Growing Tired of Those Who Liken Me To Racist White Nationalists

Published July 28, 2024July 28, 2024 by Papa Giorgio

The above graphic – which I will end with, along with a graphic by Shane Claiborn, and another by N.T. Wright discussing Christian Nationalism,* I unfriended a person who, since Trump has maligned a large swath of Bible believing brothers and sisters as white nationalists, who, in wanting to control the border well — THUS, offering the most compassion to people from other countries — as racists.

* SEE MY: Christian Nationalism? Conflating neo-Paganism with Christianity

SHANE CLAIBORNE

I have previously written on Shane’s close ties to radical Marxist organizations and radically left “Christian” institutions. But this will be a good refresher course in the failure of Shane’s views.

For instance, after showing a clip, a short clip, of Trump discussing immigration, Shane Claiborne said this:

I am troubled by Trump.

But I’m even more troubled by the Christians who support him.

This is white supremacy… full stop.

Trump is an opportunist… exploiting the fears and insecurities of white people. He stokes the deepest fears of scarcity, of being replaced, of losing power. And he unleashes Americas worst principalities and powers. This is racism on full display.

But the Gospel of Jesus is about love and compassion. It’s about the promise that perfect love casteth out fear. The Gospel is about advocating for widows and orphans and having compassion for those Christ called “the least of these.”

In fact, Jesus even says that when we welcome the stranger – the immigrant, the refugee, the homeless — we are welcoming HIM.

Follow Jesus. Not Trump.

Who follows Trump like they follow Jesus.

This is a repeated nonsensical line I hear repeated by #NeverTrumpers.

SMH… it is this over-generalized statement[s] that gets under my skin.

Dennis Prager notes that when he make a generalization, he will give an example to go along with it.

Why?

So a person can deal with the argument.

But saying someone is a white nationalist or lives his life today normalizing the “seven deadly sins” is just a broad, insurmountable statements used a broad brush to merely reject opposition rather than engage it.

Trump is not a pastor of a church movement that advocates Marxism and Liberation Theology, like Shane.

Here is an excellent gathering of some of his issues as it relates to me and my family – other than being white nationalists:

This is what Shane Claiborne had to say about revered Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler:

“I think even Bonhoeffer was wrong. There’s an interview with Hitler’s secretary in a movie called Blind Spot, and she tells about when the assassination attempt failed, and Hitler was very interestingly protected from the bomb, he was convinced at that point, more than ever before, that God was protecting him and his mission, and he went forward with renewed vigilence like ever before. So I would say on the day that Bonhoeffer did that, the cross lost, and that violence just perpetuated.”

[SEE HERE FOR MORE] Mark Tooley in the Weekly Standard writes:

“Shane Claiborne is a Christian counter-culturalist and pacifist who went to Baghdad in 2003 to express solidarity with Iraq when the first U.S. and Allied missiles landed.”

“CBS News asked him whether he was a traitor:

If this bloody, counterfeit liberation is American .??.??. I am proud to be un-American. If depleted uranium is American .??.??. I am proud to be un-American. If the imposed ‘peace’ of Pax Americana is American, I am proud to be un-American.”

“In Jesus for President Claiborne wants Christians to disavow their country and all civil governance in favor of exclusive allegiance to a nonviolent Jesus whose chief mission is resisting ‘empire.’ But Claiborne’s interpretation of Jesus, his few selective quotations from early church fathers notwithstanding, is largely divorced from the universal church’s understanding of the Savior. Instead, Claiborne insists on a narrowly reinterpreted Jesus as distilled by Yoder and several others in 20th-century America for whom Jesus is more social critic than Resurrected Redeemer.”

Barton Gingerich of the Institute on Religion & Democracy writes:

“Claiborne often touts radical political themes. His 2008 book Jesus for President likened American to the Third Reich and the biblical Whore of Babylon . . . Claiborne has also praised Occupy Wall Street and recently called for an ‘excorcism’ of Wall Street.”

[….]

“Shane Claiborne. . . warned on July 4 that ‘patriotism can be a dangerous thing if it leads to amnesia about the dark patches of our nation’s history.’ He proposed that instead of Independence Day, Americans celebrate ‘Interdependence Day,’ to recognize that ‘we are part of a global neighborhood.’”

In an Interview with Tony Campolo, Shane Claiborne said, “One of the barriers [between religions] seems to be the assumption that we have the truth and folks who experience things differently will all go to Hell. How do we unashamedly maintain a healthy desire for others to experience the love of God as we have experienced it without condemning others who experience God differently?”

Here is another quote by Claiborne, “When we truly discover how to love our neighbor as our self, Capitalism will not be possible and Marxism will not be necessary.” (see here)

Author Dave Hunt sums up Shane Claiborne’s teaching this way, “Some of Claiborne’s agenda toward the poor is commendable and may be well suited to social welfare programs such as the Peace Corps or UNESCO, but it does a terrible disservice to the biblical gospel. ‘Biblical’ needs to be underscored here because the gospel has specific content that can only be derived from the Bible. The gospel is what the Bible is all about. It is God’s way of salvation. . .Since the gospel has an eternal objective (e.g., it is a person’s only means for spending eternity with God), there is nothing of temporal significance that should be given priority over it. …

(EXPOSING THE ELCA)

I am a huge fan of a Chinese Christian who started life as a committed philosopher of Buddhism, saw his coutry heading towards a cliff, was eventually forced to relocate under Mao, became a Christian and wrote veraciously about the Christian worldview and theology. Very few books are translated from Chinese to English. But in a missions class at seminary taught by Dr. Ray D. Arnold, who was one of the 1,000 missionaries that General MacArthur called to go to Japan at the conclusion of WWII. One blog notes this about the endeavor:

Perhaps General MacArthur didn’t succeed in bringing Christianity to Japan in the institutional sense. But he did bring mercy, forgiveness and respect for human dignity–the heart of Christianity–and these the Japanese graciously accepted.

… taught by Dr. Ray D. Arnold, he introduced me to this prolific author and professor with a booklet he quoted from in class (I will emphasize the portion he used as a quote):

As Dr. Carl F. H. Henry pointed out: “The Chicago evangelicals, while seeking to overcome the polarization of concern in terms of personal evangelism or social ethics, also transcended the neoProtestant nullification of the Great Commission.” “The Chicago Declaration did not leap from a vision of social utopia to legislation specifics, but concentrated first on biblical priorities for social change.” “The Chicago evangelicals did not ignore transcendent aspects of God’s Kingdom, nor did they turn the recognition of these elements into a rationalization of a theology of revolutionary violence or of pacifistic neutrality in the face of blatant militarist aggression.” (Cf. Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, “Evangelical Social Concern” Christianity Today, March 1, 1974.) The evangelical social concern is transcendental not merely horizontal.

We must make it clear that the true revolutionaries are different from the frauds who “deal only with surface phenomena. They seek to remove a deep-seated tumor from society by applying a plaster to the surface. The world’s deepest need today is not something that merely dulls the pain, but something that goes deep in order to change the basic unity of society, man himself. Only when men individually have experienced a change and reorientation, can society be redirected in the way it should go. This we cannot accomplish by either violence or legislation” (cf. Reid: op. cit.). Social actions, without a vertical and transcendental relation with God only create horizontal anxieties and perplexities!

Furthermore, the social activists are in fact ignorant of the social issues, they are not experts in the social sciences. They simply demand an immediate change or destruction of the social structures, but provide no blueprint of the new society whatsoever! They can be likened to the fool, as a Chinese story tells, who tried to help the plant grow faster by pulling it higher. Of course such “action” only caused the plant to wither and die. This is exactly what the social radicals are doing now! And the W.C.C. is supporting such a tragic course!

We must challenge them [secular social activists] to discern the difference between the true repentance and “social repentance.” The Bible says: “For the godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret; but worldly grief produces death” (II Cor. 7:10). This was the bitter experiences of many former Russian Marxists, who, after their conversion to Christ came to understand that they had only a sort of “social repentance”—a sense of guilt before the peasant and the proletariat, but not before God. They admitted that “A Russian (Marxist) intellectual as an individual is often a mild and loving creature, but his creed (Marxism) constrains him to hate” (cf. Nicolas Zernov: The Russian Religious Renaissance). “As it is written, there is none righteous, no, not one…. For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:10,23). A complete change of a society must come from man himself, for basically man is at enmity with God. All humanistic social, economic and political systems are but “cut flowers,” as Dr. Trueblood put it, even the best are only dim reflections of the Glory of the Kingdom of God. As Benjamin Franklin in his famous address to the Constitutional Convention, said, “Without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.” Without reconciliation with God, there is no reconciliation with man. Social action is not evangelism; political liberation is not salvation. While we shall by all means have deep concern on social issues; nevertheless, social activism shall never be a substitution for the Gospel.

