you will never be able to reach this generation for Christ if you do not know what it means to be saved.

• As these things go, they attract a multitude of readers who only want to hear the bad news about people. The fact of the matter is that, by the grace of God, many Christians’ eyes have been opened to the infinitely dangerous teachings of the emerging church. The problem with you guys is that you truly believe that when fundamentalist Christians contend for the faith that they are targeting you personally. The sooner you realize that you are not that important the better for you. Do you really think that I am going to waste my time to target you personally when there is much more at stake in this warfare we are waging on a daily basis? This warfare is all about sounding the alarm and to pluck the precious souls of men and women out of the fire of the infamous labyrinth of lies the emerging church is proliferating throughout the entire world. How odd that you should suggest that my blog attracts a multitude of readers while some of you have already made fun of the insignificant amount of people my blog attracted in the past. Come on Guillaume, give credit where credit is due! I really don’t have many readers but I’m growing.

• Their frequent quoting of Scripture hides the fact that they are only busy with slander in the worst possible form. We are commanded (and that includes you) to test the spirits to discern whether they are from God (1 John 4:1). In order to do so we must at all cost know what God’s Word teaches and to refute any argument that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. I’m sure you will agree that it is the TRUTH that sets one free. How on earth would you ever be able to present the TRUTH to a generation you are trying to reach for Christ when you refuse to quote from God’s Word. If you are so certain that my arguments exalt itself against the knowledge of God then it is your God-loving duty to show me from Scripture that I am wrong and need to repent or at least make amends. Why do you need to do that? . . . Because it is the worst possible sin one can do and that is to lead people astray away from God, Jesus Cjhrist and his Word.

• The Christian Cyber bully accuses other Christians of departing from biblical principles, while they negate the second most important command given by God – loving another as you would love yourself. I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” I have reiterated again and again in the past that love without truth means nothing — zilch, nada, zero. You may recall that Jesus once said this superbly quotable TRUTH: “A time will come, however, indeed it is already here, when the true (genuine) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father is seeking just such people as these as His worshipers” (John 4:23). You may have noticed that He did not say “in spirit and in love.” Is “love” of lesser importance or of no importance? No! certainly not! But the very fact that the genuine worshippers worship Him in TRUTH is the very proof that they love God and their neighbours because they know that the TRUTH sets people free and NOT a humanly generated love that tolerates lies, deceit and anti-biblical doctrines. The TRUTH of God alone sets people free from bondage to sin, Satan and the world because God’s TRUTH is the embodiment of His Love who is Christ, the only Truth, the only Way and the only Life. If you are really and truly a God-loving person then you should start telling the lost generation you are trying to reach for Christ the TRUTH and nothing but the TRUTH. I can assure you that Brian McLaren’s assertion “I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be “saved?” is NOT the TRUTH and will never reach this generation for Christ. The TRUTH is in 1 John 5:13

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

Who’s the liar here — is it God or Brian McLaren? I don’t know about you but I prefer to believe God who is not capable of telling a lie. Please remember that the faith which John refers to was qualified by Jesus when He said: “He who believes in Me [who cleaves to and trusts in and relies on Me] as the Scripture has said, From his innermost being shall flow [continuously] springs and rivers of living water” (John 7:38). Have you noticed, Guillaume, how important Jesus regarded the Scripture as opposed to your own magna carte of “I can easily quote a few other texts from the New Testament that underscores the primacy of this principle, but I won’t.” Indeed, you won’t because you have a rather eschewed view of what genuine love is. Your love, like that of the emergent brotherhood, boils down to a tolerance of every conceivable religious persuasion, tolerance of everyone who has no qualms whatsoever to be yoked to the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ, and an intolerance and animosity of everyone who dares to question the doctrines of the emergent church and its adherents. In your view the one’s who dare to contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints are the enemies of the cross and not those who are blatantly disobedient to God and call themselves “deeply devoted Christians” and are brazenly fellowshipping with unbelievers in their religious festivals and practices.

I urge you to repent of your evil ways and to start learning what true love is in the light of God’s Word so that you may truly begin to reach this generation for Christ according to his will and not according to the doctrines of the abominable emergent church. Like them you are paving the way for Antichrist of whom God said:

Daniel 8:25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace [tolerance, mutual love, prosperity] shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

(1) A “well-performed skunk” is the post-modern name for a fox. You may recall that Jesus once said: “tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected” when the Pharisees warned Him of Herod’s intentions to kill Him (Luke 13:32-33). No one, not even hell itself, is going to prevent Him from building his church, and least of all the Emerging Church that is venturing to transform the church (Matthew 16:18).

tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

“Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” . . . sodat derduisende mislei kan word?

‘n Mens hoor dikwels sommige van ons hedendaagse “toleransie-predikers” vir jou sê: “As jy niks positiefs of moois oor iemand kan sê nie, bly dan maar liewer stil.” Ongelukkig het hierdie mooi ongeskrewe reël baie mense in die afgrond help dompel eerder as om vir hulle van enige werklike waarde te wees. Ek het gevind dat wanneer die “toleransie-predikers” jou kritiek op hulle openbare en onbybelse uitsprake nie vanuit die Skrif kan repudieer nie, hulle na die “persoonlikheids-lat” gryp om jou aan te kla van karkatermoord omdat jy hulle kwansuis persoonlik aanval en nie die dinge wat hulle sê of skryf nie. Hulle skroom nie om jou te besluldig van halwe waarhede nie, maar versuim gerieflikheidshalwe om die halwe waarhede wat jy kwansuis oor hulle uitbasuin duidelik uit te spel. Om vir u ‘n aanduiding te gee wat ek bedoel, neem ek u graag na Stephan Joubert se e-kerk webblad waar hy onlangs onder die opskrif “Stel ‘n hemelse wag aan voor jou mond” met verwysing na Psalm 141:3 o.a. die volgende gesê het.

Navorsers het bevind dat wanneer mense baie negatief oor iets of iemand anders voel, dan vertel hulle dit vir 17 ander mense. Maar wanneer hulle baie positief voel, dan vertel hulle dit slegs vir 11 mense. Nou ja, daar het jy dit! Nou weet jy hoekom ‘n handjievol negatiewe mense dit regkry om ‘n ganse gemeenskap lam te lê met hulle negatiewe praatjies oor ‘n leier, of oor een of ander nuwe inisiatief, ook al voel die meeste mense positief. Slegte nuus trek gewoonlik strate verder as goeie nuus . . .

Dis verstommend hoe baie kerkmense eerder ‘n koerant of ‘n plaaslike skindermond sal glo as om hulle tonge onder beheer van die Here te stel. . . .

Die beste geneesmiddel vir ‘n gevaarlike tong is om ‘n hemelse Wag voor jou mond aan te stel (Psalm 141:3). Vra die Here om jou tong elke dag op te pas.

‘n Verkeerde eksegese van Bybeltekse en –hoofstukke lei onafwendbaar tot verkeerde lering en selfs ergerlike dwaallering. In Psalm 141 is daar geen sprake dat Dawid

View Full Album

daarop aandring dat jy niks mag sê oor iemand se leerstellige eierdanse nie. Ja! natuurlik bedoel hy hier dat die Here hom moet bewaar van slegte dinge en om slegte dinge te sê, menenende dat Hy hom moet keer om verkeerde dinge te sê; dinge wat indruis teen God se Woord en sy Wette. Dit is opvallend dat Dawid in die lig hiervan in vers 5 sê “Laat die regverdige my met liefde slaan en tugtig—hoofsalf sal my hoof nie weier nie.” Hoewel Dawid met hoofsalf deur Samuel as koning gesalf is en hy die hoogste gesag in die land beklee het, het hy nogtans ‘n leerbare gees (“teachable spirit”) gehad. Hy was bereid om hom te verneder onder die tug van die regverdiges wanneer hulle hom sou bestraf oor enigiets wat hy verkeerd gesê of gedoen het. Vir hom was dit soos hoofsalf. Dis interessant dat Dawid se seun Salomo ‘n soortgelyke ding in Spreuke 27:5 gesê het: “Openlike teregwysing is beter as verborge liefde.” Hy skryf o.m. ook die volgende:

Spreuke 10:17 Wie hom laat leer, ken die pad na die lewe; wie teregwysing verwerp, dwaal van dié pad af.

Spreuke 12:1 Wie hom laat leer, wil graag kennis ontvang; wie hom nie laat teregwys nie, is ‘n dom mens.

Spreule 13:18 [Geetselike] Armoede en vernedering wag vir iemand wat hom nie wil laat leer nie, wie ‘n teregwysing ter harte neem, word geëer.

Spreuke 15:31  Wie op ‘n teregwysing ag slaan, sal lewe en ‘n tuiste vind tussen mense wat wysheid het.

Spreuke 15:32 Wie onderrig in die wind slaan, gee nie om vir homself nie; wie op ‘n  teregwysing ag slaan, kry insig.

Paulus sluit pragtig hierby aan wanneer hy in 2 Timotheus 3:16 die volgende skryf:

Die hele Skrif is deur God ingegee en is nuttig tot lering, tot weerlegging, tot teregwysing, tot onderwysing in die geregtigheid,

Teregwysing, vermaning, bestrawwing en tugtiging is dus ‘n integrale deel van die liggaam van Christus. Ongelukkig sien die postmoderne mens en veral die toleransie-predikers en leierfigure hierdie vermaning en bestrawwing  as ‘n aanval op hulle persoon, so asof hulle sooooo belangrik is.  Pleks daarvan om gesonde vermaning met nederigheid te aanvaar en om ‘n “leerbare gees” te kweek, verkondig Stepan Joubert die volgende Twitter”-twak:

If you can’t be a good example, at least be a horrible warning—this is the motto of thousands of churchgoers. Dont follow them. 10:53 AM Aug 6th from web

Kom ons vergewis ons dan nou eers van die goeie voorbeeld wat die e-kerk en e-church familie veral vir ons jeug stel deur ‘n slag weer te kyk na die mense met wie hulle so graag langs dieselfde vuur sit. E-kerk ondersteun en onderskryf verkeie leierfigure in the ontluikende kerk wat onbeskaamd ‘n kontemplatiewe, “New Age” en intergeloof spiritualiteit verkondig terwyl hulle daarop aanspraak maak dat hulle toegewyde Christene is. Brian McLaren, een van e-kerk se voorbeeldigste sg. “volgelinge van Jesus,” is besig om toenemend die Naam van Jesus deur de modder te sleep. Suid-Afrikaanse geestelike leiers in die ontluikende kerk soos Guillaume Smit, Dries Lombaard, Dries Cronjé, Cobus van Wyngaard, Nelus Niemandt en natuurlik ook Stephan Joubert, e.a. praat met groot lof van Brian Mclaren op hulle onderskeie blogs en adverteer veral sy boeke “A Gennerous Orthodoxy,” “The Secret Message of Jesus” en “Everything Must Change.” Hier’s wat Brian McLaren onlangs op een van sy blogs kwytgeraak het. Terwyl u dit lees hou asseblief in gedagte wat ek onlangs oor die onmensllike onthoofding van Christene deur die Moslemgroep, al-Shahaab, in die Suide van Somalië geskryf het sodat u ‘n idee kan kry waarmee Brian McLaren en sy meelopers hulle deesdae vereenselwig, en ook die soort mense wat die-kerk familiekring ondersteun. U kan die volledige artikel hier lees.

Ramadan is the Muslim holy month of fasting for spiritual renewal and purification. It commemorates the month during which Muslims believe Mohammed received the Quran through divine revelation, and it calls Muslims to self-control, sacrificial generosity and solidarity with the poor, diligent reading of the Quran, and intensified prayer.

This year, I, along with a few Christian friends (and perhaps others currently unknown to us will want to join in) will be joining Muslim friends in the fast which begins August 21. We are not doing so in order to become Muslims: we are deeply committed Christians. But as Christians, we want to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them. Just as Jesus, a devout Jew, overcame religious prejudice and learned from a Syrophonecian woman and was inspired by her faith two thousand years ago (Matthew 15:21 ff, Mark 7:24 ff), we seek to learn from our Muslim sisters and brothers today.

Muslims observe Ramadan in the same basic way world-wide: they fast from food, water, sex, etc., from dawn to dusk. We Christians who are joining in the fast will share these four common commitments.

