Vain Hopes

The False Gospel of Your Destiny of Greatness

2010-01-27T17:38:00.000-08:00

There is a false gospel that does not preach repentance. Sin is a problem with the universe; the world is broken and fallen. But your own personal fallenness is downplayed or even ignored. It’s not your sin that needs to be forgiven, but the universe that needs to be repaired. Your problem isn’t that you sinned against a most holy and righteous God whose indignation burns against you, but that you are part of a system that’s broken, and there is a loving God out there who is for you.

This false gospel preaches to you that you have a divine destiny and that if you come to Christ you can claim it. Is this true? Sort of. But is this the gospel message? Absolutely not! The spiritual mind understands that our destiny is to be glorified and united with Christ forever. We also understand that God gives us a purpose, to His glory. The carnal mind cannot understand this. It is beyond him. And so, when the preachers tells him he has a divine destiny, his unregenerate nature is summoned to pride. The regenerate and unregenerate man are both inspired by greatness, but the regenerate man searches for greatness in the glory and pleasure of Christ. The unregenerate seeks it in the flesh, whether that be better sex, more money or power or fame, or just significance and meaning. But these are never for God’s glory, because they have no cognizance of what that is.

There is only one portal to righteousness for the unbeliever, and that is through brokenness and contrition. Jesus said that those who are poor in spirit are the ones who would be blessed. The call of the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever is not upward to greatness, but downward to repentance. Any other calling is not from Him. Sin – personal sin – must be dealt with first. Repentance and faith must ensue. Then comes the greatness. But that greatness has no resemblance to the greatness before.

Listen to a Biblical Review of an Erwin McManus "Sermon"

2009-08-01T09:43:00.001-07:00

Chris Rosebrough reviewed Erwin McManus's recent sermon entitled "Creativity." Here is the link:

http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2009/07/a-journey-into-the-seekersensitive-wilderness.html

Note: The review beings later in the podcast, around 1:35:00 (1 hour and 35 minutes into the show) and goes to the end of the podcast. It's well worth the listen.

Erwin McManus: Playing Dominoes with God's Sovereignty

2008-08-13T10:09:00.000-07:00

(This article has been republished in light of Phil Johnson's article at Pyromaniacs. It was originally written in June 2007)

_____________________________________________________

I recently had a chance to hear Erwin McManus’s sermon entitled “Is God in Your Future?” While not every reader has had the opportunity to hear the sermon, I still think you will benefit from reading this critique due to the dangerous nature of McManus’s message. The thesis of his message is that we can be creators of our own glorious future with God. We need to escape from all these fatalistic or legalistic religions where we blindly believe everything is controlled and determined ahead of time by God. We need to free ourselves from the rules that are restraining our creative energy. Then we can rise up in freedom and create the future we have always dreamed of. God Himself has got our backs in this whole liberating and revolutionary process, giving us power and esteem to do all this.

Now let’s dig a bit into this sermon:

1) McManus puts forth man as God’s partner in creation

According to McManus, God is still creating. And thanks to Jesus, the world can be a better place. He is now at work even now creating a glorious future for the most valuable treasure in the universe: mankind. There’s a little bit of God in all of us that enables us to help Him out in the creation process. And oh, what a bright and glorious future it’s going to be. All we need is a world full of people who will rise up to the challenge, seize their divine moment, and make this place we live a heaven on earth. “Mission is why the Church exists,”[1] and Mosaic’s mission is to spread the news that God wants people to know that they have innate value. They are His top priority, He loves them more than anything, and He offers them things beyond their wildest imaginations if they just look inside and find Him there. Then, God will unleash their divine potential so they can make all their hopes, dreams and aspirations come true.