Lit-sen Chang, The True Gospel vs. Social Activism, (booklet. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co: 1976), 9.

But publications like this: “Lit-sen Chang (1904–1996) and the Critique of Indigenous Theology,” would be anathema to Shane and clan. The success, by the way, of the Evangelical Church in China today is in part to the hard work of Lit-sen Chang. The Chinese underground church would be in awe of Shane’s douchery in playing with Marxist fire and labeling it ecumenism.

DAVID FRENCH

Another person who is lauded by this recent unfriended friend is David French. He seems to link and recommend French a lot even though French believes I am a racist rube as well. So let us begin with a change from French as an “Evangelical who supports Mitt Romney” to maligning evangelicals in an atheists documentary.

Kylee Griswold via THE FEDERALIST hits this one out of the park for us:

… Long before French became a willing participant in atheist Rob Reiner’s anti-Trump “documentary” “God & Country” earlier this year, he was invoking white guilt to toss a cohort of Christians who vote differently than he does into the “Christian nationalism” basket. Evangelicals (specifically white ones) who were hesitant about getting the rushed and mandated Covid jab were actually “reluctant to consider the health of their community” and had a “spiritual problem.”

Less than two weeks after radical pro-abortion and pro-transgender candidate Joe Biden became the presumptive Democrat nominee in 2020, French said those who favored Trump were of low character and competence — even though, as Nathaniel Blake wrote in these pages, French was previously “behind ‘Evangelicals for Mitt’ and spent years arguing that our political leaders need not be avatars for our beliefs.”

Then there’s French’s evolution on so-called “gay marriage” in federal law. He says his views on traditional, biblical marriage have not changed. But during the fight over the misnamed Respect for Marriage Act — which requires every state and the federal government to recognize homosexual “marriages” and was signed into law by French-endorsed President Biden — French claimed:

Religious belief is not the same thing as declaring civil law. … I don’t want the law to discriminate against those Americans who sincerely hold different views of sexual morality, sexuality, and marriage and organize their lives and their institutions accordingly.

As Megan Basham wrote in The Federalist at the time, “In other words, he makes the same argument about marriage that Catholics Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have about abortion — he has personal views based on his faith but does not want those views, however endorsed they may be by the Creator of the universe, to be reflected in U.S. statute.”

He didn’t stop there, though. French thinks now that the institution has been legally desecrated, it should stay that way forever: “It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which [gay Americans] ordered their lives.”

While David French was a senior editor of The Dispatch, the NeverTrump publication performed a dishonest “independent fact-check” of pre-2020 election advertisements from the pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List, which exposed Biden and Kamala Harris’ support for abortion until birth. Facebook then used that fake fact-check to censor the pro-life ads.

There’s plenty more where that came from. From launching character assassinations, to going after the weak, to defending the taxpayer-funded indoctrination of children with divisive racial politics, and more — the David “Winsome” French well never runs dry.

But the Pharisaical metanarrative is a familiar one: a self-righteous religious leader who sets his own rules, measures his opponents by them, morphs those rules when it suits him, and then boisterously gives thanks that he’s not like the unpalatable white Trump voters over there.

French is not so much a regime handmaiden as he is a court eunuch who became so by choice and nonetheless thinks he is in a position to lecture others on masculinity. He’s a turncoat who scolds others about loyalty, a liar convinced he’s the last honest man on Earth, and a party apparatchik whose vaunted principles always seem to align with his paychecks.

In recent years, he’s made a name for himself using Sunday — the traditional Christian day of rest and worship — to smear the faithful for the unpardonable sin of believing God’s law is superior to man’s law. ….

After Kylee wrote the above article… David French responded. In character of course.

Dissecting French’s Latest Delusion

French doesn’t name me in his self-obsessed screed, but I’m clearly the subject of his ire. The “professional polarizer” links to my article on the subject twice, once calling it “misleading” but without naming anything I got wrong — probably because he can’t. Every nasty thing he’s ever written about white evangelicals is public.

In his latest installment, French recaps how “apolitical” the PCA was when he and his wife joined it in 2004 through 2007 when he deployed (he can’t help himself). Then everything changed. This is the crux of his piece:

Two things happened that changed our lives, however, and in hindsight they’re related. First, in 2010, we adopted a 2-year-old girl from Ethiopia. Second, in 2015, Donald Trump announced his presidential campaign.

In other words, the religious and political landscape changed when “Trump’s rise” drew racists out of the evangelical woodwork, and principled David French, who just so happened to detest Donald Trump and made his living demonizing Trump’s supporters, couldn’t abide it.

This is absurd.

First, it’s either intellectually dishonest or completely delusional to ignore the actual catalyst that changed American politics during the period French identifies — and, in fact, birthed the Trump years. And no, it’s not the French family’s skin color nor sleeper racists inside the church who were just waiting for a “Celebrity Apprentice” president to make their move.

It was the Barack Obama years — a Rubicon-crossing era masked by smooth rhetoric, disdain for marriage, promotion of on-demand abortion, attacks on Christian consciences, the targeting of conservative political groups and their donors, the demonization of firearms, illegal power grabs to advance unlawful immigration, the introduction of campus kangaroo courts, the regular embrace of racism and antisemitism, and much, much more.

Besides Obama’s slick celebration of immorality and gaslighting of anyone who “bitterly clung” to social norms and biblical tradition, there was no going back after his egregious weaponization of the federal government against his political opponents, including secret spying on Republicans. Trump was the equal and opposite reaction to all of that, no matter what French says.

[….]

Now, lest French or anyone else accuse me of racism, it should go without saying that any attacks on a person’s Imago Dei child, including those based on skin color or heritage, are despicable. It’s wrong for trolls to exploit children and deploy threats, whether via direct message or in person.

But French is insane if he thinks he’s the subject of unique threats, that these threats originate from the church, or that they’re a defining characteristic of Trumpers. For just one example, look at who attacked another white mother of a black adopted child, Trump-nominated Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Most people don’t feel the need to compulsively victimize themselves as French does, but since he went there, I guess I’ll bite: I don’t have half David French’s platform, but my life has still been threatened by left-wing nutjobs, something nearly all my colleagues can say as well. Threats and hate mail are an occupational hazard of public figures.

Additionally, I receive assaults on my faith, vulgar comments on my posts, and trolling of unsuspecting family and friends. And of course, some confrontations happen in real life or from people you know personally. It’s ridiculous, however, to view political and religious metanarratives through the lens of a few cynical anecdotes or DMs — especially when most people don’t live and breathe your Twitter feed, as French knows.

After earlier writing, “When I deployed to Iraq in 2007, the entire church rallied to support my family and to support the men I served with,” French writes this near the end of his piece:

I do not want to paint with too broad a brush. Our pastors and close friends continued to stand with us. Our church disciplined the man who confronted me about Trump during communion. And most church members didn’t follow politics closely and had no idea about any of the attacks we faced.

You don’t say. You mean more people offered support when you publicly deployed than when you privately received nasty social media messages and one-on-one attacks? Does this guy have an editor?

Pure Projection

It’s even clearer now than when French’s PCA panel was announced that my diagnosis was correct. French is a turncoat and a party apparatchik whose alleged principles seem to line up perfectly with his paychecks.

It’s not my job to judge the authenticity of French’s faith. But when, of the PCA’s General Assemby, he says he’s “now deemed too divisive to speak to a gathering of Christians who share [his] faith,” I wonder whether he means those nonwhite, enlightened parishioners who share his hatred for Trump or the untouchables he thinks are neo-Confederates.

“If you dissent [from particular pro-Trump arguments], yeah, there will be people in the church who still love you and support you and respect you, but there will be people who come after you,” French told Mika Brzezinski and race-baiter Al Sharpton on MSNBC Monday morning.

Never forget he went after them first.

David French & the Vapors of Civic Virtue Escaping from a Mystery Box | Doug Wilson

Now I would have some things to say to those who went into the Capitol that day. First, I do believe that their resistance on J6 was not in accordance with the Word of God. That’s not how you do it. This was not Protestant resistance theology, but more like Keystone Kops resistance theory. And related, in the second place, as Tallyrand so elegantly put it one time, it was worse than a crime—it was a blunder.