We, as Christians, humbly seek to join Muslims in this observance of Ramadan as a God-honoring expression of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness. Each of us will have at least one Muslim friend who will serve as our partner in the fast. These friends welcome us in the same spirit of peace, fellowship, and neighborliness.

We will seek to avoid being disrespectful or unfaithful to our own faith tradition in our desire to be respectful to the faith tradition of our friends. For example, since the Bible teaches us the importance of fasting and being generous to the poor, we can participate as Christians in fidelity to the Bible as our Muslim friends do so in fidelity to the Quran. (Klem bygevoeg)

Waarom sou iemand wat daarop aanspraak maak dat hy deel is van die liggaam en die bruid van Jesus Christus hom met die Ramadan-fees vereenselwig waarvan die feesgangers ontken dat God ‘n Seun het en die vermoording van Jode en Christene goedkeur? Benewens die feit dat die Moslems ontken dat Jesus self God is en dat Hy die Seun van God is omdat God nie ‘n Seun het nie, verwerp die Moslems ook Jesus Christus se kruisiging en verklaar dat iemand anders in sy plek gesterwe het, i.p.v. dat Hy in ons en in die Moselms se plek gesterwe het. Hulle verklaar ook dat enigeen wat in die Drie-Enige God glo direk hel toe gaan en dat Moslems nie vriende moet maak met die Jode en Christene nie. Kan u sien waarheen die Ontluiikende Kerk (“Emreging Church” of “Emergent Church”) op pad is? Sal u werklik deel wil wees van so ‘n kerk wat ‘n ander Jesus navolg? Dié is seker; die eindtyd Babiloniese kerk (Openbaring 19:2) waarin almal van watter godsdiensoord ookal ‘n heenkome sal vind, is baie vinnig besig om deur die fasiliteerders (“change agents) in the Ontluikende Kerk gevestig te word.

So van fasiliteerders (“change agents”) gepraat. Ron Martoia wat tans op besoek is in Suid Afrika noem homself ‘n “transformational architect.” Die volgende berig het op Dave Hunt en Tom McMahon se webblad The Berean Call verskyn.

[McLaren has joined forces with individuals such as Linnea NIlsen Capshaw. According to her resume, Capshaw works with Dr. Ron Martoia who is a transformational architect . . . . His area of expertise is on the new and shifting landscape of church/cultural intersection, where he helps churches consider how they can shift their theological outlook which in turn will shift and adjust their ministry trajectory and cultural interface. . . . Ron is using his cultural intonation to help churches shift paradigms from the old Newtonian world to the Quantum world of the 21st century context.

“In addition to monthly consultations, Ron currently facilitates a new experimental learning community model in Jackson, Michigan called Vortex. Meeting in an arts enclave with over 20 other artists, there are weekly facilitated conversations on everything from string theory and the origins of the universe to the insights of Aristotle on personal development, as well as theological discussions about world religions and global spiritual formation praxis. Vortex hosts immersive learning experiences as well as weekly yoga classes. This experiment hopes to be part of shaping a new learning container for 21st century spiritual and personal formation.” (Klem bygevoeg).

http://www.velocityculture.com/aboutron.html

Dis hoegenaamd nie moeilik om af te lei nie dat Ron Martoia se kerklik/kulturele en “transformerende argitektuur” (“transformational architecture”) in ‘n baie groot mate geskoei is op kontemplatiewe spiritualiteite en selfs ook joga, ‘n Oosterse merditatiewe praktyk wat Hindoes met hulle Hindoegode saam in dieselfde juk laat trek. Lees gerus hierdie artikel oor die gevare van joga en transendentale meditasie. Die volgende aanhaling toon baie duidelik hoedanig Ron Martoia meditasie propageer en aanwend om transformasie in die kerk en kulture te bewerkstellig.

“I want to infuse you with the insight and energy to assist you in attaining the transformation you desire. My experience in my own personal life and as a transformational architect helping other people along on the journey is that most of us realize the obvious growth barriers we face.”

“We must become aware of being aware and make a commitment to make that happen. If we were to do this on our own personal level it would transform who we are. If we begin to do that on the inner personal level with spouse and friends and kids, what might that do to transform the very systems of our lives and the very family units we live in. Second, we need to cultivate a daily practice of meditation. . .

The fact is meditation is a concentrated dose of awareness. It is quite clear that those who cultivate a daily practice of meditation have that as an anchor all day and can at times throughout their day go back to it and affirm the quiet center they are attempting to maintain. . . a quiet center, the place from which our true life flows. . . For us to grow at all we have to be aware.”- (Klem bygevoeg)

Ron Martoia – www.vortexdownload.com

En wil baie graag u aandag vestig op Martioia se gebruik van die woorde “journey,” en “growth barriers.” Thomas Keating, ‘n Rooms Katolieke mistikus wat as een van die belangriikste aavoerders van die moderne kontemplatiewe beweging beskou word, het soortgelyke terme gebruik om die struikelblokke en die oorkoming daarvan op jou geestelike reis (“journey”) in sy boek “A Contemplative Journey, Vol. II” te omskryf. U kan meer hieroor lees hier.

From infancy, Father Keating teaches, we accumulate emotional layers, or “programs,” as a result of traumatic experiences. The practice of Centering Prayer engages directly with the unconscious and loosens old traumas that hinder your spiritual development. This form of “divine therapy” draws from a contemplative method that has brought profound inner transformation into the lives of thousands of practitioners. The Contemplative Journey is Father Thomas Keating’s great masterwork: a complete curriculum devoted to a Christian path for achieving the “still point” of resting in God. Each volume includes a study guide.

Soos u reeds hierbo gesien het, noem Ron Martoia die “still point” waarna Thomas Keating verwys die “quiet center, the place from which our true life flows.” U het seker ook dadelik opgemerk dat die woord “transformation” telkens in die kontemplatiewe ghoeroes se taalgebruik opduik. Dis nie om dowe neute nie want “transformasie” wat aan die hart lê van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus moet ten alle koste vervang word met ‘n parallel-klinkende “transformerende argitektuur,” d.w.s. ‘n ander weg en nie dié Weg nie (Jesus Christus) om transformasie in individue en samelewings te bewerkstellig. Nouja, so ‘n argument klink miskien by die eerste aanhoor ‘n bietjie vreemd, maar laat my toe om te verduidelik. Wanneer ek sê “transformasie” lê aan die hart van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus dan verwys ek spesifiek na die essensie van bekering wat deur die woord metanoeo { met-an-o-eh’-o} omskryf word. Die woord beteken om ‘n algehele gemoedsverandering te ondergaan, soveel so dat jy anders begin dink oor God, sy geregtigheid, sy regverdige oordele, en sy genade asook oor jou eie sondige en verlore toestand. Die Engelse verklaring vir die woord lui as volg:

1) to change one’s mind, i.e. to repent

2) to change one’s mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one’s past sins

Bekering begin dus in die mens se gemoed of verstand. (Let asseblief noukeuring op ek sê “BEGIN” in die mens se gemoed deurdat die Heilige Gees die verlore sondaar oortuig van sondes, geregtigheid en oordeel. Jou gemoedsverandering is nie jou redding nie. Dis slegs die aansporingselement in jou gemoed om terug te draai na God toe en jou na Hom te wend vir redding deur Hom daadwerklik aan te roep vir jou redding—om van bo gewederbaar te word.–Kyk gerus weer na Romeine 10:13). Daarom sê die Here Jesus ook baie pertinent: “Kom na my toe, almal wat vermoeid en belas is en ek sal julle rus gee.” (Mattheus 11:28-29). Die “aanroep” om redding geskied dus wanneer die verlore sondaar hom na Christus wend (na Hom toe gaan in die gebed) om sy saak met Hom reg te maak (Jesaja 1:18).  Die noodsaaklikheid van ‘n veranderde gemoed ten aansien van redding en ‘n voortdurende transformasie in jou lewe word baie goed deur Paulus opgesom in Romeine 12:2: “En word nie aan hierdie wêreld gelykvormig nie, maar word verander deur die vernuwing van julle gemoed, sodat julle kan beproef wat die goeie en welgevallige en volmaakte wil van God is.” Diie Engelse weergawe lui as volg:

And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Japie Grobler skryf:

Oosterse meditasie wat as “Christelike meditasie” voorgehou word is ’n inwaarste reis wanneer mense hulle gedagtes leeg maak van alle gedagtes in hulle soeke na God sonder die gebruik van woorde, sodoende word God se Woord nietig gemaak. Deur op hierdie manier te mediteer beweeg die persoon na ’n alternatiewe bewussynsvlak waarin hy ontneem is van sy onderskeidingsvermoë. Sy rasionele denke is afgeskakel, dus kan hy nie analities dink nie en sodoende is hy onmagtig om sy gedagtes in die lig van sy kennis van die Skrif onder leiding van die Heilige Gees te toets. Dit is ’n heidense praktyk wat in totaliteit verwerp behoort te word.

Die mens se denke en gedagte is aktief betrokke by die bestudering en oordenking van die Woord. Die Here Jesus stel geloof bo die onsienlike en ondervinding, en die Skrif waarsku teen misleiding en stel dat alles aan die Skrif as maatstaf getoets moet word: (Joh 20:29; 2 Kor 5:7; Rom 10:17; Jes 8:20; Hand 17:21; 1 Tess 5:21; 1 Joh 4:1; 2 Kor 12:1‑4; Matt 24:4)

Nouja! Daar het u dit. Dis klinkklaar duidelik dat God nie buite-om die mens se verstand of gemoed te werk gaan in die voltrekking van sy redding en ook nie in sy heiligmakende werk in ‘n gelowige se lewe nie. Die Calviniste kan dus maar gerus vergeet dat die mens nie ‘n vrye-wil het nie. God wil juis hê dat die mens se gemoed (verstand) nugter, waaksaam, wakker, aktief en vernuwe moet wees wanneer Hy hom tot redding en daarna tot heiligmaking, diens en aanbidding oproep. En nou kan ‘n mens ook beter verstaan waarom die duiwel die gemoed (verstand) wil uitskakel en verblind (2 Korinthiërs 4:4) en hy het beslis ‘n baie gevaarlike wapen in die hande gekry toe die sg. Westynvaders kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit gewild gemaak het. ‘n Passiewe gemoed is voorwaar ‘n baie gevaarlike instrument in die hande van die duiwel, óf dit nou deur Oosters-geïnspireerde sg. Christelike meditasie is, óf deur die val–in-die-gees fenomeen is, en óf dit deur die leuen dat ‘n mens nie ‘n vrye-wil het nie is, hy vryf sy hande met bose vergenoegdheid wanneer hy jou gemoed (verstand) kan uitskakel.

Dat daar gevaar in lê word deur meditasieskole erken en selfs ook nie deur Dr Nicol ontken nie. “Hy skryf:

As mens op ingewings wag, kan jou eie innerlike of selfs bose magte ook met jou praat.” (Stem in die Stilte :97) (Klem bygevoeg).

Hiermee erken Willem Nicol dat meditasie (die onderbou van die kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit) ook ‘n kanaal na die Satan kan wees. ’n Voormalige en bekeerde New Ager, Richard Baer, beaam Nicol se ruiterlike nerkenning in sy beskrywing van sy vreesaanjaende ervaring, wat ook die ommekeer in sy lewe gebring het, tydens ’n meditasiesessie so:

“…my spirit was roaming some of the farthest reaches of ‘heavenly light’ that I had ever perceived…I was surrounded by a virtually overwhelming luminosity—it was as if I was looking straight into the sun. Waves of bliss radiated through my spirit. I was totally captivated by the power. Suddenly another force stepped in. It took me by complete surprise. In the twinkling of an eye, it was like a supernatural hand had taken me behind the scene of the experience that I was having. I was taken behind the outer covering of dazzling luminosity and there saw something that left me literally shaking for a full week. What I saw was the face of devouring darkness! Behind the glittering outer facade of beauty lay a massively powerful, wildly churning face of absolute hatred and unspeakable abominations—the face of demons filled with the power of Satan.” (Richard Baer, Inside the New Age Nightmare, Huntington House, Inc., 1989:55)

View Full Album

Daar’s verskeie ander metodes wat die Satan gebruik om die gemoed of verstand uit te skakel. Een van die gevaarlikste hiervan is die sg val-in-die-gees fenomeen (“slain in the spirit). God TV en TBN asook ander bekende Christen TV-netwerke is deesdae deurweek met wonderwerkende genesers wat mense agteroor laat val en hulle met die sg. vuur van God doop. Miskien het u onlangs 50 opeenvolgende dae op Andre en Jenny Roebert se epiese TV-reeks “Days of Glory in Oos-Londen gesien hoedat hulle gasspreker, die sg. “lag-gees ghoeroe en Heilige Gees kroegman,” Rodney Howard-Brown sy lag- en huilgees hier in ons land kom loslaat het. Dit is uiters interessant maar hoegenaamd nie vreemd nie dat Willem Nicol presies dieselfde fisiese ervarings beskrywe wanneer hy sy “Christelike meditasie” tegnieke in sy boek Gebed van die Hart bespreek.