McManus cites two passages from the Old Testament: 2 Kings 20:1-11, where Hezekiah is granted fifteen additional years to his life, and Gen 18:22ff, where Abraham intercedes for the righteous in Sodom and Gomorrah. Erwin uses these passages to assert that God has given us a kind-of diminished, intrinsic divinity. If we have “faith,” we can go about changing the course of the future, just as Abraham and Hezekiah did through their “conversations” with God.[2] They took the initiative and created a new future. And that’s the message, “Dig deep down and unleash what’s already within you to create a new future.” It’s all about “finding God inside yourself.” Notice how it’s our future. It’s all about us – our desires, our dreams and our aspirations. We, not God, are the center of our universe. Mankind is the pinnacle of all that exists. I don’t know about you, but that reminds me a lot of that situation at the Tower of Babel. What big dreams those people had! But God will not be mocked. To even suggest that God and man are on equal terms is beyond arrogance; it’s heresy – a twist on old-fashioned Gnosticism,[3] with a cup of panentheism.[4] And here’s the most disturbing thing: McManus is using the Bible, out-of-context, of course, to fuel his false teachings.

Every facet of Mosaic is energized by this kind of teaching. Books like Seizing Your Divine Moment and Uprising revolve around mankind’s indispensable part in the cosmic drama. God values mankind infinitely more than Himself, and that’s why Jesus came and died for us. God is in desperate need of mankind, unable to survive without His beloved creation. He is Tom Cruise’s character saying with brokenhearted, puppy dog eyes, “You complete me.” (No one bothers to ask how God managed without humans beings all those eons before we came along.) All God really wants to do is love us and be loved, and all we have to do dig inside of ourselves to find Him. Then we can be part of the cosmic drama of loving and romancing others to God too. And what about hell? Well that’s just a place for those people God couldn’t convince, who chose not to be wooed. He loved them so much that He wouldn’t devalue their decision to reject His love. “If you love something let it go…” That’s what hell is, a place for all those who decided they didn’t want to be with God. Hell is a way for God to show them how much He respects that decision.

I’ve got to tell you, it’s a beautiful, storybook romance, and I see its appeal on listeners far and wide. But, unfortunately, it’s not based on reality, on truth, i.e. the Bible. It’s off-the-charts unbiblical; pretty much the antithesis of the central tenets of scripture. Yes, scripture is replete with instances of faithful people God called out for extraordinary acts of service. But the key word “God.” God displayed His glory through these men and women of faith. He called, He empowered, and He received the glory, not them, for God will not share His glory with another (Is 48:11). But, according to McManus, if we can dig deep enough within, we can find that courage or faith or obedience or positive thinking. And God promises to come through for us and give us eternal life, or a personal breakthrough, or a leadership breakthrough, etc. (Leadership being the most important breakthrough at Mosaic). With this teaching, the doctrines of grace (i.e. biblical truth) are supplanted with inspirational anecdotes and supporting scriptural passages taken completely out of context.

Relevance is King at Mosaic, so anything relevant goes; and anything irrelevant goes out the window. And I mean ANYTHING! Things are tested and valued based not on their adherence to the Word of God, but based on their experiential success. People are not nourished with the Word of God, and when God’s sheep are not feeding upon the God’s word, they will find their fill and meaning in philosophies, books, core values, and mission statements. And they become very easy prey for wolves. At Mosaic, passion and vision are given supremacy over godliness and prayerful obedience. Oh, these former terms are used, but they don’t mean what the Bible says they mean. At Mosaic, godliness means following your dreams for God, and obedience means taking the necessary risks to accomplish this. One of Erwin’s favorite verses is Joel 2:28: “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions.” It’s a beautiful prophecy about the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost, but at Mosaic, dreaming dreams and seeing visions are redefined to mean something like, “What are your own personal dreams? Dream those big dreams, because they’re from God! He’s on your side, so take big risks and make your dreams come true.”

Personally, I remember several times when the Holy Spirit’s discerning influence brought me into conflict with Mosaic's Core Value #1: "Mission is why the Church exists." Something just wasn't right about that statement. I mean, it sounded right, kind of. That's what Matthew 28 says, right? Mission is definitely one reason the Church exists. That was beyond question. But saying it was the ultimate and only reason didn’t rest well with me. It was like a thorn in my mind. I kept dismissing this feeling, assuring myself that I just wasn’t as wise or mature or knowledgeable as others in leadership and "authority" over me. But now I see things more clearly. These impressions served as a compass sets on the immutable Word of God. I remember when I opened John Piper's book Let the Nations be Glad almost a year later, after leaving Mosaic, one of the first phrases in that book was, “Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is.”[5] That served as a strong vindication of what I had been feeling, confirming to me that it was more than uneasiness about Mosaic first core value; it was discernment.[6]

2) McManus claims that biblical doctrine can be dismissed BECAUSE it is being abused.