Wintery Knight has some articles as well worth your attention. Here are some issues I wish to highlight from his excellent coverage.

Secular Left Funding New David French / Russell Moore Church Curriculum

… This time, she [Megan Basham TWIX | DAILY WIRE] takes on 2 of the people who try to present themselves as Christians, even as they are doing everything they can to destroy Christianity in America: David French and Russell Moore.

Here’s her latest report in First Things:

Secular news outlets from NPR to the New York Times are hailing Tim Alberta’s new book, The Kingdom, The Power, and the Glory, for furthering the popular thesis that evangelicals have abandoned themselves to political idolatry. By “political idolatry” they mean “political conservatism,” as neither Alberta’s book nor the many prestige outlets enthusing over it have a word of criticism for Christians who advance left-wing causes. However, a curious passage in the book suggests that those leveling this charge may be most guilty of infecting the church with partisanship.

Alberta reports on The After Party, a forthcoming program led by Duke Divinity consulting professor Curtis Chang and developed with New York Times columnist David French and Christianity Today editor in chief Russell Moore. The program offers pastors and small groups a curriculum “reframing Christian political identity from today’s divisive partisan options.”

According to Alberta, during its germination phase, the project hit a roadblock. Evangelical donors had little interest in funding an explicitly political Bible study. Thus, to get The After Party off the ground, the trio (all frequent critics of evangelicals who voted for Donald Trump) turned to “predominantly progressive” “unbelievers.” In fact, they turned to secular left-wing foundations.

I don’t want to say any more about what she found out in this post. I want you to read it yourselves – the whole thing. It’s just what you would expect, though. Wealthy left-wing billionaires, LGBT activists, pro-abortion activists, gender ideologues, transgender activists, and more.

She adds this, though:

Does anyone really believe these secular progressive grant-makers are interested in developing a church curriculum about politics without an eye toward affecting policy? Or that this curriculum will strengthen evangelicals’ commitment to the very causes progressives despise? Between 2013 and 2014, the Ford, Rockefeller, and Tides foundations contributed a combined $1.3 million to the Evangelical Immigration Table’s “Bibles, Badges, and Business” initiative, launched to mobilize evangelical support for amnesty legislation such as the failed Gang of Eight bill. Hewlett and a host of other major left-wing donors bankrolled the Evangelical Environmental Network’s Evangelical Climate Initiative with the aim of generating churchgoer support for cap and trade legislation. Secular progressive foundations have not hesitated to leverage new evangelical ministries to sway Christians to their political will.

[….]

… What we need are rank-and-file Christians to know what is going on, and speak up to make sure that their churches aren’t being led by secular leftists.

The funny thing about the secular leftists and their puppets David French and Russell Moore. They don’t realize this, but any Christian faith that is divorced from the Bible, and wedded to the Democrat party, loses it’s ability to save. …

David French Wants Christians Who Accept Jesus’ Definition Of Marriage To Be Persecuted

If you’ve been following David French’s writing closely, you’ll know that he no longer supports public policies that are consistent with the Christian worldview. In this post, we’ll take a look at Jesus’ definition of marriage, then we’ll see whether David French thinks that Jesus knows more about the definition of marriage than the Democrat party.

First, what does Jesus think about marriage?

Here’s what Jesus says about marriage.

Matthew 19:1-11 [WK’s link is to the NIV. I substitute the ISV below]:

¹When Jesus had finished saying these things,a he left Galilee and went to the territory of Judea on the other side of the Jordan. ² Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

³Some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason?” ⁴ He answered them, “Haven’t you read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female, ⁵ and said, ‘That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?, ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must never separate.”

⁷ They asked him, “Why, then, did Moses order us ‘to give a certificate of divorce and divorce her’?”, ⁸ He said to them, “It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning it was not this way. ⁹ I tell you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

¹⁰ His disciples said to him, “If that is the relationship of a man with his wife, it’s not worth getting married!” ¹¹But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this saying, except those to whom celibacy has been granted.”

To be a Christian, minimally, is to be a follower of Jesus Christ. That means that we accept what Jesus teaches, on whatever he teaches about. We don’t overturn the teachings of Jesus in order to make people who are rebelling against God feel better about their rebellion. It is central to the Christian worldview that Christians care more about what God thinks of them than what non-Christians think of them. In fact, Christians are supposed to be willing to endure suffering rather than side with non-Christians against God’s authority.

Here’s an article from The Federalist by conservative Christian lioness Megan Basham.

She writes:

[P]erhaps no one has done more to further the idea that Christians should not let the God they worship influence their policy views than one-time defender of traditional marriage, David French.

[…] As a political pundit, French has been singularly influential in evangelical establishment circles, referenced regularly not only in Christianity Today’s pages and podcasts but also giving speeches at Southern Baptist seminaries and winning praise from outlets such as The Gospel Coalition as “one of the few Christians who is able to bring gospel-centered arguments into the public square.”

In all three of his essays on RMA in the last week, French reveals that he, too, has evolved on marriage and… discourages Christians from resisting the enshrinement of gay marriage into U.S. law.

French… adds, “Religious belief is not the same thing as declaring civil law … I don’t want the law to discriminate against those Americans who sincerely hold different views of sexual morality, sexuality, and marriage and organize their lives and their institutions accordingly.”

What does David French think about same-sex marriage as public policy?

French reveals that… believes [the Obergefell ruling’s] argument for ushering in an entirely new form of marriage, unknown to previous ages, was well-founded. He writes that as far back as 2004, he believed, “In a diverse, pluralistic republic, granting the same rights to others that we’d like to exercise ourselves should be the default posture of public advocacy and public policy.”

Now that the fundamental transformation of marriage has taken place, French argues it should be permanent: “It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which they’ve ordered their lives,” he writes.

When it comes to policy, David French thinks that the Democrat party’s definition of marriage is better than Jesus’ definition of marriage.

Previously, I noted how the Alliance Defending Freedom thinks that the “Respect for Marriage Act” will threaten the religious liberty of Christian organizations:

The so-called Respect for Marriage Act is a misnamed bill that expands not only what marriage means, but also who can be sued for disagreeing with the new meaning of marriage.

While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.

The Respect for Marriage Act threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage in multiple ways:

It further embeds a false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric.
It opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships.
It jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
It endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.

The truth is the Respect for Marriage Act does nothing to change the status of same-sex marriage or the benefits afforded to same-sex couples following Obergefell. It does much, however, to endanger religious freedom.

David French wants Christians who agree with Jesus about the definition of marriage to be persecuted by the secular left state. That’s why he supports this Democrat party legislation.

(Read It All, Trust Me, It Is Worth It)

In an excellent end to a pretty lengthy article in THE FEDERALIST, Kylee Griswold nails her ideas expressed in her piece:

None of this is to say Christians ought to embrace apathy or be pacifists. The anti-religious newsrooms pushing cover stories about so-called Christian nationalism would love nothing more than to shame and bully faithful disciples into sitting down and shutting up.

The Capitol riot was a convenient hook for their narrative, but they don’t just believe the people who showed up in Washington that day were religious extremists. They think all Christians are. It isn’t that they don’t want you in Statuary Hall. It’s that they don’t want you on the school board, in journalism, or on campus. They want to chase you out of churches, out of public office, and even out of political conversations.

Believers, however, know faith without works is dead and that our faith isn’t confined to Sunday morning services. What we believe about God and man and redemption ought to affect every decision we make, including our civic engagement.

If we love God, love our neighbor, and wish to steward our resources and lead our families well, sitting on the sidelines of the political and culture wars is really not an option. Contrary to French’s assessment, it isn’t about making ourselves more culturally comfortable; it’s about being consistent in our beliefs and doing what’s right.

As long we remain on this Earth, Christians will be assailed as bigots and nationalists. This evergreen dynamic of Christians being not “of the world,” but striving to be faithful while they’re “in it,” is way bigger than Jan. 6, Donald Trump, David French, or America. Don’t confuse true believers who rightly fight for both faith and freedom as Christian nationalists. They’re just Christians.