“Daar kan allerhande fisiese ervarings wees, byvoorbeeld ’n gejeuk of tinteling, ’n kriewel in die keel, hoofpyn of ’n vreemde gevoel in die kop, ’n swaar gevoel of selfs ’n gevoel van gewigloosheid. Ander begin sug, lag of huil. Alles is tekens dat daar iets aan die gang is.” (Gebed van die Hart :135‑136).

Daar is beslis iets aan die gang maar dit is nie van God nie (1 Johannes 4:1)

Ek wil nie nou langer oor die gevare van Ron Martoia en andere se sg. achieving the “still point” of resting in God” uitwei nie (ek beoog om later ‘n vollediger artikel te plaas oor die begrip “stil word”), maar dié is seker: Sommige van ons land se bekendste en toonaangewende predikers is besig om derduisende mense, en veral ons jongmense, in ‘n doolhoof (laberint) van kontemplatiewe duisternis en ellende te ly waaruit hulle nie sal kan kom nie, tensy hulle hul heelhartig tot Jesus Christus (van die Bybel) bekeer en Hom smeek om hulle genadiglik daaruit te red. Hy alleen kan dit doen. Intussen woeker hierdie toonaangewende predikers en hulle navolgers teen ‘n dolle vaart voort en bevorder hierdie uiters gevaarlike spiritualiteit in hulle preke, in hulle kerke, op hulle blogs (kyk gerus hierna) en in hulle boeke. Maar nouja, dis nog lank nie die einde nie. Die valse apostels, leermeesters en profete wat die e-kerk en e-church in hulle midde toelaat, lees soos ‘n regte “who’s who.” So gepraat van BBP’s. Stephan Joubert en Nelus Niemandt bied saam met die besoekende spreker Ron Martoia op Vrydag, 28 Augustus ‘n Oggendleierskap Seminaar in die Pierre van Ryneveldt NG Kerk aan.

Ek sluit af om julle te herinner aan die volgende Skrifgedeeltes.

1 Timotheus 4:1 Maar die Gees sê uitdruklik dat in die laaste tye sommige van die geloof afvallig sal word en verleidende geeste en leringe van duiwels sal aanhang.

Openbaring 18:2-5 En hy het met ‘n groot stem kragtig uitgeroep en gesê: Geval, geval het die groot Babilon, en dit het geword ‘n woonplek van duiwels en ‘n versamelplek van allerhande onreine geeste en ‘n versamelplek van allerhande onreine en haatlike voëls, omdat al die nasies gedrink het van die wyn van die grimmigheid van haar hoerery, en die konings van die aarde met haar gehoereer het, en die handelaars van die aarde ryk geword het deur die mag van haar weelderigheid. En ek het ‘n ander stem uit die hemel hoor sê: Gaan uit haar uit, my volk, sodat julle nie gemeenskap met haar sondes mag hê en van haar plae ontvang nie. Want haar sondes reik tot aan die hemel, en God het haar ongeregtighede onthou.

Jer 6:17 Ek het ook wagte oor julle gestel en gesê: Luister na die geluid van die basuin. Maar hulle het geantwoord: Ons wil nie luister nie.

Volgens Stephan Joubert is dit negatiewe mense wat ‘n hele gemeenskap lam kan lê. Ek wonder wie dit werklik is wat besig is om ‘n ganse gemeenskap lam te lê met hulle demonies geïnspireerde kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit.

Belangrike naskrif:

Ons kontemplatiewe vriend Guillaume Smit het intussen ‘n lys op sy blog beskikbaar gestel waarin hy aandui wie van die invloedrykste kontemplatiewe predikers in ons land is.

Some guy on Twitter gave me this idea – he made a list of the top ten pastors in America who’s twitter thoughts you should follow. That got me thinking on the influential Christian leaders of my own country: If I would have to propose blogsites and Tweeters to someone asking me, who would I suggest?
Let’s see …

* Braam Hanekom
* Andries Louw
* Dries Cronje
* Reggie Nel
* Tom Smith
* Cobus van Wyngaard
* Roger Saner
* Dries Lombaard
* Jan van der Watt
* Stephan Joubert
* Hennie Stander
* Theo Geyser
* Francois Mulder
* Frederick Marais

Miskien is Guillaume te nederig om sy eie naam by te voeg, maar ek dink regtig hy verdien ‘n ereplek in die bg. lys van name. Ek wil baie graag Stephan se goeie raad op Twitter navolg en ook vir u sê “Don’t follow them.”

The Restoration of All Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Revolution spells “killing” and “killing” spells “blood.” Does Verryn really think he is going to solve the extreme problem of poverty by leading a revolution? The irony is that many, many blacks have become very affluent in our country and that the poor, destitute and oppressed people in Zimbabwe (Mugabe’s paradise), Mozambique, the Congo, and many other African countries are fleeing their “paradises” to enter ours illegally because it has become to them a land of milk and honey. OK! but as soon as they arrive here they are persecuted by a bunch of xenophobic crackpots who accuse them of stealing our indigenous workers’ jobs. These are the kinds of acts of violence, intolerance and hatred that have become fertile ground for a revolution. Is Verryn going to use this to start his own revolution? This is exactly what happened in France during the French Revolution. The influential bankers and liberal politicians (yes and even the liberal church clergy) deliberately used the poor and oppressed people of France to start their infamous revolution. They pushed the poor into the forefront of the battle zone while they lavished in comfort. Against whom does Verryn want to start his revolution?—the former freedom fighters who started a revolution for the very same reasons but eventually stole from the poor to fill their own pockets, the corrupt politicians who are preventing the poor from getting their fair share, or the Christian church of which he claims to be a member? Is this his reformation of the church to which he laughingly referred in his speech at the Amahoro Conference and is “not too difficult” to achieve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Turn back to God.”

“Turn back to the Bible.”

It makes me wonder why: turn back?

Shouldn’t it rather be: “Go forward?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, to end: Paul Verryn pleaded for a revolution at the Amahoro Conference and Brian McLaren taught his audience how to start one — blame the Christian faith for all the atrocities in the world. Emperor Nero did the very same thing. He blamed the Christians when Rome burned.

An Ecumenical Post Modern, Post Apartheid Missional Church

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEWBIGIN: Oh yes, surely it does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Om die Voorhangsel van Onder na Bo te Skeur

READ THE ENGLISH VERSION OF MY COMMENTARY HERE.

Matteus 27:51

En kyk, die voorhangsel van die tempel het in twee geskeur, van bo tot onder (Klem bygevoeg)

Wat reken u sou die uitslag wees as ons ‘n steekproef sou doen en mense die vraag vra: “As u die belangrikste en mees rewolusionêre gebeurtenis in die ganse geskiedenis van die mensdom kon meebring, wat sou dit wees?” Die meerderheid sou waarkynlik ‘n geneesmiddel vir VIGS of kanker wou uitvind of miskien blywende wêreldvrede inlui. Ander sou miskien armoede vir eens en altyd wou uitwis. Glo dit as u wil, dit is nie die belangrikste dinge wat die postmoderne en “ontluikende” denkers beoog nie, al sê hulle ook so. Wat hulle in werklikheid in gedagte het, is om “nuwe” maniere te vind om in die teewoordigheid van God te kom. Sedert die Sondeval het baie probeer om die koninkryk van die hemel met geweld (hulle eie pogings) te gryp omdat hulle God se manier verwerp het. Moenie geflous word deur hulle manifeste van “om armoede te verlig,” “om hulle met die armes te assosieer deur saam met hulle te gaan woon,” en “om in die voetspore van Jesus te volg om sy voorbeeld na te volg” nie. Dit is alles mooi geplaveide kliptrappies (eie pogings en goeie werke) om hulle in die teenwoordigheid van God te bring.

In die antieke tye was dit lewensgevaarlik om ‘n koning sonder sy toestemming te nader. Selfs vandag nog, in sommige dele van Afrika, word jy nie toegelaat om ‘n stat of gehuggie sonder die hoof se toestemming binne te gaan nie. Die normale prosedure is om eers die hoof se persoonlike assistent te nader en hom te vra of jy hom mag besoek. Hy sal dan na gelang hy die hoof se toestemming verkry het, jou inlig of en wanneer jy die hoof mag sien. Sodra ‘n aanvaarbare besoektyd bepaal is, ontmoet jy die assistent by die ingang en hy begelei jou dan na die hoof se huis in die middel van die stat. Moet nie eers daarin dink om aan sy deur te klop nie. Dis slegte maniere. Die assistent gaan alleen in die huis en dan eers mag jy die hoof se huis betree — dis te sê as die hoof nie intussen besluit het om sy afspraak met jou op diie laaste nippertjie uit of af te stel nie. Frustrerend . . .? Dis uiters frustrerend, maar dis die manier waarop jy jou respek en waardering teenoor die hoof as jou meerdere in sy huis en stat betoon. Nie net dit nie; dit toon aan die assistent en sy hoof dat jy gewillig is om jouself nederig te gdra in hulle teenwoordigheid. Daar is ‘n soortgelyke narratief in die Ou Testement. Toe Mordegai, koningin Ester se oom, Haman se komplot om al die Jode uit te wis aan haar meegedeel het, het hy by haar gepleit om haar man op sy troon te nader om hom oor die komplot in te lig. Sy was aanvanklik onwillig omdat dit lewensgevaarlik was om haar man, Ahasvéros, ongevraagd in sy troonkamer te nader. Hier’s hoe Ester haar oom geantwoord het:

Ester 4:11 Al die dienaars van die koning en die volk van die provinsies van die koning weet dat vir elke man of vrou wat na die koning in die binneste voorhof ingaan, sonder dat hy geroep is, een en dieselfde wet geld: hy moet gedood word; behalwe wanneer die koning sy goue septer na hom uitsteek, dat hy mag lewe; en ek is nou al dertig dae lank nie geroep om by die koning in te kom nie. (Klem bygevoeg)

Die uitkoms van hierdie gebeure is alombekend. Toe Ester die koning nader, het hy sy goue septer as ‘n gebaar van toegeeflikheid na haar toe uitgehou en sy het die punt van die septer aangeraak waardeur sy sy gesag oor haar as haar koning en heer erken het. Het sy dit nie gedoen nie sou Haman se komplot om haar volk, die Jode, uit te wis nie gestuit kon word nie. As die koninklike protokol so streng was in daardie dae hoe kan ons straks verwag dat die Koning van die konings en die Here van die here mensgemaakte weë om Hom in sy allerheiligste troonkamer in die hemel te nader moet aanvaar? Desnieteenstaande, wend die aanhangers van die Ontluikende Kerk hulle toenemend tot mensgemaakte maniere om hulleself in die teenwoordigheid van God te bring. HUlle is inderdaad besig om die voorhangsel met geweld van onder na bo te skeur. In hulle pogings om dit te doen, vereis die nuwe geslag “Christen” predikante, pastore, spostels, dissipels en leermeesters dat ons op nuwe en vars maniere oor ons spiritualiteit moet nadink en ook in die besonder oor die manier waarop ons ons Christenheid ervaar.