McManus has called Calvinism a false religion like Buddhism. And he claimed it was a false religion because Calvinists supposedly abuse the doctrine of election. First, let me say that it is a sinful tragedy when anyone calling himself a Calvinist displays any arrogance in regard to being elect. This demonstrates a lack of wisdom in genuinely understanding the nature of this precious doctrine. I’ll come back to that in a minute. But, according to McManus, in order for any doctrine to be declared untrue and dismissed, the only criterion needed is whether it has any history of being abused. Well, according to that criterion, we had better throw out the doctrines of Christian liberty, grace, freedom in Christ and love, not to mention the Lord’s Supper (See 1 Cor 11:17-34). How did the Apostles handle doctrinal abuses? One example is how the Apostle Paul stood his ground when Christians were being accused of abusing Christian liberty, or when he was falsely accused of teaching libertinism. He clarified the doctrine but did not dismiss or even alter it. He also warned the church of Galatia, having obtained an immense freedom in Christ, not to use that freedom as an opportunity to sin (Gal 5:13). But he did not renounce the doctrines regarding freedom in Christ. He only warned against abuses. We must not stop preaching truth merely because people abuse it for their own selfish desires. We must rebuke and correct these abuses, by God’s grace, but we are never permitted to alter the contents of the word of God. McManus can tell story after story about doctrinal abuses – about people he has met who hold to Reformed teachings and are, at the same time, arrogant about election. He says he has friends who are falling for this dangerous teaching. Dangerous? If anything, God’s sovereignty in salvation is the most humbling doctrine, for it strips us of all our pride. It tells us that we bring nothing to the table when it comes to salvation. God does it all. Someone once asked a man after giving his testimony, “So you’re saying that you had no part to play in your salvation?” to which the man responded, “Actually, I did bring something. I am the one who brought the sin that God needed to forgive.” The doctrine of election exalts God and humbles man, revealing his true state of affairs – utterly depraved and incapable, “dead in trespasses and sins” until “God made us alive” in Christ (Eph 2:1-6).

I have to confess, when I first embraced the doctrine of election, I did struggle with arrogance. My sinful nature surfaced. Thoughts would come to my mind like, “Look at how that person treated me; he couldn’t possibly be elect.” “How can a person behave in such a way? He surely is not elect.” Or someone would be rude to me or cut me off on the freeway, and before I knew it, the thought would pop in my mind, "Oh, he must not be elect.” I hated these thoughts. They grieved me terribly. And this verse of scripture really painted my condition well: “Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin” (Ro 7:13a). I know that passage refers specifically to the Law’s interaction with the sinful nature, but it sure did apply to my situation, and that’s why I began calling these times “Romans 7 moments.” And this Calvinism terrified me. Sometimes I wished I never learned these things, that I never had begun the journey down this road. I wanted to go back the way I came. “Ignorance is bliss.” But there was no going back. Instead, I had to grow up. This truth was a hidden jewel. I spent my whole life in church but never once heard these things. Now, finally, by the grace of God, I discovered this treasure. I discovered truth. I couldn’t change it. It had to change me. As one pastor said, I had to be broken upon the Word, but better that I be broken than the Word! No matter how difficult the road, I couldn't go back to an “unbiblical Christianity” (I realize the contradiction in that phrase, but I believe my point is clear).