One last reference to the divisive nature of French in his attacks that mirror what he rejects in whom he accuses. Here is a paragraph intro to the larger American Reformer excerpt via Rod Dreher:

James Wood has further thoughts on his controversial — unjustly controversial, in my view — First Things essay gently criticizing famed pastor Tim Keller. It was unjustly controversial because some of Keller’s friends took unnecessary umbrage at what struck me as a balanced piece written by a man who greatly respected, and still respects, Keller, but who thinks that Keller’s mode of pastoral engagement is insufficient to the times. (THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVER)

Here is David French being his mean Trumpian self, via James R. Wood:

The Kellerites propound to abhor division among Christians, and yet I have found them far more divisive than they admit. This is captured in the common trope: “Punch right, coddle left.” Those who are devoted to the third-wayism of Keller generally appear to assume the worst from one side of the political spectrum and give the benefit of the doubt to—or at least provide an apologetic for—the other. (Case in point: David French’s recent piece on my essay.) Kellerites make up a significant portion of the “never Trump” movement among Christians, and this movement is unforgiving of those who have chosen, for whatever reason, to vote in that way (full disclosure: I did not in either election). They are also quick to join in the chorus of denunciations of “Christian nationalism,” which is often a bogeyman label for any robust pursuit of conservative Christian influence in politics. Make what you wish of Aaron Renn’s Three Worlds schema, but I think it is a bit obvious that, for example, in recent years conservative Christian political engagement that would have been seen as somewhat innocuous in previous years is quickly and regularly denounced as authoritarian “Christian nationalism.”

[….]

While few critics have echoed French’s imputation of malice…

[….]

It also encourages the sort of false equivalences French employs against Wood: “When it comes to negative partisanship, neither side has clean hands. If we truly live in a ‘negative world,’ then Christians helped make it negative.” French implies that Christians deserve the hostility they face. There are of course cases in which this is true, such as the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years, or those that seem perennially to plague the Catholic Church. But French’s writing over the past five years indicates that he has in mind the bogeyman of white Christian nationalism.

[….]

But time has revealed liberal universalism to be a parochial delusion. History is up and running again. The political has returned with a vengeance. And those who continue to mistake the third way for a universal doctrine are at risk of sleepwalking into political idolatry that insists upon a paradoxically post-political ideology.

(AMERICAN REFORMER)

… Moving on to Natalie Grace

The clip at the very top of this post by JIM G., was one of the final straws for someone who says he is a conservative. If it were just that one graphic he posted – fine. But time and time again he posts stuff by Leftist Democrats or “Christians” who call me a white supremacist – and use [debunked] examples/excerpts of Trump trying to prove he is racist as well. JIM G. found me originally by a critique I had done on the Emergent church… I assume he agreed then with my assessment. Which can be “summarized” here:

Emergen[t]cy: Investigating Post Modernism In The Church.pdf

But as Trump came and went from office […] he has encamped in the same movement that is heretical to the historic Christian faith. As well as putting forward radical Dems.

SEE MY: Does the Bible Advocate For “Open Borders”?

… To Wit …

Natalie Grace

These people just say colloquial stuff to emote. Here is the rest of that graphic at the top:

In other words, I could say:

“What if God doesn’t actually care about the laws against drug use, but does care about how those who follow Him think about, talk about, and act towards those who use drugs and sell to others? BTW, my question is rhetorical. God obviously cares more about our hearts towards drug users than any arbitrary, man-made line in the sand [laws on the books].”

You could put a million recipes that show these people are just saying poetry to make themselves feel better than Trump. Or people like myself.

David Mamet dealt with this human proclivity well years ago:

One might say that the politician, the doctor, and the dramatist make their living from human misery; the doctor in attempting to alleviate it, the politician to capitalize on it, and the dramatist, to describe it.

But perhaps that is too epigrammatic.

When I was young, there was a period in American drama in which the writers strove to free themselves of the question of character.

Protagonists of their worthy plays had made no choices, but were afflicted by a condition not of their making; and this condition, homosexuality, illness, being a woman, etc., was the center of the play. As these protagonists had made no choices, they were in a state of innocence. They had not acted, so they could not have sinned.

A play is basically an exercise in the raising, lowering, and altering of expectations (such known, collectively, as the Plot); but these plays dealt not with expectations (how could they, for the state of the protagonist was not going to change?) but with sympathy.

What these audiences were witnessing was not a drama, but a troublesome human condition displayed as an attraction. This was, formerly, known as a freak show.

The subjects of these dramas were bearing burdens not of their choosing, as do we all. But misfortune, in life, we know, deserves forbearance on the part of the unafflicted. For though the display of courage in the face of adversity is worthy of all respect, the display of that respect by the unaffected is presumptuous and patronizing.

One does not gain merit from congratulating an afflicted person for his courage. One only gains entertainment.

Further, endorsement of the courage of the affliction play’s hero was not merely impertinent, but, more basically, spurious, as applause was vouchsafed not to a worthy stoic, but to an actor portraying him.

These plays were an (unfortunate) by-product of the contemporary love-of-the-victim. For a victim, as above, is pure, and cannot have sinned; and one, by endorsing him, may perhaps gain, by magic, part of his incontrovertible status.

David Mamet, The Secret Knowledge: On the Dismantling of American Culture (New York, NY: Sentinel Publishing, 2011), 134-135.

This is all people like JIM G. and Natalie Grace are doing. Transferring sainthood to fell better. To feel superior, morally.

In trying to get approval by the other side, or the New York Times/Washington Post crowd, these people find they have to think of “Christianity as a collection of theological bits and pieces to be believed or debated.” Rather than approaching the Christian “faith as a conceptual system, as a total world-and-life view” — Ronald H. Nash, Worldviews in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas. They have to grab some legalism from the O.T., sprinkle it with Emergent post-modernism, form a cudgel with flowers on it, and get busy beating Christians as racist white supremacists who support Trump and all the distorted ideas the New York Times and Washington Post says he has.

As for me?

I got better things ta do.

So I unfriended this tiresome attack[s] by a “friend.”

Leaving a Church of Almost 10-Years | Tough Decisions for Faith

Published September 13, 2013July 20, 2024 by Papa Giorgio

My wife and I were reminissing about Northpark and figured that my time-line was off a bit — and that my date of initial attendance was a bit off. I (and then we) actually attended Northpark for 10-years, not 12… hence the change in the title.

Postmodern, Cultural-Marxism in the Church

Why this post? While airing the churches dirty laundry is not the best option, it is an option to warn others of misuse of Scripture, pastoral staff that is not sound in the essentials, and a general refusal to come to terms with what historic Christianity has considered the “fundamentals.” As you will see the doctrine of the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, and other essentials are rejected by the authors of the books given to me by a pastor at NorthPark. I deal with these books in-depth in my chapter entitled, “Emergen[t]Cy ~ Investigating Post Modernism In Evangelical Thought.” But below is primarily a “review”/rejection of a book used in a men’s college class at church by pastor Bob Hudson… and ultimately was the last straw for me at a church I truly loved and that my wife and I truly enjoyed.

We loved its members, and our kids grew up in the children’s ministry here. My leaving this church of 12-years was not an easy decision, but came about because of the lack of doctrinal protection in the core of the pastoral/deacon group of persons. Pastors in particular are admonished to cleave to sound doctrine so that they could be good ministers of the gospel (1 Tim 4:6). And the church was growing so fast and the head pastor is soo gracious that the aberrant teachings slipped under the rug. Aberrant Definition

After leaving this church I found that the pastoral staff at another church I was considering were also in need of simple doctrinal adherence and the creeping of Eastern philosophy likewise was rearing its head… unchallenged in this church.

My last semester at seminary introduced me to a previously unknown movement within evangelical circles known as the “Emergent Movement.” In reality, it is merely liberal theology repackaged to look like the core of the Gospel… when in fact, it is the jettisoning of core doctrines that are the foundational to the Gospel. 2 Timothy 2:15 reads: “Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.”

As I said, my introduction to this movement came about at Seminary because of some of the books recommended to me in my syllabus, which led me down a rabbit hole of reading. This trail sparked conversation between one of the new pastors and myself… he assured me that the movement wasn’t all that bad, and that I needed to read up on the topic. So, we had some coffee at my house and we had a cordial meeting and he left me an armful of books. (I will post some of the content and the authors thoughts on salvation — from this armful of books given to me by a pastor from an “conservative evangelical church — in an appendix at the end.)

I read them… Wasn’t all that “bad” ~ my ass.

One night alone in prayer might make us new men, changed from poverty of soul to spiritual wealth, from trembling to triumphing ~ Charles Haddon Spurgeon

In one of the books for instance, and this would be important to a well-liked sermon at my old church on core doctrines that one shouldn’t sway on,

What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archaeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births? But what if as you study the origin of the word virgin, you discover that the word virgin in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew Language at that time, the word virgin could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first ‘time she had intercourse?

Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2005), 26.

This reading led me to other instances like the following November 2004 Christianity Today article written by Andy Crouch, titled “Emergent Mystique,” Rob Bell said,

“We’re rediscovering Christianity as an Eastern religion, as a way of life” (emphasis added). Thomas Merton, a Catholic monk, predated Bell in his popularizing of interspirituality by “[opening] the door for Christians to explore other traditions, notably Taoism (Chinese witchcraft), Hinduism and Buddhism.”

Wayne Teasdale, The Mystic Heart: Discovering a Universal Spirituality in the World’s Religions (Novato, CA: New World Library, 1999), 39.

Merton of course is famously known for saying that he sees “no contradiction between Buddhism and Christianity … I intend to become as good a Buddhist as I can” (David Steindl-Rast, “Recollection of Thomas Merton’s Last Days in the West” [Monastic Studies, 1969] 7:10).

I can list more instances that threw red-flags up for me, but needless to say I had a coffee infused meeting with my pastor, and I thought we were on the same page. I had a few more short discussions with him and some of the other deacons, but it wasn’t until a young man came up to me and mentioned the book the pastor who handed me the armload of counter-Christian books was using in the men’s college group that I knew I needed to protect my family from bad teaching.

I do deal with many more of the books handed to me in that original encounter in my chapter on this topic, Emergen[t]Cy – Investigating Post Modernism In Evangelical Thought: But Who Do You Say I Am Rob Bell?

The book used by the leader of young men was Irresistible Revolution, by Shane Claiborne (there is a pretty in-depth review of Shane’s book here, A Humbled Resistance).

Much like the author I too wore Rage Against the Machine shirts (p. 97 – I think my oldest son still wears some of my old shirts) mainly because I genuinely like the music, and secondly, my reasoning behind wearing Rage Against the Machine shirts was that often times conversation would open up with young people that would lead to me talking about the bands radical Marxist leanings. It was a chance for me to lead these misguided persons towards a healthy-well-balanced understanding of American history and ideals, separated from the Howard Zinn type histories that many of those teaching them would infuse their young minds with. (See my RIP of Zinn’s passing.)

Shane, in contradistinction, wore the shirts of this band with full knowledge of and support for this class warfare idea found only in Marx and Engels manifesto.

I say this confidently only after reading Irresistible Revolution.

In his book, Shane makes the argument that you have to be an atheist to be a Marxist. Besides flying in the face of history this is only a small value in Marxism — granted an important one — however, Marxism is much more than merely a belief in disbelief. or disbelief,in the divine. In fact, the divine is merely transferred to this world in dialectical materialism, and a push for utopia creates the “divine” in man and his anthropogenic fundamentalism… as exemplified in Shane’s writings. Take note as well that I argue that Mormonism is a form of Dialectical materialism and is closer to atheistic Marxist philosophy than to Christianity. Last time I checked Mormonism is riddled with the Divine as is atheistic Buddhism. (In other words, to be “religious” does not require the Divine” as Shane posits.) Not to mention how the Communists (atheists) used religion:

A poignant example of this comes from the Bolshevik Revolution. While this was an atheistic movement with a view of religion as “the opiate of the masses” used by a few powerful people to control said “masses,” the Soviets themselves tried to use religion to “control the masses.” One early attempt by the Bolshevik Revolution to take over the spiritual was through the Renovated Church (also known as the Living Church Movement) which was meant to reinterpret the teachings of Christ and the Apostles towards a Soviet end. During one of the short-lived attempts here by the Soviets we find this official “statement of faith:”

✦ The Soviet power does not appear as a persecutor of the Church.
✦ The Constitution of the Soviet state provides full religious liberty.
✦ Church people must not see in the Soviet state a power of the anti-Christ.
✦ The Soviet power is the only one which tempts by state methods to realize the ideals of the Kingdom of God.
✦ Capitalism is the “great lie” and a “mortal sin.”

(Taken from the first chapter to my proposed book, Worldviews: A Click Away from Binary Collisions. Here is a quote taken from this first chapter from Edgar C. Bundy’s book, How the Communists Use Religion [Wheaton, IL: Church League of America, 1966], 12. I will put this caveat here; however, it applies to the whole: I will quote authors with whom I do not necessarily agree with. I often quote authors that are: atheists, pagans, fellow Christians, politicos, homosexuals, evolutionists, and the like… merely because I quote an author, this quotation does not mean that I support their work as a whole.)

Back to the story. After the young man told me about the book, I purchased my own copy, and began reading it, coming to page 34 I read the following:

Who knew you could make so much money writing a book? For the sake of transparency, I want you to know that all the money I get from the sales of this book, both the advance and the royalties, is being given away. This is not a noble act, of charity. It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Besides, this is not just my story, and I am not just exploiting the stories of others. This book has emerged from a movement of communities of faith and struggle, inspired by local revolutions and ordinary radicals, anchored in life among the poor and marginalized. So it is not only a responsibility but a joy and honor to share the profits with all of them. [Here he referenced a footnote] May we continue to feed each other hope as we dance God’s revolution together.

(Emphasis added to the Marxist/Leninist language)

This is how the footnote read:

In appendix 1 at the back of the book, you will find a list of ordinary radicals with whom I enthusiastically redistribute the money I receive from the publication of this book through the Simple Way’s Jubilee Fund.

Here is that appendix:

View pages by clicking here: 360, 361, and 362. It was about midnight when I got on my computer and followed these URL’s Shane provided. My jaw dropped, again-and-again. I prayed for hours after this encounter with the radicalism being taught our young men at a supposedly “conservative” evangelical church.

It didn’t take much time in this appendix, unfortunately, I didn’t have to. The following is some of what I found merely by following the links Shane provided in his book. (I emboldened the main site referenced in Shane’s appendix. Following that I either a) include a quote that represents some positional statement of that site, or b) simply went to that sites “links” section and linked out to whom they recommend themselves. Although I could have listed many links, I think the few I chose make the point. I would say enjoy… but…

Alternative Seminary (pic) — http://www.alternativeseminary.net/

Some classes they teach:

✦ Liberation theology
✦ Feminist theology
✦ The Catholic Worker movement
✦ Theologies and biblical reflections emerging from the peace movement and faith-based resistance communities
✦ Gay and lesbian theology
✦ Jewish renewal

Example of whom this site links out to or recommends: http://www.jesusradicals.com/ This site has a “positional statement:

Jesus Radicals is a web-based community of Christians exploring Christian anarchism and a belief that the Gospel rejects militarism, capitalism and the state and promotes a message of justice and love.

Atonement Lutheran Church — http://www.ourchurch.com/

A word from this church’s pastor:

I am Pastor Maggie Ainslie. I’ve been pastor of Atonement Lutheran Church for 9 1/2 years now. I live 4 blocks away from the church with my husband Matt….

While I think a case can be made for deaconesses, I do not think women should be pastors… per the Bible.

Brandywine Peace Community — http://www.brandywinepeace.com/

A statement found in this site from the site’s admins:

For our nation in which money is readily available for warfare and weapons builders, like Lockheed Martin and Boeing, and while the very term security is used synonymously with weapons and military might: not with jobs, universal health care, healthy communities, education, a non-toxic environment, a future, All: We lift up the stones of our arrogance.

... An Aside To The Above BRANDYWINE Comment:

Their “cost of war” [which use to be on the above “Brandywine” site] counter on this site is B.S. by the way. But that is neither here nor there. I will post this short exchange between radio talk show host Michael Medved and a caller to exemplify the “cost of war” misunderstanding that was prominent during the Bush years (see my PAGE on military spending):

Catholic Workers — http://www.catholicworker.org/

Statement found in site:

Above all, we need to hear more and more about the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. “We are all members, one of another. Where the health of one member suffers, the health of the entire body is lowered.” “An injury to one is an injury to all,” [as] the old I.W.W.’s (The Industrial Workers of the World) used to say. [The IWW — FYI — is a communist/Marxist organization]

[…]

In none of the letters sent to us in protest was there recognition of the fact that the writer, Gonzales, was as much opposed in his own way to the Marxist-Leninist position as we ourselves. His position is that of the anarchist, pleading for the principle of subsidiarity, calling for “secular monasticism,” using that expression when speaking to the clergy in order to make them understand the idea of farming communes, or collectives, or cooperative farms.