Die voorvoegsel “re” (in Engels) het een van die kragtigste taalfoefies in ons postmoderne tyd geword. Ten spyte van sy twee-letter omvang het dit ‘n geweldige potensiaal om jou lewe te verander. Woorde soos “think,” “imagine,” “construct,” “define,” en “painit” (met dank aan Rob Bell in sy “Velvet Elvis”) kry ‘n algeheel nuwe betekenis wanneer die voorvoegsel “re” bygevoeg word. ‘n Vinnige “google”-soektog op die internet het my stomgeslaan toe ek die volgende resultate sien:

• Rethinking the world (1 300 000 results)
• Rethinking leadership (2 020 000 results)
• Rethinking the future (1 340 000)

Die idee om die wêreld, leierskap en die toekoms te “her”-interpreteer (“rethink”) is nie tot die sekulêre wêreld beperk nie maar word toenemend in die kerk bepleit. Een van die toonaangewende voorspraakmakers van die “possibility thinking” of “positive thinking” kulte, Robert Schuller, het verlede jaar ‘n “Rethink” Konferensie in sy Crystal Cathedral aangebied. ‘n Konferensie was vir hierdie jaar geskeduleer maar is uitgestel tot 2010. Baie van die sprekers by verlede jaar se konferensie, waaronder Erwin McManus, Kay Warren (Rick Warren se vrou) en Dan Kimball bevorder kontemplatiewe mistisisme en meditasie. Vyf e-kerk lede uit Suid-Afrika, insluitende Stephan Joubert, en Dries Lombaard, het die konferensie in 2008 bygewoon en skouers gevrywe met hierdie gesiene denkers wat daarop ingestel is om die aangesig van die Christendom vir ewig te verander. Hulle maak ‘n geweldige impak op ons jonger Suid-Afrikaanse kerklui wat op hulle beurt baie jongmense beïnvloed en bekendstel aan kontemplatiewe mistisisme. Die e-kerk webtuistes (Afrikaans en Engels), wat onder die beheer staan van Stephan Joubert en Dries Lombaard onderskeidelik, propageer met flinke oorgawe die kontemplatiewe spiritualliteit onder die dekmantel van “Jesliefhebbers en volgelinge van Jesus.” Om die waarheid te sê alle volgelinge van Jesus is welkom om op hulle webtuistes kommentaar te lewer en om deel te neem aan hulle “verhoudings-gesprekke” mits jy ook ‘n vurige navolger is van hulle gurus Rob Bell, Leonard Sweet, Nelus Niemandt, Erwin McManus, Doug Pgitt en baie ander kontemplatiewe mistieke Christene. Diegene wat in harmonie is met Stephan Joubert en Rob Bell dat waarheid ook in ander godsdienste soos die Bhoeddisme, Judaïsme en selfs ateïsme te vind is, is meer as welkom op hulle webtuistes maar jy word summier verban sodra jy hulle teen hulle kontemplatiewe maatjies waarsku.

Ek wil graag in orreenstemming met die “her-interpretasie (“rethinking”) kultuur van die kontemplatiewes ten minste ‘n enkele gedeelte uit die Skrif (Matteus 7:22-23) her-interpreteer, herverwoord en rekonstrueer om te illustreer hoedat hulle die voorhangsel van onder na bo skeur.

Here, Here, kyk net wat het ons vir U gedoen! Ons het voorwaar opreg eerbare en goeie baanbrekersweg gedoen deur die gemors en puinhope in die bosveld op te ruim en ‘n pragtige labirint in die plek daarvan te bou. Ons weet werklik nie hoe ons Afrikaanse jeug sal reageer wanneer ons hulle aan ons labirint blootstel nie maar ons probeer hard om hulle ware volgelinge van Jesus te maak. Miskien is dit iets van wat ons probeer om te doen as volgelinge van Jesus. Om die puinhope in die wêreld skoon te maak sodat ons plekke kan skep waar mense vrede en harmonie kan vind en met transendensie kan konnekteer. Toe het die “Labirint-Jesus” wat hulle met soveel liefde en oorgawe volg geantwoord: “Ek het julle nog altyd geken. Julle het my Weg (labirint) getrou, liefdevol en met vuur bewandel. Kom in die teenwoordigheid van my vader.

Verbaas . . .? Geskok . . . ? Dink u miskien . . . .? Hoe vermetel van hom om die Woord van God op so ‘n godslasterike wyse te verander en te herinterpreteer! Voordat u besluit om my te stenig met die klippies waarmee julle jul labirinte bou, lees gerus eers baie noukeurig hier. Wat makeer die ouens? Lees hulle nooit hulle Bybels om te leer wat die regte Jesus te sê het oor blywende vrede, harmonie en verbondenheid met God nie? Het hulle so blind geword vir die waarheid dat hulle met domastrantheid hulle wend tot die moddermeul en stowwerige weë van hulle eie maniere om God se vrede en teenwoordigheid te smaak? Het hulle dan vergeet wat Jesus gesê het?

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

Dit is beslis nie die “Labirint-Jesus” wat hier praat nie. Maar wie is in elk geval die “Labirint-Jesus?” Om ‘n gepaste antwoord te kry moet ons so ‘n bietjie teruggaan in die heidense geskiedenis. Wikipedia voorsien ‘n deeglike gesdkiedkundige agtergrond van die labirint wat bewys dat dit gewis nie van God kom nie. Roger Oakland omskryf die betekenis van die labirint soos volg in sy boek “Faith Undone.”

Die labirint is ‘n doolhof-agtige struktuur wat in gewildheid toeneem en tydens tye van kontemplatiewe gebede gebruik word. Die deelnemer loop deur hierdie stuktuur tot in die middel daarvan en weer terug. Anders as die doolhof wat verskeie paaie het, het die labirint net een paadjie. Dikwels word gebedstasies (met kerse, ikone, prente, ens.) langs hierdie paadjie besoek. Die labirint het in vroeë heidense gemeenskappe ontstaan. Die gewone scenario vereis dat die bidder ‘n soort van ‘n meditasie moet doen, wat hom in staat stel om te sentreer (d.w.s. om in God se teenwoordigheid te kom) terwyl hy die middel van die labirint bereik (Uit die Engels vertaal. Klem bygevoeg)

Wat lê aan die hart van kontemplatiewe praktyke soos die labirint, die stilte, asemgebede, eensaamheid, Jesus-kerse, ikone, die Jesus-gebed, lectio divina, lectio continua, 12 kruisstasies, wat jou na bewering in die allerheiligste teenwoordigheid van God bring. Dit het alles by Kain se bloedlose offer begin. Pa Adam en ma Eva het hom, nes vir hulle seun Abel, geleer dat God se onmeetbare heiligheid vereis het dat Hy op geen ander manier genader mag word as deur die storting van die bloed van ‘n onskuldige slagoffer nie. Kain, daarenteen, het God se slagting van ‘n onskuldige slagoffer om hulle naaktheid (sondes) te versoen (te bedek) verag en besluit om Hom met sy eie pogings en goeie werke tevrede te stel en te versadig. Sedertdien is sy weg, wat in die Bybel bekend staan as die weg van Kain (Judas 1:11) deur die eeue heen voortgesit deur mans en vroue wat God se oplossing vir ons sondes met gelyke argwaan bejeen. Brian McLaren se onbeskaamde ontkenning van die ware betekenis van die kruis is simptomaties van die ontluikende beweging. Hy skryf:

“Miskien is ons ‘inwaarts-gekeerde, individuele-verlossing-georiënteerde, nie-aanpasbare Christenheid’ ‘n kolossale en tragiese misverstand, en miskien moet ons weer luister na die ware lied van verlossing wat goeie nuus is vir die hele skepping. Dus is dit miskien die beste om dit, indien enigiets, oor boord te gooi wat jy ‘weet’ aangande wat dit beteken om Jesus jou ‘Verlosser’ te noem en om die saak rondom verlossing weer nuut te oordink. Kom ons begin gewoonweg. In die Bybel beteken verlossing ‘redding,’ of “heelmaking’ [‘genesing’]. Dit beteken beslis nie om ‘uit die hel gered te word’ of ‘om die ewige lewe na die dood te ontvang’  soos sommige leraars preek na preek verkondig nie. Die betekenis daarvan wissel eerder van teks tot teks, maar in die algemeen, in enige konteks, beteken verlossing ‘om uit die moeilikheid te kom.’ Die moeiliheid kan siekte, oorlog, politieke intrige, verdrukking, armoede, tronkstraf of enige ander tipe gevaar of boosheid wees.” (A Generous Orthodoxy, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004, p. 93) (Uit die Engels vertaal).

Die kruisdood van Christus is vir McLaren niks meer en niks minder nie as ‘n tydelike verligting van die mensdom se lyding wat deur siektes, politieke intriges, verdrukking, armoede, gevangenisstraf (ongeag die redes vir ‘n misdadiger se tronkstraf) of enige ander soort gevaar of euwel meegebring word. Rob Bell se filosofie van verlossing hou ook verband met die tydelike in hierdie wêreld en nie soseer met ‘n plek (hemel of hel) waarheen jy gaan wanneer jy te sterwe kom nie.  Sy probleem lê nie by Jesus wat alle mense wil red en alles in Hom weer nuut wil maak nie, maar met dié mense wat daarop aandring dat net sekere mense hemel toe gaan. Tydens sy Mars Hill Konferensie in Januarie 2007 het hy enkele tersaaklike maar baie gevaarlike vrae gevra — gevaarlik vir almal wat hom glo.

Gaan jy hemel toe? . . .  Is dit al?  Die beste wat ons kan doen is om iets soos net ‘n versekering teen brand aan te bied? Ons het nodig om net siele te red? Is dit ‘n boodskap vir die wêreld? Dit is wanhoop.  . . . Is dit die beste wat God kan doen? Ek het vandag hulp nodig . . . Is dit wat Jesus voor mense se neuse gehou het?

Party Jesusse moet verwerp word. . . . Die Jesus wat mense inhok en doodmaak moet verwerp word. Glo julle in ‘n God wat biljoene mense geskape het net om te kyk hoe hulle brand met geen kans op enige ander soort toekoms nie? In wat se soort God glo julle?

Indien iemand julle sou vra “Hoe word ‘n persoon gered, bekeer, verlos ens?” en julle het net die Bybel gehad om die vraag te antwoord, sou daar baie antwoorde tot julle beskikking wees. [Dit] behels handelinge van liefde wat ‘n hartsverandering en lastige uitruilings demonstreer; dit is oral . . . Mense kom na Jesus op allerhande soorte maniere. As ons kon sê “dis hoe dit gebeur” – sou dit wonderlik wees, maar die probleem is dat dit nie so is soos ons dit insien nie. Mense gaan op allerhande maniere al struikelend die koninkryk in. Verlossing is holisties van aard. Jesus wil ons almal red. Jesus wil jou red van jou verlede, van jou vrese, van jou verlammende bekommernisse, jou haat, van die mite van ‘n verlossende geweld, van rassisme, armoede, enigiets wat die volledige shalom wat God vir hierdie wêreld geskep het, verhinder. (Klem bygevoeg)

Bell se evangelie van hoop (in teenstelling met God se Evangelie van wanhoop) wat verklaar dat Jesus almal van ons wil red, selfs van die klad van armoede, is seker die onmenslikste, oppervlakkigste en mees destruktiewe stukkie eksegeses wat ek nog ooit gehoor het. Tydens sy 2007 Leraarkonferensie het hy gewaarsku dat sommige Jesusse verwerp moet word maar hy het hoegenaamd geen gewetenswroeginge om ‘n ander Jesus te omhels wat die armes van hulle armoede wil red nie. Sy Jesus is beslis nie die Jesus wat gesê het:  “Want die armes het julle altyd by julle, maar My het julle nie altyd nie (Johannes 12:8). Daar is biljoene desperate arm mense op die planeet. Wat moet hulle dink van ‘n Jesus wat hulle almal van hulle armoede wil red maar dit nie doen nie? Ek is bewus van ‘n “Christus” wat belowe het om die benarde toestand van die armstes onder die armes hok te slaan en selfs uit te wis. Sy naam is Maitreya. Hoor ‘n bietjie wat sê sy “wegbereider,” of “Johannes die Doper,” Benjamin Creme:

Al die hoofstroom godsdienste verwag ‘n goddelike boodskapper, hoewel onder verskillende name, sê Creme, en Maitreya het gekom om die profesieë van elkeen te vervul. Hy het weens die dringendheid van die tye vroeër gekom as wat baie religieuse groepe verwag het om sy raad aan ‘n wêreld in krisis te bied. Sy prioroteite is eenvoudig: voedsel, skuiling, gesondheidsdienste en opleiding as gewaarborgde regte vir almal. Sy raad aan die mensdom is netso eenvoudig. Wees mededeelsaam en red die wêreld. Wanneer die dilemma van die armes en die honger-sterwende miljoene verlig is, sal die herwinning van die omgewing eerste prioriteit geniet (Benjamin Creme op ‘n perskonferensie op 15 Augustus 2006) (Klem byegevoeg).