God has brought me a long way since then. I think about the Apostle Paul. He was certainly elect, but look at him only moments before his conversion. He was torturing Christians. He was hunting them down. He was, with cold, calculated wickedness, moving against the very work of God. But what happened? God claimed him as His very own. And the very verses of scripture I use to defend this doctrine are penned mostly by this apostle. And get this: how can I know what happened in that bunker in those last moments of Adolf Hitler's life? Is it impossible that the Holy Spirit came upon him, granting him repentance and faith? Is it possible, however unlikely, that he fell on his face before God and wept bitterly, repenting of his horrible wickedness and sin-blackened heart, receiving justification for his sins? Is it remotely possible that we might, upon arriving at our eternal destiny, find him there? It is an utterly excruciating thought for me to think that Hitler could be in heaven, but I cannot know how the wind blows. And should this happen, would not my heart give glory to God rather than cry out, “Unfair!?” It is difficult for me to compare my innocuous sin to Hitler's heinous wickedness. But were not my violations against God's infinite holiness as heinous in His eyes and Hitler's are in mine? Did not God’s righteous indignation burn against me before Christ’s blood atoned for my vile sins? Resoundingly, yes! That’s what’s so amazing about the grace of God. It extends beyond insurmountable odds to bring even the most wicked of sinners to Him; a wicked sinner like me.[7] No, I cannot judge any person’s election based upon their present or past state. Election is a secret decree of God; it cannot be known by anyone but God. The secret things belong to the Lord (Deut 29:29). Whether a devout Buddhist or hardened convict or that homeless beggar who spit out curses when I mentioned Jesus’s name, I cannot know. God has not allowed that sensitive information to pass into any of our hands. And it is a good thing! So what do I do? First, fall flat on my face and thank God everyday that He has chosen me unconditionally and lavished me with His never-ending, unfailing love. Then, tell everyone I know about the love of God. Sow the seed of the gospel far and wide. Preach the Word in season and out-of-season. And pray hard that “God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”[8]

3) McManus makes an indirect comparison to the unfaithful Israel and all Calvinists.

McManus insinuated that all Calvinists have the same arrogant, exclusivist attitude to non-elect people that unfaithful Israel held toward non-elect foreigners. He asserts that Calvinists are like the unfaithful Israelites who excluded people based on race.

There is an enormous difference between the two standpoints. Yes, Israel did this, but this was never God's intention. Israel’s rejection of foreigners was not prescribed in the Law of God. Rather, the Old Testament made provisions for foreigners to become members of the Israelite community, and therefore partakers in the covenant promises.[9] Israel’s own sinful pride and fear resulted in their exclusivist attitude toward foreigners in later generations, but this was a divergence from God’s command.

Calvinists holding true to the doctrine of election fully understand that it is a secret decree of God. We cannot know, as I said earlier, whether anyone is finally reprobate based on his or her present condition. We are called to proclaim the gospel as God’s established means by which He calls His elect and hardens the reprobate, and we are not privy to God’s secret counsel that knows the difference. We are to share without prejudice, sowing the seeds of the gospel to everyone everywhere. Does this sound unloving and uncompassionate? Is this arrogance? What greater love is there than to lay down your life so that others might hear the words of life? Calvinists like William Carey, John G. Paton and Adoniram Judson left everything behind to take this gospel of the kingdom into all the world. Why won’t McManus mention these Calvinists? Because they utterly disembowel his notion that Calvinists are cold, uncompassionate fatalists who don’t love, don’t care and don’t obey the Great Commission.

4) McManus's Domino Metaphor has many holes.

McManus conducted an inspiring activity with dominoes at the end of his message.[10] But what was he trying to communicate? Let's see, the domino represents what? Election? And the people who received it represent whom? God's elect, maybe? The person(s) handing out dominoes at the beginning of the service represents whom? Maybe God? And the people who didn't receive it represent whom? Maybe those whom God did not elect? Or maybe those who may be elect and haven't been justified? Or maybe anyone who still has to decide whether he or she wants one? So here's the problem. The dominoes represent election, right? And we know those who received a domino at the beginning are God’s elect. But what about the ones who didn’t receive a domino at the beginning but got one from someone else later? If the domino can be handed from one who is elect to one who is not, making that recipient elect, then two implications follow: 1) election is no longer the choice of the original giver of dominoes (i.e. God); and 2) the recipient has a choice to receive or reject the domino. These implications are unbiblical. Biblical election, by definition, is God’s sovereign choice. Even if one holds to corporate election rather than individual predestination, one still has to concur that election is God’s sovereign choice. Even a cursory glance at scripture will show beyond question that God is the one who elects.[11] Yet McManus implies that the right to elect is in the hands of the elect! These dominoes, originally given away only by “God” could later be given away by the elect. So those verses about the elect in the epistles of Paul, Peter and the other apostles really refer to the elect of Paul or the elect of Peter and not only the elect of God??

Another thing I noticed is that Erwin kept changing what the dominoes represented. They start off representing election. Then they changed to justification.[12] Then, later, they changed to evangelism. Shouldn’t what your symbol represents remain consistent throughout your analogy?