Links Out from This Site:

Noam Chomsky Writings — http://www.zmag.org/ (self admitted Marxist/atheist — anti-American/anti-Christian)
Labor Net — http://www.labornet.org/ (one of the most extreme union/socialist orgs out there)
I.W.W. — The Industrial Workers of the World – http://www.iww.org/ (a socialist/Marxist organization)

→ The I.W.W. was one of the earliest “anarcho-sydicates” of direct action, sabotage, and were distinguished from the rest of the early socialist, Left-Wing movements by their admission of violence to gain the end results. ~ Theodore Draper, The Roots of American Communism (Chicago, IL: Ivan R. Dee, 1957, 1985; 1st Elephant Paperback Edition, 1989), 17, 22.

Evangelicals for Social Action (ESA) — http://www.evangelicalsforsocialaction.org/

Some positional statements:

Economic justice: ESA, on the whole, promotes an economic theory that once would have been called socialism, but which now, on the basis of historical considerations and semantic charity, is usually referred to as “democratic capitalism.” ESA describes itself as “pro-poor,” which means, in practical terms, that government-directed flow of capital is a necessary condition of economic justice. “Economic justice” is itself considered to be more a matter of equal distribution than fair return. Some argue that, over the past few years, Sider has drifted more towards the right. He certainly speaks with approval of “market economies,” but remains, with ESA and its partners, wary of “free market economies.”

Environmental protection: ESA is the source and current partner of the Evangelical Environmental Network (EEN), which has recently become famous for its “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign. Basically, ESA’s position on the environment is: (1) The earth’s resources are running out, which entails the need for major lifestyle changes for (primarily) Western nations and (primarily) middle and upper class individuals. (2) The profligacy and abuses of (the rich people in) the West have contributed mightily to the instability of the global environment (e.g., “global warming”); hence, major changes are in order. ….

More recently, on a site Shane contributes to regularly, he said this in a post entitled, It’s Desperate in Guantanamo:

The situation in Guantanamo is desperate. Over 100 prisoners are on hunger strike, and the strike just passed its 150th day this week (also the beginning of Ramadan). 45 are being forcibly fed by tubes snaked through their noses. And all this under the backdrop of indefinite detention, folks who have been waiting for trials for over 10 years and over half of whom have been cleared for release but remain trapped in the nightmare.

A growing number of folks are feeling the urgency — many are on solidarity fasts, and recently Mos Def underwent a forced feeding to demonstrate its horror. Some of us are exploring a possible delegation to Guantanamo, others will be at a vigil at the White Houseon Monday. Track the developments here: www.witnesstorture.org.

Obviously one can see the extreme political nature of this book and how it rejects history for one superimposed by Chomsky and Zinn, as well as in Shane’s continued commentary on the world around him. Lit-sen Chang many years ago foresaw this radical nature of the current emergent movement, as, it incorporates an old lie:

Lit-sen Chang, The True Gospel vs. Social Activism, (booklet. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co: 1976), 9.

There seems to be a correlation as well in Shane’s book that some are saved because of their works. He mentions in this light, Mother Teresa. I do not know ultimately if Mother Teresa was truly saved or not… only God knows this… that being said, I can say that if Mother Theresa believed the following…

Among the all-too-accessible examples that could be cited, consider the following excerpts (chosen because they are representative of the genre, not because they are outstandingly bad) from Novena Prayers in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help, a booklet published by the Sisters of St. Basil with official church approval (Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur):

Have pity, compassionate Mother, on us and our families; especially in this my necessity (here mention it). Help me, 0 my Mother, in my distress; deliver me from all my ills; or if it be the will of God that I should suffer still longer, grant that I may endure all with love and patience. This grace I expect of thee with confidence, because thou art our Perpetual Help (p. 5).

We have no greater help,

no greater hope than you,

O Most Pure Virgin; help us, then,

for we hope in you, we glory in you,

we are your servants.

Do not disappoint us (p. 16).

Come to my aid, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation, and to thee I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; not even from Jesus, my Judge, because by one prayer from thee, He will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation, I may through negligence fail to have recourse to thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, therefore, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace to have recourse to thee, 0 Mother of Perpetual Help (p. 19).

Elliot Miller and Keneth R. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books/Academic, 1992), 57. An astute reader pointed out that the above actually comes from an Eastern Orthodox liturgy officially authorized for use by the Catholic Church.

…No matter what her good works are or would be, this dedication to other than Christ clearly — according to Scripture — negates the adherent from salvation. There is good evidence that this Marion worship was employed in Mother Teresa’s faith. Shane also talks of and quotes Gandhi approvingly, which seems odd. Odd because Gandhi was a racist and ordered, in racially tainted radio broadcasts, his followers to kill Zulu’s (blacks). Gandhi only used “peaceful” protests with the British because militarily India could not cope with the British and Gandhi was a good politician first and knew where to draw his lines and which strings to pull.

I wish I could say differently, but the book is just bad from beginning to end. Noteworthy as well is that it is not a proper resource for a church to use, at least a church that claims conservative Evangelical mores. Obviously no book is COMPLETELY bad, and there are noble points in it… I mean who wouldn’t want to stamp out poverty worldwide and stop all wars as Shane says? The question for me is: How has this worked in real life? Shane makes a myriad of claims about war and poverty that do not fit reality, but, rather, are closer to some make believe candy-land Utopian dream. To wit I wish to debunk some of Shane’s thinking:

“Since the beginning of the government’s ‘war on poverty,’ $15.9 trillion has been spent on welfare programs. The total cost of every war in American history, starting with the American Revolution, is $6.4 trillion when adjusted for inflation.” ~ Leftist Fairytale #2 (See also: “Understanding Poverty in America: What the Census Bureau Doesn’t Count“)

Again, Shane exudes noble ideas in the book. Who could argue the goals? They just may not be very realistic, that’s all. On pages 123-124 you find a portion of what Shane’s “ministry” does on “an average day”:

“We are about ending poverty, not simply managing it. We give people fish. We teach them to fish. We tear down the walls that have been built up around the fish pond. And we figure out who polluted it. We fight terrorism — the terrorism within each of us, the terrorism of corporate greed, of American consumerism, of war…. We spend our lives actively resisting everything that destroys life, whether that be terrorism or the war on terrorism. We try to make the world safe, knowing that the world will never be safe as long as millions live in poverty so the few can live as they wish. We believe in another way of life — the kingdom of God — which stands in opposition to the principalities, powers, and rulers of this dark world.”

Unfortunately, this “kingdom now theology” that so infects the Word-Faith Movement and the name it and claim it gospel, also infects the eschatology of the extreme theological Left. Both theologies have the view that Shane enumerates when he encourages us to “take courage, as you will then have more grace as you liberate others” (p. 32). I am sorry, no person can liberate me, they and I are fallen and cannot liberate even ourselves. A great example of this egalitarianism:

“When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, Loneliness, despair, death, slaughter — they are all hell on earth. Jesus’ desire for his followers is that they live in such a way that they bring heaven to earth.”

Rob Bell, Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2005), 148.

Obviously the political and theological tome of this book is very charged, to say the least. (If you need to understand more of my reasoning, or have questions about this post I will be more than happy to talk to you — my email is in my bio section.) As a Mennonite group of churches points out as well, not only is the book politically charged, but missing anything to do with the Gospel. In writing a reason why nine Mennonite churches were withholding their kids from an event that included Shane Claiborne, the The Mennonite Brethren Network mentions the following:

…“[Mother Teresa] seemed to be giving the gospel a pretty good shot … .”

Did Mother Teresa relate the gospel of repentance and grace through faith alone to those dying, or did she only love? Claiborne wrote nothing about the lepers’ repentance and faith in Christ. Mother Teresa’s own writings testify that she did not try to convert people.

Furthermore, Claiborne’s teachings about the poor go beyond the meaning of Scripture, implying that God is mystically present in them and that his death on the cross was intended to improve poor peoples’ lives:

“Jesus was crucified … for joining [poor people].”

“People are crucified for living out a love that disrupts the social order.”

“… when the curtain of the temple was torn open as Jesus died on the cross. Not only was God redeeming that which was profane but God was setting all that was sacred free. Now God dwelled not behind the veil in the temple but in the eyes of the dying and the poor …”

“As I looked into the eyes of the dying, I felt like I was meeting God.”

Is this possible without their repentance and faith in Christ, which are absent from Claiborne’s accounts? No.