My taak is om vir julle te wys hoe om as broers in vrede saam te woon. Dit is eenvoudiger as wat julle dink, my vriende, want dit verg net ‘n gesindheid van mededeelsaamheid. Hoe kan julle tevrede wees met die omstandighede waarin julle tans lewe terwyl miljoene sterwe en in ellende omkom; terwyl die rykes hulle rykdom voor die armes paradeer; terwyl elkeen sy broer nie vertrou nie? Laat my toe om julle die pad vorentoe na ‘n eenvoudiger lewe waar niemand gebrek ly nie, aan te dui; waar niemand dieselfde is nie; waar die vreugde van Broederskap deur alle mense geopenbaar word. Neem jou broer se behoeftes as die meetsnoer vir jou optrede en los die probleme van die wêreld so op (“The Christ is Now Here”, advertensie in die Rand Daily Mail, 24 April 1982)

Is die bogenoemde die Jesus waarna Rob Bell verwys? Dit moet wees want die ware Jesus van die Bybel is in staat om mense van die regverdige oordele van God te red deur selfs gebruik te maak van die haglikste omstandighede wat deur ekstreme armoede veroorsaak word. In lande soos China het baie mense verlossing in Jesus gevind nadat hulle alles verloor het — hulle wonings, hulle vrouens, hulle mans, hulle besparings, ens. Hulle het geleer om tevrede te wees met wat hulle het ten spyte van hulle buitengewone armoede. (Hebreërs 13:5).

Die prediking van die Evangelie ter wille van die redding van siele vanuit die regverdige oordele van God is vir Rob Bell ‘n evangelie van wanhoop. Nee, sê Rob Bell, die boodskap van die Evangelie is dat God nooit biljoene mense sou maak net om te sien hoe hulle in die hel brand sonder enige kans op ‘n ander soort toekoms nie. Sy aanname dat mense op allerhande maniere na Jesus kom vir hulle verlossing maak die deur wawyd oop vir mense van ander geloofsoortuigings om hulle in die kontemplatiewe mistisisme te begewe.  Dit is daarom geen wonder nie dat so ‘n lae dunk van Christus se offer aanleiding gegee het tot die siening dat labirinte en ander kontemplatiewe praktyke misties gemagtig is om enigeen, ongeag hulle mening van die kruis, in die teenwoordigheid van God te bring. In ‘n aflaaibare PDF dokument van Rob Bell se Mars Hill Kerk word die volgende raad in die sesde fase van die mistieke praktyk van “lectio divina” voorsien.

Kontemplasie

Eindig deur jou aandag te fokus op die feit dat jy in God se teenwoordigheid is. Indien jy, terwyl jy op God se teenwoordigheid probeer fokus, ‘n behoefte het om die teks weer te lees, om voort te gaan met jou meditasie, of om eenvoudig net aan te hou om met God te praat, gun jouself dan die kans om dit te doen. Terwyl jy dit doen, weet dat jy in die teenwoordigheid van God is (Klem bygevoeg).

Siedaar! Jou eie doen (werke) van “lectio divina” bring jou in die teenwoordigheid van die Almagtige God. Hulle is maar net besig om Kain se weg om die voorhangsel van onder na bo te skeur, voort te sit. Dit is die manne na wie ons mees geëerde en gerespekteerde geetelike leiers soos Stephan Joubert, Dries Lombaard en Dries Cronjé opkyk vir geestelike leiding. Dries Cronjé, ‘n geestelike boetie van Dries Lombaard en Stephan Joubert het die volgende te sê gehad oor Rob Bell op hulle e-kerk webtuiste:

Ek was onlangs bevoorreg genoeg om my hande (en oë) te lê op Everything is Spiritual van Rob Bell.

Jy vra “Waarom weer Rob Bell? Het jy sy materiaal nie verlede keer bespreek nie?” Wel, ek is besig om nogal heelwat by hierdie mees-geniale dissipel van Jesus te leer en ek wil my opgewondenheid met julle deel. My volgende pos sal oor iets anders wees . . . Belowe.

“Die mees geniale dissipel van Jesus?” Werklik? Die een wat onbeskaamd die Evanglie van verlossing verdraai? Die een wat ‘n soort universele verslossing verkondig? Ek weet nie van u nie, maar ek verkies om die lof te besing van die vernaamste sondaars onder die dissipels van Jesus Christus. Sy naam was Paulus wat op ‘n dag gesê het:

1Timotheus 1:15 Dit is ‘n betroubare woord en werd om ten volle aangeneem te word, dat Christus Jesus in die wêreld gekom het om sondaars te red, van wie ek die vernaamste is. (Klem bygevoeg)

Paulus, my arme broer, hoe kon jy met soveel minagting van jouself praat? Dis jammer dat jy nie vandag nog hier saam met ons kan wees nie want dié is seker, as jy vandag nog gelewe het, sou Dries Cronjé jou voorstel aan een van die mees geniale dissipels van ons tyd — Rob Bell, wat jou “self-esteem” en “self-image” ‘n geweldige hupstoot sou gee.  Het ons so gewoond geraak aan ons moedswillige afvalligheid dat ons eiesinniglik weier om die gees van die  antichris in diegene wat ons as volgelinge van Jesus beskou, raak te sien?

In my inleiding het ek na Ester verwys wat bang was om haar man, koning Ahasvéros, te nader omdat sy nie seker was of hy sy septer van outoriteit en goedkeuring na haar toe sou uithou nie. Hoewel ons vermaan word om God te vrees omdat dit ‘n verskriklike ding is om in die hande van die lewende God te val (Hebreërs 10:31), het alle gelowiges wat van hulle sondes gereinig  is deur die bloed van Christus die vrymoedigheid en die vertroue om in sy teenwoordigheid in die allerheiligste heiligdom in die hemel te gaan. Hulle mag enige tyd en enige plek vir die res van hulle lewe hier op aarde voor Hom verskyn totdat hulle Jesus van aangesig tot aangesig ontmoet.

Hebr 10:19-22: Terwyl ons dan, broeders, vrymoedigheid het om in die heiligdom in te gaan deur die bloed van Jesus op die nuwe en lewende weg wat Hy vir ons ingewy het deur die voorhangsel heen, dit is sy vlees, en ons ‘n groot Priester oor die huis van God het, laat ons toetree met ‘n waaragtige hart in volle geloofsversekerdheid, die harte deur besprenkeling gereinig van ‘n slegte gewete en die liggaam gewas met rein water (Klem bygevoeg).

Wat meer as dit wil ons hê? Wat meer as dit het ons nodig? Almal wat meen hulle kan in die teenwoordigheid van God kom d.m.v. hulle stowwerige en vuil labirinte in die bosvled of selfs op die stowwerige marmervloere van verhewe katedrale en ander mistieke kontemplatiewe monderings is mislei en is besig om ander te mislei, veral ons jeug. Hulle volg nie vir Jesus Christus, die Seun van die lewende God nie, maar ‘n ander Jesus. Hou op met julle nonsens en keer terug na die kruis van Jesus Christus. Die bloed van die kruis is God se septer wat na almal uitgereik word wat gewillig is om die kruis in geloof aan te raak vir hulle redding sodat hulle in sy teenwoordigheid mag kom met blydskap en ewige danksegging.

Rending the Veil from the Bottom to the Top

Matthew 27:51 And at once the curtain of the sanctuary of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; (Emphasis added)

What do you think the result would be if we were to do a survey asking people the question: “If you were able to bring about the most important and revolutionary event in the entire history of mankind, what would you do?” The majority would probably want to find a cure for AIDS or cancer, or usher in a lasting global peace. Some would probably want to eradicate poverty once and for all. Believe it nor not, these are not the the most important things the post modern and “emergent” thinkers are aiming to do, although they may say so. What they do have in mind is to seek “new” ways and means of entering into the presence of God. Since mankind’s Fall many have tried to take the kingdom of heaven by force (their own efforts), simply because they have rejected God’s way. Don’t be hoodwinked by their manifestos of “wanting to alleviate poverty,” “associating with the poor by living amongst them,” “following in the footsteps of Jesus by exemplifying his example.” These are all stepping stones (own efforts and good works) to bring them into the presence of God.

In ancient times it was a very dangerous and a life threatening experience to approach a king without his permission. Even today, in some parts of Africa, you are not allowed to enter a village without the resident chief’s permission. The normal procedure is to first request the chief’s personal assistant to convey your wish to visit him. He would then inform you if and when you may meet with the chief. When an appropriate time is set the envoy meets you at the entrance of the village and accompanies you to the chief’s house in the centre of the village. Don’t even think to knock on his door. That’s bad manners. The envoy enters the chiefs house alone, informs him of your arrival and only then may you enter his home — provided that the chief does not decide to reverse his initial invitation and turn you away at the last moment. Frustrating . . . ? Very frustrating, but that’s the way you need to express your respect and appreciation for the chief as your superior in his village. Not only that; it also proves to the envoy and his chief that you are prepared to humble yourself in their presence. There is a similar narrative in the Old Testament. When Mordecai, queen Esther’s uncle disclosed Haman’s plot to destroy all the Jews, he begged her to approach her husband, king Ahasuerus, on his throne and to inform him of the murderous plot. She was at first reluctant because it was too dangerous for her to do so uninvited. Here’s how Esther answered her uncle.

Esther 4:11 “All the king’s servants and the people of the king’s provinces know that for any man or woman who comes to the king to the inner court who is not summoned, he has but one law, that he be put to death, unless the king holds out to him the golden scepter so that he may live. And I have not been summoned to come to the king for these thirty days.” (Emphasis added)

The outcome of this event is well-known. When queen Esther approached the king he held out his golden sceptre as a gesture that she may come closer and she touched the top of his sceptre, acknowledging thereby his supreme authority over her as her king and her lord. Had she not done so a multitude of her brethren, the Jews, would have been murdered in a plot which had been orchestrated by Haman. If royal protocol in those days were adhered to so strictly how can we possibly expect the King of kings and the Lord of lords to accept manmade ways to approach Him in His most holy sanctuary in heaven? However, adherents to the Emerging Church are increasingly turning to manmade ways to usher themselves into the presence of God. Indeed, they are forcefully trying to rend the veil from the bottom to the top. In their endeavors to accomplish this the new breed of “Christian” ministers, pastors, apostles, disciples and teachers are demanding a complete change in the way we think about our spirituality, and particularly in the way we experience Christianity.

The prefix “re” has become one of the most potent lingo doohickeys in our postmodern society. Despite it’s two-lettered confines it has a vast potential to revolutionize your life. Words like “think,” “imagine,” “construct,” “define,” and “paint” (with due thanks to Rob Bell in his “Velvet Elvis”) have taken on a whole new meaning when the prefix “re” is added. By doing a quick google search of the words “rethink” and “rethinking” on the internet I was dumbfounded to see the following results:

• Rethinking our world (1 300 000 results)
• Rethinking leadership (2 020 000 results)
• Rethinking the future (1 340 000 results)

The idea of rethinking our world, leadership and the future is not limited to the secular world but is also increasingly and aggressively advocated in the church. One of the leading proponents of the “possibility thinking” or “positive thinking” cult, Robert Schuller, hosted a “Rethink Conference” in his Crystal Cathedral last year. A conference was scheduled for this year but has been postponed to 2010. Many of the speakers at last year’s conference, amongst them, Erwin McManus, Kay Warren (wife of Rick Warren) and Dan Kimball are proponents of contemplative mysticism and meditation. Fifty e-church members in South Africa, including Stephan Joubert and Dries Lombaard attended the conference in 2008 to rub shoulders with these most distinguished thinkers who are bent on changing the face of Christianity for evermore. They have made a great impact on our younger South African church clergy who in  turn are influencing many young people and introducing them to contemplative mysticism. The e-church websites (Afrikaans and English), engineered by Stephan Joubert and Dries Lombaard respectively, are vigorously promoting the contemplative spirituality under the guise of “loving and following Jesus.” In fact, all the followers of Jesus are welcome to comment on their sites and to participate in a relational conversation provided that you are also an avid follower of their gurus, Rob Bell, Leonard Sweet, Nelus Niemandt, Erwin McManus, Doug Pagitt and many other contemplative Christian mystics. Those in agreement with Stephan Joubert and Rob Bell that truth may be found in other religions such as Buddhism, Judaism and even atheism are more than welcome on their websites but you will be summarily ostracized as soon as you sound a warning against their contemplative buddies.