And how is a person standing at the front door handing out dominoes to strangers even remotely analogous to the all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful God of the universe freely choosing His elect, whom He foreknew before time began? And if only a limited number of dominoes were given out at the beginning of the service, then how can the number of elect suddenly become unlimited? And why, when a person gave away his or her domino, was he or she allowed to remain standing? Perhaps I'm making too much of that last question since, if McManus had the ability, he would have miraculously multiplied the dominoes rather than just had them passed on.

McManus's point in all this was that election is inclusive. Ultimately it’s up to every individual whether or not he or she wants to be elect. God just got the election ball rolling at the beginning, but now it’s up to us to keep electing as many people as we can.

The domino activity is flawed primarily because choosing and being chosen are antithetical concepts. Free will is the opposite of election. Free will is choosing; election is being chosen. In fact, the only way these two diametrically opposed views can fit together is if one of them is redefined. And that’s what McManus was trying to do in the minds of his audience during this whole charade. He wants to redefine the term as something man-centered, liberated from God’s sovereignty and freedom.

Conclusion

McManus is a talented and passionate communicator. His messages are inspiring and enthusiastic, and they always call the listener to action. But McManus message is unbiblical. Alistair Begg said in a recent Podcast:

There’s a way to preach the Bible unbiblically…You can use the Bible as the springboard for all kinds of ideas, can’t you? Look around in here and find something that fits your fancy and then launch a rocket off it. People say, ‘That was amazing, wasn’t it? Remarkable what he got out of that.’ Well of course it is because he put it in before he got it out.”[13]

This quote couldn’t be more apropos. First, McManus announced to his congregation, “You can create a glorious future for yourself with the help of God.” But in order to defend his man-centered proposition, he had to demolish its chief opponent, Reformed theology, a.k.a. Calvinism. Calvinism is a threat to McManus’s teachings because it acknowledges God’s sovereign place at the center of all things and emphasizes scriptural authority over experiential authority. He first attacked Calvinism with a sucker punch, pointing out some historical and contemporary bad examples, ones who called themselves Calvinists but abuse the doctrines of grace. Second, he equated Calvinism and the biblical doctrine of election with Israel when they were disobedient to God’s commands. And finally, he conducted this domino activity that was very moving but falls flat on its face when examined more closely. In it, he puts forth his view that election is random and unfair, and that anyone who believes it should seriously reconsider, or at least redefine it for themselves to be more inclusive and man-centered.

I strongly submit that Erwin McManus’s interpretation of scripture must not be embraced as truth. This sermon, “Is God in Your Future?” is not a biblical sermon. Rather, it is an all-out slap in the face of biblical theology and the sovereignty of God.

Notes:

[1] “Mission is Why the Church Exists” is Mosaic’s Core Value #1, their Prime Directive, so to speak.
[2] One of Erwin’s favorite words is “conversation.” The American Heritage Online Dictionary (Yahoo, Inc., 2007) defines conversation as: “the spoken exchange of thoughts, feelings and opinions.” Erwin encourages us to enter into a conversation with God where we can both be influenced by and be an influencer of God in a friendly exchange.
[3] Ken Silva has written an excellent, in-depth article on Gnosticism in the Emergent Church. See http://www.apprising.org/archives/2006/04/the_emergent_on.html
[4] Panentheism means “God-in-all.” God created the entire universe within Himself and, therefore, all things created have elements of the divine within them. See http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/panenthe.htm for detailed information.
[5] John Piper. Let the Nations Be Glad, Second Edition. (Baker Academic, 2003), p. 17.
[6] Of course, the Church does exist for missions. But it also exists for worship, fellowship, the ministering to and equipping of the saints, among other things. However, the ultimate reason the Church exists is to glorify God. This is both ultimate and all encompassing. See my previous article “What Exactly is God’s Driving Motivation?” for an analysis of the ultimate end for which the Church exists, along with everything else in creation – the glory of God.
[7] Of course the facts surrounding Hitler’s death, taking a cyanide capsule while simultaneously shooting himself with a pistol, lead us to conclude that he went to his grave unregenerate. My point, however, is that no one God chooses is beyond His reach.
[8] 2 Tim 2:25.
[9] An example of this is found in Exodus 12:48. Though foreigners could never change their ethnicity, they could, through circumcision, become full members of the community of Israel.
[10] A random number of people were given dominoes as they entered into the room at the beginning of the service, and they were told, "You have been chosen." Toward the end of the service, Erwin asked the ones that were given dominoes to stand. He then repeated what they were told at the beginning of the service: "You have been chosen.” Then he added, “How does that make you feel? Does it make you feel happy and proud? Look around at all the ones still sitting. They weren't chosen.” His point was that people shouldn't be proud or happy about being chosen, but rather should see how random and unfair it is. Erwin then had them give their dominoes to someone else that was still sitting and have them stand with them. Now his point was that we are not supposed to keep the dominoes to ourselves but rather give them away to as many people as we can so that everyone who receives a domino willingly can share in the joy. That would be fine if the dominoes represented the gospel. But Erwin established from the beginning that the dominoes represent election.
[11] See John 15:16; Ro 9:11; Eph 1:4-6; 1 Th 1:4.
[12] Election and justification are often confused as being synonymous, and this results in a heated disagreement over divine sovereignty versus human responsibility. However, there is quite a distinction. God elects because He is God. He elects before we are even born, even before time began, independent of any good or evil we have done or will ever do, and He elects without any cooperation from us whatsoever. Justification, on the other hand, is through faith in Jesus Christ. We believe in Christ and receive justification through faith in Him. God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in salvation exist together in these two biblical doctrines. (Compare Ro 9:11 and Ga 2:15-16 for this distinction).
[13] Alistair Begg. “The Authority of Jesus, Part A” (Truth for Life Podcast, June 1, 2007). Luke 20:1-8, Series: The Gospel According to Luke – Volume 9. See http://www.truthforlife.org/. Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com

Are Evolution and Biblical Christianity Really That Compatible?

2008-03-05T10:23:00.000-08:00

Some Thoughts Concerning Dinesh D'Souza's Views on Evolution as Propounded in His Book What's So Great About Christianity?

After reading Dinesh D’Souza’s book What’s So Great About Christianity? I must say that I found his writing articulate and agreeable all the way up to chapter 11, which begins his treatment of science and Christianity. Part 4 of his book, entitled “Arguments From Design,” has four chapters, chapters 11-14, dealing with astronomy, man, evolution and origins. Here are a few quotes from these chapters:

…our terrestrial existence, indeed the very matter of which we are made, owes itself to a “creation event” that occurred around fifteen billion years ago (118).

Many creationists fight evolution with a desperate intensity, because they fear that if any part of the Bible is proven wrong then none of it will be believed. I respect the dedication and moral fervor of the creationists, although I do not agree with their reading either of scripture or the scientific evidence (141).

Today we know that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, giving natural selection more time to produce its transformations (144).

The great strength of evolution… (146).

Evolution should be taught… (153)

Though evolution, rightly understood, Christians can affirm that the book of nature and the book of scripture are in no way contradictory (153).

For the Christian, the evolution debate comes down to competing theories about how God did it. My own view is that Christians and other religious believers should embrace evolution while resisting Darwinism. (153)

I may comment on more of these quotes in future entries, but for now I want to focus on the last one. There are, in fact, several reasons why Christians should never embrace evolution. First and foremost, the Bible does not affirms it. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that God created everything in six literal days, and after each day, said that it was good. The only exception is when he made man, after which He added, “It is very good.” Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis, makes a great point when he asks why God would call death, sickness, abnormal mutations and extinction of entire species that He created good. The biblical account explains that death was the result of the curse placed upon man and creation due to man’s sin.