Shane Claiborne also showed universalist tendencies when he interviewed Tony Campolo about the Muslim faith:

Campolo: [regarding Muslims] And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people , God loves them, and we do not make the judgment of who is going to heaven and who is going to hell … I think that what we all have to do is leave judgment up to God.

Claiborne: That seems like a healthy distinction—between converting and condemning. One of the barriers seems to be the assumption that we have the truth and folks who experience things differently will all go to Hell …

Claiborne: You also note in your book the encounter of Francis of Assisi and the Muslim Sultan …they came together across major religious divides and had a mystical unity … Maybe we will even find a mystical union of the Spirit as Francis did.

One thing that pained me deeply was the approval of particular authors either through word-of-mouth when speaking to pastors or pastoral desks adorned with these writers. Here is one excerpt from one of these authors that a pastor couldn’t see an issue with that gave me pause about the rest of their ministry:

When the boundaries between God-ordained practices and pagan practices are erased, as is the case in the Emergent Church, then it makes sense to find practices that are attractive to people in the surrounding culture. One such practice is Yoga. Although Yoga is a Hindu practice and intimately related to various Hindu deities, some Christians have begun to bring this pagan practice into the Church. Some claim that they have removed any religious content and are merely using Yoga positions for exercise. But this is wrong and dangerous. In the case of Pagitt’s church, Solomon’s Porch, Yoga clearly is not merely “exercise.”

Pagitt’s book, Church Re-imagined, contains a description of the church’s weekly yoga class written by the woman who leads it. She states, “We aren’t here for a hardcore physical workout as much as the chance to be together, to breathe, to relax, and to bring ourselves to a place of peace and gratitude.” The process includes having the students regulate their breathing. They also use different poses each week: “These vary from week to week, but Downward Facing Dog is a must.” The poses and breathing are designed to do something to their inner state: “This [that the chit-chat has stopped] tells me that tension has been released from the muscles, inner chatter has moved out of the brain, and self-awareness and peacefulness have settled in.”

The yoga instructor gives a more detailed description of the last pose:

Our last pose of the evening is called “savasana”… or corpse pose. The student lies on her back letting the legs fall open as they will, the arms hang limp like empty coat sleeves. The face, the forehead, the space between the eyebrows all relax, and the person melts heavily into the floor. Eyes are closed, breathing is rhythmic. I turn the lights off, and only the glow of candles and sometimes fireplace illuminates the room. This state of being is holy. It is at this time that we become closer to God, aware of our bodies, of the divine.

Clearly, her claim is that yoga is a means to become holy and draw near to God. A corollary to this claim is that humans have a right to determine their own path to God. The Bible makes it clear that we must come to God on His terms only, not ours! It is one thing to claim the right to use practices of other religions in a non-religious way (which I believe has no place in the church), but it is egregious to claim that practices from pagan religions can make us holy and closer to God.

Bob Dewaay, The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity (2009), 128-130 (quote within the quote taken from Pagitt’s book, Church Re-Imaged).

You see, when you forgo the plum-line of Scripture and include practice as your truth… problems tend to follow. As I was looking for new churches, I started to attend what was billed as a conservative Reformational/Bible based church. At this church I was attending to find a new home church I was in conversation with an elder/assistant pastor when I mentioned Thomas Merton, to which he replied he loved Merton! Not only that but that a class he was taking at Talbot was using a Merton “biography” (of sorts) in class. He then said he didn’t see anything wrong with the book or Merton. So, I purchased the book and read it.

And this is the current state of the church apparently, not discerning enough on important doctrinal areas, and making some issues that are in house debates front-and-center.

Discussion/Questions

There was a gentleman, who I am still friends with from North Park (the church I left) who contacted me, this is our conversation on FaceBook that included a couple of people:

Part of Convo One:

ME: Thanks you two for the support. …. It wasn’t the “big building,” it was the book that speaks out against churches like North Park:

1. If we have parishioners who follow the advice in the writings of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Shane Claiborne, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and the like (passed on by our pastors in some way), they will leave our church due to its “suburban” nature. (pp. 62, 84, 163 of Shane’s book [as examples])

2. If our parishioners reject the emerging ethos as aberrant, then as they discuss the matter with some of our pastors, they will possibly find a church that takes a firmer stance on this up-and-coming issue within the historic faith.

Shane is also very antithetical to police (p. 122), anti-military (pp. 95-96, 122-123), and teaches a “kingdom now theology” (pp. 62, 87), calls for overthrowing a particular social order using Marxist/Leninist speak (p. 129), and the like. Pretty wild stuff even beyond the Richard Foster discussion we had.

[….]

TRAV: Thomas Watson said it better than I ever could, he said, “Toleration is the grave of reformation. By toleration we adopt other men’s sins, and make them our own”…

ME: Can I tell you that that quote hit the spot, let me explain why. On page 152 of Shane’s book we read this: “People are poor not just because of their sins, they are poor because of our sins…” Again, some of what Shane writes is true. Throughout his book he shifts blame off of the person and their position with their savior and puts the blame on corporations, the rich, the privileged white-person, the police, etc. The class warfare language is immense in this political tome [see video below]. On page 124 he equates poverty with violence (“…knowing the world will never be safe as long as millions live in poverty…”). Newsflash, many of the persons committing the most heinous crimes today (Islamo-Fascists) are rich and have had privileged education. He doesn’t make sense. [At the same time Shane negates man’s nature and the purpose for missionaries work. It is for the unsaved person ultimately to have “Life more abundantly,” which means salvation.]

Poverty exists mainly because of corrupt governments (mainly revolutionary governments) and often times because of pacifists standing in the way of liberating millions of people by force do they remain in abject poverty (like the UN). So Shane’s “sin of pacifism” inflicts more poverty and death on cultures than do the liberating forces that try to let people govern themselves (like in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Another friend mentioned that this should be handled in a more private manner I mentioned in parts the following:

Part of Convo Two:

ME: Kev, you said,

“I think you also know the leadership of NP would NEVER consciously ‘promote’ this nonsense.”

I am sorry to inform you to the contrary. Ping-pong and softball at the men’s retreat and talking about which NFL team is up that week and giving the shoulder-to-shoulder “dude hugs” may not bring out these topics, but I tend to. Where is the sound exegetic doctrine? This isn’t about “giving your testimony” versus “an apologetic,” or “pre” and “post” tribulation positions. This is about many in leadership implicitly supporting heretical views and a couple explicitly teaching it. Being “young in their theology” (as told to me during a convo with _________ means they shouldn’t be in the positions they are.

[….]

This just isn’t a disagreement between brothers, it is many positions in a fine church being filled with people who teach or do not understand what heresy is. The pulpit (the main one, the college groups, or [any other position in any church]) are not places for experimental theology and aberrant Christian beliefs and practices… Rob Bell teaches a different Christ, Richard Foster teaches paganism/occultism, Shane Claiborne teaches Marxist/Leninist ideals and “Revolutionary Christ” (see above), Doug Pagitt teaches post-modern relativistic Gospel, Brian McLaren and psychologist David G. Benner do not think we have gotten the Gospel right yet, Thomas Merton was a Buddhist, Henry Nouwen was a homosexual Catholic/Buddhist mystic. For leaders not to know the dangers of recommending, teaching from, or following such “theology” is not something that needs to be brought before two or three brothers. These are “other than Gospel/Christian” theologies that are being injected into a once fine church by a non-existent vetting process (too much grace, no truth). Its like Obama’s Cabinet and tax issues! So my warning may throw some, but as they travel with this church… keywords like Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Richard Foster, Shane Claiborne will hopefully be etched in their minds.

Before we make it to my old “Afterward, I left all this up (above and below) because it is and has been a great help to those seeking a healthy-well balanced church in our Valley, as well as providing others who are in need of some resources to better respond to this nonsense in their home church. So I am both happy that this has been a good resource for some, but sad I even had to write it. Take note that both Pastor Dave and I agree on the facts of the case… but acting on and believing the facts are two entirely different things.

There was a final meeting between myself and pastor Dave White of NorthPark Community Church. After this meeting I wrote a caveat that I have not rejoined North-Park. The church has continued its slow decent away from doctrine and closer to unhealthy relationships.