In accordance with the “rethinking” culture of the contemplatives, I have decided to rethink, re-imagine, and reconstruct at least one passage from Scripture (Matthew 7: 22-23) to illustrate how they are trying to rend the veil from the bottom to the top.

Lord, Lord, look what we have done for you! We have done some real honest-to-good bundubashing by clearing away some trash and debris in the bushveld and built a beautiful labyrinth. We really do not know how our Afrikaans Reformed youth will react when we introduce them to our labyrinth but we are trying to make them genuine followers of you. Maybe this is something of what we are trying to do as followers of Jesus. To clean out the rubish [sic] in the world in order to create places where people can find peace, harmony, and connect with transcendence. Then the “Labyrinth Jesus” who they follow with so much love and commitment answered: “I have always known you. You have trod my way (labyrinth) faithfully, lovingly and with gusto. Enter into the holy presence of my father.”

Amazed? . . . . Shocked . . .? Thinking . . .? What nerve does he have to change and rethink the Word of God in such a blasphemous way? Before you decide to stone me with some of the “klippies” you used to build your labyrinths, read here very carefully. What’s up with these guys? Don’t they ever read their Bibles to learn what the real Jesus has to say about lasting peace, harmony and connectedness with God? Have they become so blind to the truth that they are mindlessly resorting to all kinds of dredge and dust-filled ways to seek after God’s peace and presence? Have they forgotten what Jesus said?:

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

This is definitely not the “labyrinth-Jesus” speaking here. Who is this “labyrinth-Jesus, anyway? To find a suitable answer we need to go back into pagan history. Wikipedia provides an elaborate history of the origins of the labyrinth which proves that it is not of God. Roger Oakland explains the meaning of the labyrinth as follows in his book “Faith Undone.”

The labyrinth is a maze-like structure that is growing in popularity, used during times of contemplative prayer. The participant walks through this structure until he comes to the center, then back out again. Unlike a maze, which has several paths, the labyrinth has one path. Often prayer stations (with candles, icons, pictures, etc.) can be visited along the way. The labyrinth originated in early pagan societ­ies. The usual scenario calls for the prayer to do some sort of medi­tation practice, enabling him or her to center down (i.e., reach God’s presence), while reaching the center of the labyrinth. (Emphasis added)

What lies at the heart of contemplative practices such as the labyrinth, silence, breath prayers, solitude, Jesus candles, icons, the Jesus prayer, lectio continua, lectio divina, 12  stages of the cross, which allegedly usher you into the holy presence of God? It all started with Cain’s bloodless sacrifice. Dad Adam and mom Eve taught him, as they did their son Abel, that God’s infinite holiness demanded no other way to approach Him but through the shedding of an innocent victim’s blood. Cain, however, despised God’s slaughtering of an innocent victim to cover up (atone for) their nakedness (sins) and decided to appease and satisfy Him with his own efforts and good works. Since then his way, in biblical terms known as the way of Cain (Jude 1:11), has been perpetuated throughout the ages by men and women who equally despise God’s remedy for our sins. Brian McLaren’s outright denial of the true meaning of the cross is symptomatic of the emergent movement.

“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. 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).

The crucifixion to McLaren is nothing more and nothing less than a temporal alleviation of mankind’s suffering caused by sickness, political intrigue, oppression, poverty, imprisonment (regardless of the reasons for a criminal’s incarceration) or any kind of danger or evil. Rob’ Bell’s philosophy of salvation is also related to the temporal in this world and not so much a place (heaven or hell) you go to in the afterlife after you’ve died. His problem is not with Jesus who wants to save all people and restore all things to Himself but with those who affirm that only certain people go to heaven. At his Mars Hill Pastor’s Conference held in January 2007 he asked some pertinent but very dangerous questions — dangerous for those who believe him.

Going to heaven? .  . . “That’s it?” The best we can do is some other just fire insurance? Just have to save  souls? That’s message to the world? That’s despair. . . . Is that the best God can do? I need help today. . . . Is this what Jesus waved in front of people?

Some Jesus’ should be rejected.  . . . The Jesus who herds people in and kills them should be rejected. Do you believe in a God who would create billions of people only to watch them burn with no chance for any other sort of future? What kind of God do you believe in?

If you were asked the question “How does a person get saved, converted, in, redeemed, etc.?” and you only had the Bible to answer the question . . . you would have lots of answers. [It] Involves acts of love that demonstrate a change of heart, awkward exchanges, it’s all over the place . . . People come to Jesus in all sorts of ways. When we say “this is how it’s done” – it would be nice, but the problem is it’s not the way we see it. People stumble into the kingdom in all sorts of ways. Observations based on passages – how does a congregation move forward, how do you move forward, how do you proclaim? Salvation is holistic in nature. Jesus wants to save all of us. Jesus wants to save you from your past, from fear, from crippling worry, hatred, the myth of redemptive violence, from hating, racism, poverty, anything that hinders the full shalom that God created for the entire world. (Emphasis added)

Bell’s gospel of hope (in contrast with God’s Gospel of despair), declaring that Jesus wants to save all of us even from the scourge of poverty, is the most unkind, frivolous and destructive bit of exegeses I have ever heard. During his 2007 pastor’s Conference he warned that some Jesus’ ought to be rejected but he has no qualms whatsoever to embrace another Jesus who claims he wants to save the poor from their poverty. His Jesus is definitely not the Jesus who said: “You will always have the poor with you” (John 12:8). There are billions of desperately poor people on the earth. What are they supposed to think of a Jesus who wants to save them from their poverty but fails to do so? I am aware of a “Christ” who has  promised to alleviate and even eradicate the plight of the poorest of the poor. His name is Maitreya.

All major religions are expecting a divine messenger, albeit under different names, says Creme, and Maitreya has come in fulfillment of the prophecies of each. He has come earlier than anticipated by many religious groups because of the urgency of the times, in order to offer his counsel to a world in crisis. His priorities are simple: food, shelter, health care and education for everyone as guaranteed rights. His advice to humanity is just as simple. Share and save the world. When the plight of the poor and starving millions is alleviated then the recovery of the environment will become the first priority (Benjamin Creme during a press conference on 15 August 2006) (Emphasis added).

My task will be to show you how to live together peacefully as brothers. This is simpler than you imagine, My friends, for it requires only the acceptance of sharing. How can you be content with the modes within which you now live: when millions starve and die in squalor; when the rich parade their wealth before the poor; when each man is his neighbor’s enemy; when no man trusts his brother? Allow me to show you the way forward into a simpler life where no man lacks; where no two are alike; where the Joy of Brotherhood manifests through all men. Take your brother’s needs as the measure of your action and solve the problems of the world. (The Christ is Now Here, advertisement in the Rand Daily Mail, 24 April 1982).

Is this the Jesus Rob Bell is referring to? It must be because the real Jesus of the Bible is quite capable of saving people from the righteous judgments of God even by utilizing the dire circumstances caused by extreme poverty. In countries like China many people have found salvation in Jesus Christ after they had lost everything — their homes, their wives, their husbands, their savings, etc. They have learnt to be content with what they have despite their extreme poverty (Hebrews 13:5).

The preaching of the Gospel in order to save souls from the righteous judgements of God is to Rob Bell a Gospel of despair? Its just a fire insurance? No! says Rob Bell, the message of the Gospel is that God would never have created billions of people only to have them burn in hell with no chance for any other sort of future. His inference that people come to Jesus in all sorts of ways for their salvation opens the door wide for people of all religious persuasions to indulge in contemplative mysticism. It is therefore no wonder that such a low estimate of Christ’s sacrifice has lead to the notion that labyrinths and other contemplative practices are mystically empowered to bring anyone, regardless of their opinion of the cross, into the presence of God. In a downloadable PDF document of Bell’s Mars Hill church the sixth phase of the mystic practice of “lectio divina” the following advice is given.

Contemplation
Finish by focusing your attention on the fact that God’s presence is with you. If as you try to focus on God’s presence you sense a need to read the text again, to continue meditating, or to simply continue talking with God, allow yourself to do so. As you do, know that you are in the presence of God. (Emphasis added).

Voila! Your own doing (works) of “lectio divina” brings you into the holy presence of Almighty God. They are merely perpetuating Cain’s way of rending the veil from the bottom to the top. These are the men some of our most revered and respected spiritual leaders, amongst them Stephan Joubert, Dries Lombaard, Dries Cronjé and many other young pastors, are looking up to for spiritual guidance. Dries Cronjé, a spiritual buddy of Dries Lombaard and Stephan Joubert had the following to say about Rob Bell on their e-church site:

Recently, I was privileged enough to get my hands (and eyes!) on Everything is Spiritual by Rob Bell.

You ask “Why Rob Bell again? Didn’t you review his material last time?” Well, I’m learning quite a bit from this most-genial disciple of Jesus and I want to share my excitement. My next post will be on someone different… Promise.

“The most-genial disciple of Jesus?” Really? The one who unashamedly distorts the Gospel of salvation? The one who promotes a kind of universalistic redemption?  Have we grown so accustomed to our wilful apostasy that we wilfully refuse to discern the spirit of antichrist in those whom we regard as followers of Jesus?

In my introduction I mentioned Esther who was afraid to approach her husband, king Ahasuerus, because she feared that he may not extend his sceptre of authority and approval to her. Although we are admonished to fear God, for it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31), all believers who have been cleansed of their sins in the blood of Christ have the confidence and boldness to enter into his presence in the most holy of holies in heaven. They may do so anytime and anywhere for the rest of their lives here on earth until they meet with Jesus face to face.

Hebrews 10:10-22 Therefore, brethren, since we have full freedom and confidence to enter into the [Holy of] Holies [by the power and virtue] in the blood of Jesus, By this fresh (new) and living way which He initiated and dedicated and opened for us through the separating curtain (veil of the Holy of Holies), that is, through His flesh, And since we have [such] a great and wonderful and noble Priest [Who rules] over the house of God, Let us all come forward and draw near with true (honest and sincere) hearts in unqualified assurance and absolute conviction engendered by faith (by that leaning of the entire human personality on God in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness), having our hearts sprinkled and purified from a guilty (evil) conscience and our bodies cleansed with pure water. (Emphasis added)

What more do we want? What more do we need? Those who believe they may enter into the presence of God by means of their dusty and filthy labyrinths in the bushveld or even on the dusty marble floors of lofty cathedrals and other mystical contemplative paraphernalia are deceived and are deceiving others, especially our youth. They are not following Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, but another Jesus. Stop your nonsense and return to the cross of Jesus Christ. The blood of His cross is God’s sceptre He extends to everyone who is willing to touch the cross in faith for their salvation so that they may enter into His presence with rejoicing and eternal thanksgiving.

Die “Brandpunt” van Suid-Afrika se Ontluikende Kerk

Ds. Jannie Pelser, die leierleraar van die Rant en Dal Gemeenskapskerk in Krugersdorp, het in sy program “Brandpunt” op Radio Kansel (3 April 2009 om 06:30) een van die hedendaagse mees besproke onderwerpe onder die loep geneem, nl. die Ontluikende Kerk (“Emerging Church” of “Emergent Church”). Sy drie gesprekgenote was mnr. Sarel van de Merwe, ‘n voormalige New Ager wat die Here sowat drie en dertig jaar gelede gered het en sedertdien navorsing doen oor verskeie strominge in die kerk. Hy is veral betrokke by die maak van hoë kwaliteit DVD’s en die aanbieding van seminare dwarsoor die land. Hy was ook onlangs in die nuus toe Kerkbode ‘n voorbladberig oor een van sy seminare oor die Ontluikende Kerk geplaas het en waarin Dr. Nelus Niemandt, die outeur van “Nuwe Drome vir Nuwe Werklikhede, ‘n striemende aanval op hom gemaak het. Die res van Pelser se paneel het bestaan uit ds. Guillame Smit, predikant van die NG Kerk in Brackenfell-Wes in die Kaap en ds. Cobus van Wyngaard, leraar van die Kameeldrif NG Gemeeente in Pretoria wat die Ontluikende spiritualiteit met oorgawe verkondig.

Byvoeglike naamwoorde kan nogal handig wees wanneer jy die stemming van ‘n gesprek in ‘n sekere rigting wil stuur of wanneer jy op subtiele wyse die gedagtegang van mense subliminaal wil beïnvloed. Ds. Jannie Pelser se inleidende woorde tot sy program “Brandpunt” is ‘n sprekende voorbeeld hiervan.