Renowned atheist scientist Carl Sagan wrote:

“If God is omnipotent and omniscient, why didn’t he start the universe but in the first place so it would come out the way he wants? Why is he constantly repairing and complaining? No, there’s one thing the Bible makes clear: The biblical God is a sloppy manufacturer. He’s not good at design, he’s not good at execution. He’d be out of business if there was any competition.”[1]

Ken Ham writes concerning Sagan:

It’s easy to understand why Carl Sagan viewed the God of the Bible this way. Sagan believed that the fossil record, with all its death, mutations, disease, suffering, bloodshed and violence, represented millions of years of Earth’s history. He also saw a world full of death, mutations, disease, suffering, bloodshed and violence today. So he concluded that any ‘god’ responsible for this seeming mess of life and death could not be all-powerful and all-knowing.[2]

Carl Sagan, along with other secular, unbelieving scientists cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity like D’Souza seems to be able to do. Why? Because if this world is the way it has always been, the way God originally created it to be, then that would mean God has a rather twisted idea of perfection. After all, did He not say after each day of creation, “It is good?” French poet Charles Baudelaire seemed to think so. Francis Schaeffer wrote concerning Baudelaire:

Baudelaire…had a famous sentence: “If there is a God, He is the Devil”… the real Christian would agree with Baudelaire that if there is an unbroken line between what man is now and what he has always intrinsically been, then if there is a God, He must be the Devil. Although as Christians, we would definitely differ from Baudelaire, we would agree with this conclusion if we begin with his premise…[3]

His premise, of course, being that the world the way it exists now is the world as it has always been. Schaeffer goes on:

[Albert] Camus…argued that if there is a God, then we cannot fight social evil, for if we do, we are fighting God who made the world as it is. What [Baudelaire and Camus] say is irrefutable if we accept the basic premise that man stands where he has always stood – that there has been a continuity of intrinsic cruelty.[4]

The problem with subscribing to the world’s system is that we are undermining the very hope God holds out to the world. If evolution is true – if the universe is billions of years old, if dinosaurs and dozens of other creatures lived and died before man ever came on the scene, if man evolved from lower life forms, and if survival of the fittest created a world of vicious cruelty and death – then the world as it appears now, with all its flaws, is the world God intended to create. And, therefore, one must conclude that God’s definition of good does not register as good according to any definition we have been taught. No, God must be twisted and cruel, or at least imperfect.

However, if there has been a disconnect between the world as originally created and the way it is now, between man as originally created and as is now, then there is an explanation of why a good universe created by a good God would no longer be good. If there are millions of years, then there must have been death upon death before Adam and Eve ever came on the scene. And this would indeed not be “good.” But if God created everything in six literal days, then what we are seeing now is a corruption, a muddled distortion of the world as it originally was, as it was meant to be.

While I think D’Souza has many great points in his book concerning Christian history and atheism’s shortcomings, he is far too embracing of the world’s skewed interpretation of scientific data. I fear that he might be leading his readers, Christian and atheist alike, into more despair as they see that the Church offers no answers to the dilemmas they are already facing. In softening the blow of Christianity’s offensive message, we are in the long run only robbing them of the hope the gospel offers, hope which begins in the beginning; that is, in Genesis.

[1] Sagan, C. Contact. Pocket Books: Simon & Schuster, New York, 1985.
[2] Answers in Genesis article.
[3] Quoted from A Francis A. Schaeffer Trilogy: Three Essential Books in One Volume, Crossway Books, 1990.
[4] Ibid.

A Review of John Eldredge’s Wild at Heart

2008-03-01T23:37:00.000-08:00

About six years ago, while I was still actively involved at Mosaic, I was introduced to the book Wild at Heart by John Eldredge. There was just something about that book that resonated with me, drawing me in to its adventure and romance. At that point, I began a journey through the mind of John Eldredge in which I read Wild at Heart several times, journaled through it, led Wild at Heart men’s groups, and participated in other Wild at Heart men’s groups. Only after I left Mosaic and began growing again in the word of God did I become aware of many unbiblical premises on which Eldredge builds his theology.

Before beginning this review, let me say it is not my intention to diss Eldredge, only to examine his theology and exercise spiritual discernment. The word of God is a mighty sword that separates truth from error, and we are called to wield that sword. Most of the books in the New Testament were written for that very reason – to counter some false teaching that had arisen in local churches. If you examine the NT, you will see that heresy, i.e. false teachings, were popping up very quickly in the 1st century. Jesus warned about them repeatedly, and by the time Paul, Peter, Jude and John wrote their epistles, they were there (Mat 7:15; Mat 24:11; 2 Tim 1:3-7; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 Pet 2:1-3; Jude (all of it)). And what was to be the chief weapon the Christian was to wield against these false teachings? The sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (Eph 6:17; Heb 4:12).