APPENDIX

This armful of books given to me by pastor Bob Hudson had a very universalist stint to them. Here is an excerpt from my book where I discuss this aspect a bit more:

In a Christianity Today article, Brian McLaren is quoted as saying that he does not “think we’ve got the gospel right yet…. I don’t think the liberals have it right.^[1] But I don’t think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy.”^{[2] [3]} Agreeing apparently with Brian McLaren that we have yet to get the gospel right is David G. Benner, who says that the “spiritual climate is ripe… [for]… Jesus seekers across the world are being prepared to abandon the old way of the written code for the new way of the Spirit. Paul told us long ago we’ve been freed by the gospel to live a new way, but we’ve not known what it is or how to do it.”^[4]

McLaren says we do not have the Gospel right yet… Benner says we do not have it right either, yet, we should look to Eastern mysticism to get it correct? I don’t think so. Not only do these authors deny that the Gospel has been known or lived in the past, they teach that orthodoxy has yet to be formulated. Yet in a self-refuting manner they seem to accept universalism as an orthodox doctrine. Universalism is the idea that every “act of worship is accepted by the divine regardless of the theological cloak in which it is hidden[,] since all persons posses divinity within, all deserve the love of the Supreme.”^[5] This universalism is pointed out in an excellent book entitled, Reforming or Conforming? Post-Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church:^[6]

The gospel, according to the emergent thinkers, is not about individual conversation. It is not about how people get “in.” It is about “how the world will be saved from human sin and all that goes with it….”^[7] This sounds close to the mark until we examine more thoroughly what is meant by the terminology. Their concept of “world” does not simply involve humans who don’t believe in Christ. The emergent gospel is not just bringing unbelievers to the Savior for the forgiveness of sin and the imputation of God’s righteousness. There is more, as Rob Bell informs us:

✦ Salvation is the entire universe being brought back into harmony with is maker. This has huge implications for how people present the message of Jesus. Yes, Jesus can come into our hearts. But we can join a movement that is as wide and as big as the universe itself. Rocks and trees and birds and swamps and ecosystems. God’s desire is to restore all of it.^[8][9]

McLaren continues the thought: “Is getting individual souls into heaven the focal point of the gospel?” I’d have to say no, for any number of reasons. Don’t you think that God is concerned about saving the whole world?… It is the redemption of the world, the stars, the animals, the planets, the whole show.”^[10] According to McLaren, “The church exists for the world – to be God’s catalyst so that the world can receive and enter God’s kingdom more and more.”^[11]

When asked to define the gospel, Neo (the main philosophical character in McLaren’s novels) replies that it could not be reduced to a little formula, other than “the Kingdom of God is at hand.”^[12] Narrowing this definition is not easy, but McLaren gives some insight when he writes,

✦ I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world. By the “world” I mean planet Earth and all life on it, because left to ourselves, un-judged, un-forgiven, and un-taught, we will certainly destroy this planet and its residents.^[13]

In Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones’ book, The Emergent Manifesto of Hope, we find an emphasis on this universalism:

In summary, we give the following statement of our understanding about the widening scope of salvation:

Not only soul, whole body!

Not only whole body, all of the faithful community!

Not only all of the faithful community, all of humanity!

Not only all of humanity, all of God’s creation!^[14]

[….]

Sacrae Doctrinae

Tony Jones, an emergent leader, wrote on his blog Theoblogy, about the depths in which this movement will go in order to change or challenge sacred doctrine:

Anyway, my point in all this is that the doctrine of the Trinity is still on the table. Some people, it seems to me, would like for us to no longer debate certain “sacred” doctrines — the Trinity, the nature of Christ, the nature of scripture, the nature of marriage etc. And these persons tend to get very jumpy when emergent-types discuss these sacrae doctrinae, especially in books and at conferences that are being taped. “This is dangerous,” they say.^[15]

Yes, the Trinity is being questioned. Instead of pointing to men like Merton, Yancey, and Meister Eckhart, maybe these authors/pastors should start providing answers to their parishioner’s questions rather than asking them to question history and doctrine, ad infinitum. Rob Bell joins this bashing… sorry… questioning the doctrine of the Trinity:

This three-in-oneness understanding of God emerged several hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection. People began to call this concept the Trinity. The word trinity is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus didn’t use the word, and the writers of the rest of the Bible didn’t use the word. But over time this belief, this understanding, this doctrine, has become central to how followers of Jesus have understood who God is. It is a spring^[16], and people jumped for thousands of years without it. It was added later. We can take it out and examine it. Discuss it, probe it, question it. It flexes, and it stretches.^[17]

Footnotes

[1] While these authors and pastors try not to be labeled as “liberal,” that is exactly what they are. In an interview with Rob Bell (audio of which can be found at Fighting for the Faith… right around forty minutes into the program) where he is praising the TNIV — a gender neutered Bible — Rob himself says he is in the middle of the progressive movement: “My name is Rob Bell, I’m a pastor in Grand Rapids Michigan, the epicenter of progressive culture.”

✦ http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2009/09/what-is-rob-bell-going-to-do-now-that-the-tniv-is-going-to-be-discontinued.html

This can also be found as well under iTunes free podcasts under Fighting for the Faith, dated at 9-1-09, the podcast is titled, “What is Rob Bell Going To Do Now That The TNIV is Going to Be Discontinued?” One of the founders of the emergent movement, Mark Driscoll notes as much as well:

Emergent liberals range from those on the theological fringe of orthodoxy to those caught up in heresy that critiques key evangelical doctrines, such as the Bible as authoritative divine revelation; God as Trinity; the sinfulness of human nature; the deity of Jesus Christ; Jesus’ death in our place to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross; the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation; the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sex outside of heterosexual marriage; and the conscious, eternal torments of hell. Some emerging house churches are also emergent liberal in their doctrine. Emergent liberals are networked by organizations such as the Emergent Village, which is led by author and theologian Tony Jones (Jones is no longer a youth pastor but is involved at Doug Pagitt‘s church), along with other prominent emergent leaders such as Pagitt, Karen Ward, and Tim Keel. The most visible emergent liberal leaders are Brian McLaren and Rob Bell. Emergent liberals are commonly critiqued as those who are merely recycling the liberal doctrinal debates of a previous generation without seeing significant conversion growth; they are merely gathering disgruntled Christians and people intrigued by false doctrine. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, offers this critique:

✦ When it comes to issues such as the exclusivity of the gospel, the identity of Jesus Christ as both fully human and fully divine, the authoritative character of Scripture as written revelation, and the clear teachings of Scripture concerning issues such as homosexuality, this [emergent liberal] movement simply refuses to answer the questions.”

Religion Saves + Nine Other Misconceptions, 217.

[2] Andy Crouch, “Emergent Mystique,” 37-38.

[3] A caveat here: if he does not think liberals have it right, and then says he does not have it right either… is he then saying he is on the conservative side of the issue? If he is on the right, then where does that leave people like D. A. Carson, Millard Erickson, or myself? I guess I do not fit within what he considers orthodox… maybe we’re “fascists” of sorts?

[4] David G. Benner, Sacred Companions: The Gift of Spiritual Friendship & Direction (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 9 (emphasis added).

[5] David K. Clark and Norman L. Geisler, Apologetics in the New Age: A Christian Critique of Pantheism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1990), 70-71.

[6] Gary L. W. Johnson and Ronald N. Gleason, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 285.

[7] Brian McLaren, The Last Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 69.

[8] Bell, Velvet Elvis, 109-110.

[9] A humorous aside: could you imagine bickering back-and-forth with God if Job co-opted everything God created? As God would point out how small Job was in comparison to His creation, Job would respond, “no, I am part of this wide and big universe, I am not tiny! I am bigger, in fact, than that Behemoth you just showed me.”

[10] Brian McLaren, A New Kind of Christian: A Tale of Two Friends on a Spiritual Journey (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 184.

[11] Ibid., 121.

[12] Ibid., 151.

[13] Brian Mclaren, A Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2004), 106.

[14] Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones, An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 82-83 (emphasis added).

[15] De Trinitate,” (12-29-04), found at:

http://theoblogy.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_archive.html (last accessed 7-17-2012).

[16] “Bell’s term for a removable doctrine,” this insight came from Truth for Christ whose main page is: http://www.truthforchrist.com/, the quote can be found at:

http://www.truthforchrist.com/dangers-of-the-emergent-church.htm (last accessed 8-20-09).

[17] Bell, Velvet Jesus, 22.

Religio-Political Talk (RPT)

"I never discuss anything except politics and religion. There is nothing else to discuss." ~ G.K. Chesterton

Shane Claiborne

Growing Tired of Those Who Liken Me To Racist White Nationalists

Leaving a Church of Almost 10-Years | Tough Decisions for Faith