“Die afgelope tyd is die sg. Opkomende Kerk, die ‘Emerging Church’ baie in die nuus, en sommige mense is onbeskaamd krities daaroor; andere is weer rasend opgewonde en nou, hoe moet ‘n mens daaroor oordeel.” (Klem bygevoeg)

Sy woordkeuse van “onbeskaamd” en “rasend opgewonde” toon nie net waar sy eie lojaliteite lê nie, maar dit het mnr. Sarel van Merwe onmiddellik in die beskuldigde bank geplaas. Hy kon net sowel gesê het “Mnr van der Merwe, skaam jy jou nie om so krities teenoor die Ontluikende Kerk te wees nie?" Sou dit enigsins ‘n verskil maak indien hy sy program eerder as volg ingelui het?

"Die afgelope tyd is die sg. Opkomende Kerk, die ‘Emerging Church’ baie in die nuus, en sommige mense is onbeskaamd opgewonde daaroor; andere staan weer rasend krities daarteenoor."

Die woordjie “skaam” kom nogal heel dikwels in die Bybel voor en dit kan geweldige implikasies vir die mens inhou, veral wanneer dit betrekking het op die verkondiging van die Evangelie van Jesus Christus. Die enigste Verlosser van die mensdom het juis op ‘n dag gesê:

Mar 8:36-38 . . . wat sal dit ‘n mens baat as hy die hele wêreld win en aan sy siel skade ly? Of wat sal ‘n mens gee as losprys vir sy siel? Want elkeen wat hom vir My en my woorde skaam in hierdie owerspelige en sondige geslag, vir hom sal die Seun van die mens Hom ook skaam wanneer Hy kom in die heerlikheid van sy Vader met die heilige engele.(Klem bygevoeg)

Daar is natuurlik verskeie maniere waarop jy jou vir die woorde van Jesus Christus kan skaam. Die ooglopendste hiervan is om stil te bly en nie ‘n woord te sê nie wanneer jy die geleentheid kry om Christus se Naam voor mense te bely en onbeskaamd vir hulle te vertel dat Hy die enigste Verlosser is. Ek kan talle voorbeelde noem van Ontluikende Kerk-leraars wat wonderlike geleenthede gehad het maar hopeloos versuim het om sy Naam te bely. Verlede jaar het Rob Bell en Doug Pagitt, twee van die mees toonaangewende figure van die Ontluikende Kerk, onbeskaamd hulle solidariteit met die Dalai Lama en sy “Seeds of Compassion” Konferensie in Seattle Amerika getoon toe hulle saam met Desmond Tutu op dieselfde verhoog as Tenzin Gyatso (die 14de geïnkarneerde Dalai Lama van Tibet) verskyn het. So-ook het die NG Kerk hulle solidariteit met die Dalai Lama getoon toe hulle onlangs by monde van hulle Algemene Sekretaris, Dr. J.J. Gerber, in ‘n amptelike persverklaring hulle van die ANC gedistansieer het omdat hulle hom nie wou toelaat om die Vredeskonferensie op die vooraand van die 2010 wêreldbeker sokkertoenooi by te woon nie.

Dit is opvallend dat Boeddhisme en ook die New Age beweging ‘n magnetiese trekkrag het vir baie mense wat hulleself Christene noem, veral ook in die geledere van die Ontluikende Kerk. Die rede hiervoor is dat die Dalai Lama, die 14de geïnkarneerde Boeddha van barmahartigheid (“Bodhisattva of compassion”), beskou word as ‘n besondere en geëerde geestelike leier wat vrede, verdraagsamheid, nie-geweldadigheid, en onderlinge respek predik en bevorder waar hy ookal as spreker optree. Die hele wêreld smag na vrede maar die tragedie is dat die meeste mense, en selfs ook baie Christene, vrede wil hê sonder die kruis van Jesus Christus. Sy vrede kan alleenlik via sy kruis geskied maar dit het vir baie ‘n struikelblok in die weg na hulle siening van vrede geword en hulle is selfs bereid om die Evangelie van die kruis ter wille van ‘n mensgemaakte vrede te kompromiteer en selfs ook te verwerp. Daarom sê die Skrif ook baie duidelik:

Jes 53:5 Maar Hy is ter wille van ons oortredinge deurboor, ter wille van ons ongeregtighede is Hy verbrysel; die straf wat vir ons die vrede aanbring, was op Hom, en deur sy wonde het daar vir ons genesing gekom.

1Kor 1:18 Want die woord van die kruis is wel dwaasheid vir die wat verlore gaan, maar vir ons wat gered word, is dit die krag van God;

Die ironie is dat baie Christene, ook hier ons eie land, nooit sal ontken dat die kruis van Jesus Christus die vrede aanbring nie, maar terselfdertyd onbesonne dinge sê oor die vredesinisiatiewe van ander godsdienste en die beweerde waarhede wat kwansuis in godsdienste soos die Boeddhisme en selfs die ateïsme opgesluit lê. Stephan Joubert, een van die voorste bevorderaars van die Ontluikende Kerk in Suid-Afrika het in een van sy onlangse preke (Sondag, 1 Maart 2009) gesê:

Hy (Rob Bell) sê jy moet die kultuur “engage.” Jy moet gaan luister na die Boeddhiste. Jy moet gaan hoor wat sê daai ouens. Dan skrik Christene hulle dood, want hulle hoor nie wat Rob Bell mooi sê nie. Hy sê nie word soos hulle nie, hy sê maar gaan lees hulle goeters, gaan hoor hoekom hulle so belangrik is. Hulle het ook dalk waarheid. Waarheid is nie net in die Christendom nie. Waarheid vind jy by Judaïsme. Jy kan waarheid vind by ateïsme. Jy kan waarheid vind by wie ook al. God se algemene openbaring is ‘n bietjie wyer, maar jy sê Jesus is die Here. Dis waarnatoe jy op pad is met hulle met so ’n beweging.

My vraag aan Stephan is nog steeds: Kan jy ook by die Satanskerk van Anton la Vey waarheid vind? Hy sê mos "jy kan waarheid vind by wie ookal." Stephan sal hierdie vraag natuurlik as verregaande beskou, maar hy vergeet gerieflikheidshalwe Paulus se waarkuwing dat die afgodiese godsdienste aan duiwels offer en nie aan God nie – 1 Kor 10:20. Jy kan dus maar kers opsteek by ander godsdienste wat aan die duiwels hulle lofoffers bring, netso lank jy sê "Jesus is die Here." Die Naam "Jesus’ word dan ‘n soort towerwoord wat jou vrywaar van jou soeke na waarheid in ander godsdienste en die New Age. Wat sê die Here self? "Nie elkeen wat vir My sê: Here, Here! sal ingaan in die koninkryk van die hemele nie, maar hy wat die wil doen van my Vader wat in die hemele is. Baie sal in daardie dag vir My sê: Here, Here, het ons nie in u Naam geprofeteer en in u Naam duiwels uitgedrywe en in u Naam baie kragte gedoen nie?" Deesdae word die duiwels nie uitgedryf nie; daar word eerder vir die mense gesê om by die duiwelofferaars [in weerwil van Paulus van Tarsus se waarskuwing] heerlike, kopoopmakende waarhede te soek. Natuurllik sal baie Christene skrik wanneer hulle hoor wat Rob Bell oor die Boeddhisme en ander godsdienste sê. Skrik is  ‘n goeie ding en dikwels ‘n bedekte seën want dit weerhou jou van dinge wat jy miskien sou wou doen, omdat die vrees van die Here die begin van die wysheid is. Maar dan is daar ook baie jong Christene (die lammertjies wat spesifiek deur die Ontluikende Kerk geteiken word) wat deesdae so oorweldig word deur die leierfigure in die Ontluikende Kerk dat hulle geredelik makliker gehoor gee aan hulle ghoeroes se mooi Christelike aanbevelings, en daadwerklik in ander godsdienste begin soek na waarhede wat die waarhede in God se Woord kwansuis sou aanvul. Wat sê die Woord:

Mar 9:42 En elkeen wat een van hierdie kleintjies wat in My glo, laat struikel, dit is beter vir hom as ‘n meulsteen om sy nek gehang en hy in die see gegooi word (M.a.w. daar waar God, metafories gesproke, die sondes van bekeerde mense gooi – Miga 7:19)

Sommige van die gevaarlikste uitsprake wat al amper ‘n spreekwoord in die geledere van die Ontluikende Kerk geword het, is dat “God se algemene openbaring ‘n bietjie wyer is” en dat “God se openbaring groter is as net die Christendom en sy geopenbaarde woord.” In sy boek “Velvet Elvis” begin Rob Bell te vertel hoedat hy op ‘n dag ‘n skildery van Elvis Presley langs die pad gekoop het. Die beste deel van hierdie skildery, sê Rob, is heel links-onder aan die skildery waar die kunstenaar net sy voorletter “R” geverf het want, as jy so goed is, is dit nie nodig om jou volle naam te onderteken nie. Veronderstel, sê hy voorts, die ondergetekende kunsteaar “R” sou dan ‘n verklaring uitreik dat sy skildery die allerlaaste en beslissende meesterstuk is en dat niemand dus voortaan meer nodig het om ‘n verfkwas in die hand te neem om te skilder nie. Hulle sou m.a.w. geen nuwe bydrae tot sy allerbeste meesterstuk kon lewer nie. Dan skryf Rob Bell, wat sommiges as die opvolger van Billy Graham beskou, die volgende op bls. 10 van sy boek "Velvet Elvis."

"We would say that R had lost his mind. We say this because we instinctively understand that art has to, in some way, keep going. Keep exploring, keep arranging,, keep shaping, and forming and bringing in new perspectives. For thousands of years followers of Jesus, like artists have understood that we have to keep going, exploring what it means to live in harmony with God and each other. The Christian faith tradition is filled with change and growth and transformation. Jesus took part in this process by calling people to rethink faith and the Bible and hope and love and everything else and by inviting them into the endless process of working out how to live as God created us to live." (Klem bygevoeg)

Volgens Rob Bell het die fundamentaliste hulle verstand verloor omdat hulle die Woord van God as ‘n geslote kanon (of as die volledig geskilderde meesterstuk van God) beskou en glo dat die Here se “goddelike krag ons alles geskenk [het] wat tot die lewe en godsvrug dien, deur die kennis van Hom wat ons geroep het deur sy heerlikheid en deug” (2 Petrus 1:3). Hulle is, volgens Rob Bell, totaal buite hulle sinne. Werklik? Die woord vir “goddelike” (“theias”) in hierdie gedeelte is afgelei van “theos” (God) en word slegs drie keer in die Nuwe Testament gebruik (hier en in Handelinge 17:29 en 2 Petrus 1:4). “Krag: (“dynameos” – die woord waarvan ons woord “dinamiet” afgelei is) is een van Petrus se geliefkoosde woorde (1 Petrus 1:5; 3:22; 2 Petrus 1:16; 2: 11). Die enigste ding wat alle gelowiges nodig het om in die regte verhouding met God en hulle medemens te lewe, is verkrygbaar deur hulle kennis van Christus wat hulle tussen die bladsye van Genesis tot Openbaring vind. Dit is hoofsaaklik hulle kennis van hulle posisie in Christus Jesus waar Hy tans aan die regterhand van God sit, en die inwonende Gees van God wat hulle in staat stel om ‘n goddelike lewe te lei en daagliks in die regte verhouding met God en hulle medemens te lewe. Die Drie-enige God wat hemel en aarde gemaak het en alles wat daarin is, wat van ewigheid tot ewigheid dieselfde is, wat geen man is dat Hy sou lieg nie, by wie daar geen verandering of skaduwee van omkering is nie, en wie in ondeurdringbare lig lewe, sê: “My Enigste Seun het aan die Kruis namens julle uitgeroep ‘Dit is volbring;’ Ek het my Heilige Gees na julle gestuur om in julle diepste binneste te woon sodat HY julle in die HELE waarheid kan lei; sodat julle heilig kan lewe omdat Ekself heilig is; sodat julle my getuienisse kan wees tot aan die uiteindes van die aarde; sodat julle niks kortkom in heerlikheid, deugsaamheid en goddelike krag nie.” Maar nee! ons spiksplinternuwe Billy Graham, Rob Bell, wat soos ons almal eendag in die graf gaan beland en tot stof toe sal terugkeer, weet beter as die ewig onveranderlike God. Hy sê:

"Jesus took part in this proces by calling people to rethink faith and the Bible and hope and love and everything else and by inviting them into the endless process of working out how to live as God created us to live." (Velvet Elvis, p. 10)

"As part of this tradition [the Reformation] I embrace the need to keep painting, to keep reforming. By this I do not mean cosmetic, superficial changes like better lights and music, sharper graphics and new methods with easy-to-follow steps. I mean theology: the beliefs about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, the future. We must keep reforming the way teh Christian faith is defined,, lived and explained." (Velvet Elvis, p. 12) (Klem bygevoeg).

Brian McLaren, nog een van die toonaangewende leierfigure in die Ontluikende Kerk, stem heelhartig met Rob Bell saam dat ons eindeloos moet voortgaan om die geloof oor God, Jesus, die Bybel, verlossing en die toekoms te oordink, te herverwoord en met nuwe skakeringe te beskilder. Brian, wat volgens ons eie ontluikende kerk se opkomende meesterskilders (Stephan Joubert, Nelus Niemandt en so baie ander NG predikante), navolgingswaardig is, het gesê:

“I’d have to say that we probably have a couple of things right, but a lot of things wrong, and even more spreads before us unseen and unimagined. But at least our eyes are open! To be a Christian in a generously orthodox way is not to claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.” (Brian McLaren, The Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today, 2004) (Jesus sê: "Joh 9:41  As julle blind was, sou julle geen sonde hê nie; maar nou sê julle: Ons sien! ["at least our eyes are open") Daarom bly julle sonde." Stephan Joubert, Nelus Niemandt, Dr. Johan van den Heever, ds. Guillaume Smit, ds. Jannie Pelser, ds. Cobus van Wyngaard en al die ander Ontluikende leraars in ons land behoort eintlik so vinnig en so hard hulle kan soos Josef weg te hardloop van die hedendaagse Potifar-vrouens; maar nee, hulle verkies om hulle te skaar aan die kant van 'n klomp geestelike hoereerders en gemeenskap ["conversations"] met hulle te hou).

I don’t think we’ve got the gospel right yet. "What does it mean to be “saved?”

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

Wat sê die Skrif van persone wat nie tevrede is met God se finale en geopenbaarde “meesterstuk” nie en die vermetelheid het om hulle verfkwas in die palette van ander gosdienste te doop sodat hulle kwansuis by hulle kan leer. Ek haal aan uit die Amplified Bybel.

2 John 9 Anyone who runs on ahead [of God] and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ [who is not content with what He taught] does not have God; but he who continues to live in the doctrine (teaching) of Christ [does have God], he has both the Father and the Son. (Klem bygevoeg)

Enigeen, en dit maak nie saak wie dit is of watter hoë aansien hy in die samelewing en die kerk geniet nie, wat nie tevrede en vergenoeg is met Christus se leerstellings en sy openabaring (en enigste meesterwerk) soos ons dit in sy Woord teëkom nie, is nie gered nie. Dis nie ek wat so sê nie maar die einste apostel van liefde. Moet my dus asseblief nie van liefdeloosheid, verwaandheid en arrogansie beskuldig nie. Daarom is dit ook ‘n skreiende skande en skokkend dat ds. Jannie Pelser tydens die onderhoud wat hy in sy program Brandpunt met Sarel van der Merwe en ds. Guillaume Smit en ds. Cobus van Wyngaard gevoer het, gesê het:

"Is God se openbaring, God se werk, nie groter as net die Christendom nie? Sou daar nie ook elemente wees, sou ons nie by mekaar kon leer [nie], selfs al moet dit nou die New Age wees. Maar as ek dink rondom die kontemplatiewe . . . ‘n stil word voor God, ‘n oopstel voor God. is dit nie ‘n winsmoment nie?"

Die New Age is ten diepste ‘n afgodiese beweging wat die leuen verkondig dat die mens self God kan word. Wil ds. Jannie Pelser werklikwaar by hulle kers opsteek om die groter openbaringe van God te ontdek en te verkondig? Miskien is hy alreeds besig om dit te doen, veral as ‘n mens in oënskou neem dat hy verlede jaar op 21 November in ‘n preek die motiveringspreker en New Age aanhanger, Annie Coetzee, met waardering aangehaal het. Ds. Jannie, ek het jou reeds by vorige geleenthede dringend versoek om jou te bekeer van die pad waarop jy jou tans begewe en ek wil dit nou weer doen. Jy speel met vuur.

In antwoord op ds Jannie se simpatieke benadering tot die New Age en veral ook die kontemplatiewe spiritualiteit, het ds. Gullaume Smit as volg gereageer:

Ongetwyfeld is dit ‘n winsmoment. Die Bybel self sê vir ons, in Romeine nogal, dat waar die mense nie die wet van Moses het nie, gaan God in hulle harte kyk want hulle skryf hulle eie wet in hulle harte neer en die konteks daar is baie duidelik dat dit gaan oor mense wat nie die openbaring van die Jode gekry het voordat hulle Christene geword het nie, of dan nou selfs doodgegaan het sonder blootstelling aan die Joodse geloof of die Christelike geloof nie. ‘n Mens kry die idee dat die Bybel self die uitspraak lewer dat God met die hele wêreld besig is, ook buite om die Christendom. Daarmee sê ek nie almal gaan hemel toe nie. Daarom sê ek ons moet daai vraag op die tafel sit dat God besig is met alles en met almal en dat ons die draers van die openbaring is, as gelowige Christene, maar spesifiek wil ek dan ook sê, die winsmoment is die feit dat ons die geleentheid het om in gesprek te tree met kultuuruitinge wat ons in staat stel om tot stilstand te kom sodat ons weer op ‘n vars manier kan hoor wat God vir ons wil sê. Jy het na die kontemplatiewe verwys. Die kontemplatiewe lê toevallig in die vroeë kerk . . . en kom uit die kloosterera uit en as ‘n mens daarop sou ingaan dan dink ek nie ‘n mens moet die baba met die badwater uitgooi nie. En ‘n mens moet veral ook bereid wees om, wanneer ‘n mens mense wil beoordeel, in gesprek met hulle te tree en na hulle te luister want om ‘n ding krities te ondersoek beteken nie dat jy net foute uitlig nie maar dat jy ook na die persoon se hart gaan kyk en na sy integriteit gaan kyk. (Klem bygevoeg).

Waar ds. Guillaume Smit sy idees vandaan kry weet nugter, maar dit is baie duidelik dat hyself ook reeds deur die Ontluikende Kerk beïmvloed is. Ons lees nêrens in die Skrif dat Christene in gesprek moet tree met ander klultuuruitinge (godsdienste) om ons in staat te stel om op nuwe en vars maniere te hoor wat God vir ons wil sê nie. Die Here sê mos baie duidelik dat Hy sy finale Woord deur sy eniggebore Seun, Jesus Christus, met en tot ons gespreek het. Vergun my die geleentheid om ons drie hooggeëerde en hooggeleerde predikante te herinner aan sy woorde in Hebreërs 1:

Hebr. 1:1-2 Nadat God baiekeer en op baie maniere in die ou tyd gespreek het tot die vaders deur die profete, het Hy in hierdie laaste dae tot ons gespreek deur die Seun wat Hy as erfgenaam van alles aangestel het, deur wie Hy ook die wêreld gemaak het.

Die probleem met ons “ontluikende” of “opkomende kerk”-vriende is dat hulle nie wil hoor nie en ook nie sal hoor nie, nie tensy hulle hul van hul ketterse uitsprake en leerstellings bekeer nie. Smit se “winsmoment” soos hierbo aangehaal, is niks anders as ‘n dwarsklap na die gesig van Jesus Christus nie. Wat hy entlik sê, soos ds. Jannie Pelser ook in sy vraag gesuggereer het, is dat God se openbaring deur sy Seun nie voldoende is nie en dat ons in gesprek moet tree met ander kultuuruitinge (godsdiense) sodat ons met nuwe insigte en op vars maniere kan hoor wat God vir ons wil sê. Op die koop toe moet ons hulle nie aanspreek net om hulle foute uit te lig nie, maar ons moet na hulle harte gaan kyk (so asof Smit die vermoë het om mense se harte te sien. Lees gerus maar weer Jeremia 17:9, ds. Smit). Dit is juis die hele probleem. Hierdie valse leraars se integriteit en harte word so geweldig hoog aangerprys deur die samelewing en die kerk dat hulle maar kan sê net wat hulle wil; die arme skape en lammertjies loop nog steeds soos verlore skape agter hulle aan. Gn wonder Paulus het op ‘n kol gesê nie:

Hand 20: 29, 30 Want ek weet dit, dat ná my vertrek wrede wolwe onder julle sal inkom en die kudde nie sal spaar nie. Ja, uit julle self sal daar manne opstaan wat verkeerde dinge praat om die dissipels weg te trek agter hulle aan.

Weer eens, die Heilige Skrif moedig ons nie aan om in gesprek te tree met ander kultuuruitinge (godsdienste) nie. Paulus vermaan sy jonger boetie in die Here:

2 Tim 4:2-4 . . . verkondig die woord; hou aan tydig en ontydig; weerlê, bestraf, vermaan in alle lankmoedigheid en lering; want daar sal ‘n tyd wees wanneer hulle die gesonde leer nie sal verdra nie, maar, omdat hulle in hul gehoor gestreel wil wees, vir hulle ‘n menigte leraars sal versamel volgens hulle eie begeerlikhede, en die oor sal afkeer van die waarheid en hulle sal wend tot fabels. (Klem bygevoeg).

Die woord vir verkondig, is κηρύσσω [kerusso /kay·roos·so/] en beteken om die Woord heraldies uit te roep, altyd met die voorneme om dit formeel en met groot erns en outoriteit uit te dra want daar MOET daarna geluister word en dit MOET gehoorsaam word. Daarom sê Paulus:

1Kor 9:16 Want as ek die evangelie verkondig, is dit vir my geen roem nie; want die dwang is my opgelê, en wee my as ek die evangelie nie verkondig nie!

Waarom MOET almal gehoorsaam wees aan die heraldiese roep van die Evanglie?

Joh 3:36 Hy wat in die Seun glo, het die ewige lewe; maar hy wat die Seun ongehoorsaam is, sal die lewe nie sien nie, maar die toorn van God bly op hom. (Klem bygevoeg).

Let tog asseblief noukeurig op, Jannie, Guillaume en Cobus, Paulus het nie gesê “tree in gesprek met ander kultuuruitinge sodat julle God se stem nuut en vars kan hoor nie.” Soos Paulus, wil ek ook vir julle sê “Wee julle as julle die evangelie nie verkondig nie,” en moet asseblief nie vir my sê dat julle wel deeglik die evangelie verkondig nie want as julle dit reeds doen, sou julle nooit sulke onbesonne dinge sê soos “maar spesifiek wil ek dan ook sê, die winsmoment is die feit dat ons die geleentheid het om in gesprek te tree met kultuuruitinge wat ons in staat stel om tot stilstand te kom sodat ons weer op ‘n vars manier kan hoor wat God vir ons wil sê.”

Ek wou ook baie graag kommentaar op ds. Guillaume Smit se eienaardige eksegese oor Romeine 1 lewer, maar ek sal dit liewer oorlaat tot ‘n volgende keer.

Ek sluit af met Jesus se woorde in Johannes 21.

Joh 21:15-17 Toe hulle dan klaar was met die môre-ete, vra Jesus vir Simon Petrus: Simon, seun van Jona, het jy My waarlik lief, meer as hulle hier? Hy antwoord Hom: Ja, Here, U weet dat ek U liefhet. Hy sê vir hom: Laat my lammers wei. Hy vra hom weer die tweede maal: Simon, seun van Jona, het jy My waarlik lief? Hy antwoord Hom: Ja, Here, U weet dat ek U liefhet. Hy sê vir hom: Pas my skape op. Hy vra hom die derde maal: Simon, seun van Jona, het jy My lief? Petrus het bedroef geword, omdat Hy hom die derde maal vra: Het jy My lief? En hy antwoord Hom: Here, U weet alles, U weet dat ek U liefhet. Jesus sê vir hom: Laat my skape wei.

Indien Jannie, Guillaume en Cobus die Here Jesus waarlik liefhet, sal hulle sorg dat God se skape en lammertjies die regte geestelike weiding en voedsel kry en glo my hulle sal dit nimmer as’t nooit in ander weivelde (kultuuruitinge of godsdienste) vind nie. Julle speel met vuur.