Eldredge is a Proponent of Open Theism

Eldredge says right out that he is not an Open Theist, but the preponderance of his writings do not support this statement. (Open theism, or the Openness of God, is the unbiblical theological position that God does not and cannot know the future.) Eldredge, in describing God, says that though He does not know the future, He is very quick on His feet because He’s so smart and because He has a vast amount of experience, having been around for so long. So when Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, God, being quick on His feet, came up with Plan B, what we call the history of redemption. Since then, He still had no way of knowing how people would respond. God was so angry when they built that golden calf that He almost wiped Israel out, but He changed His mind and forgave them.

Eldredge says that there is something wild about the heart of God that makes Him take those kinds of risks. But by saying this, he is implying that God is ignorant of the definite outcomes of man’s choices. Whether he intends this or not, Eldredge theology is an affront to the sovereignty and omniscience of God.

To make his point, Eldredge keeps restating that man is made in God’s image, concluding from this is that we discover the nature of God’s heart by looking at man’s. Eldredge’s is a classic case of man making God in his image. Let me explain. Even if we remove man’s fallen nature from the equation, the Bible is still clear that man has been and always will be inferior to God, even though made in His likeness. For instance, God created Adam and Eve. Who created God? God commanded Adam and Eve. But who commands God? God is infinitely eternal, having no beginning or end. Man is only everlasting, having a beginning but no end. God is all-knowing, including all events past, present and future (Isa. 46:9-10), but mankind, even before the Fall is clearly ignorant of certain things (Gen. 3:5). Though we are created in God’s image, He is so far above and beyond us. The bearing of God’s image distinguishes us from all the rest of God’s creation, but it in no way makes us equal to God. In fact, it is dangerous to misuse scripture in this way to say we are even like God. That was, in fact, Satan’s great sin of rebellion (Isa. 14:14) and the very temptation with which the serpent enticed Eve (Gen. 3:5).

According to Eldredge, God has no knowledge of what “could” go wrong, or right for that matter, because “could” implies possibility, which also implies uncertainty. For instance, “It could rain tomorrow,” means it just as likely could not. However, God already knows the outcome of tomorrow’s weather, whether it will rain or not. There is no “could” with Him. It either is or it isn’t, will or won’t, etc.

Eldredge says that when God placed Adam in the garden, He trusted him. Where is his biblical support for this? On the contrary, Jesus clearly did not entrust himself to other men “because he knew what was in the heart of a man” (John 2:24-25) God knew what was in Adam’s heart, that Adam and Eve would fall into sin before He even created them. Eph 1:11 says that “God works all things according to the counsel of His will.” Before time began, God ordained according to His infinite wisdom to create the very world He knew would fall into sin. And God would orchestrate all of human history for the purpose of glorifying His Son and purify for Himself a people for His own possession who are zealous for good works (Titus 2:14). In a nutshell, God had Calvary planned before Eden ever existed. God predestined all things according to the purpose of His will, both for us who are His children and for those who reject Christ (Rom 8:29-30; Acts 4:27-28).

Eldredge’s main point in all of this is that men should take risks. As Christians, there are times we are called to great risk. (Though I would rather use the word faith rather than risk when referring to a Christian’s action(s) born out of belief in God’s faithfulness, righteousness and goodness. But I am content to say that risk is rooted, for the Christian, in the grace of God, in trust in God’s very character/heart.) However, Eldredge makes a huge leap by saying that God Himself is a risk-taker. God may work in a way completely beyond our understanding, even in way that causes us to suffer. That, therefore, must be the reason that we rely not on our own understanding but in God’s wisdom and goodness, for we know that God works all things for our good according to His purposes (Rom. 8:28). With God, there is never risk because there is never uncertainty. God knows all. God knows "the end from the beginning (Isa 46:9-11)." Eldredge's leap from man as risk-taker to God as risk-taker is a non sequitur extraordinaire. Risk simply does not describe God.

Eldredge’s Theology is Based Primarily on Movies

I don’t need to tell you that Hollywood and the Bible are antithetical in their moral and philosophical presuppositions. Yet Eldredge has high praise for several blockbuster movies and several questionable characters. He praises Tristan, Brad Pitt’s character in the movie Legends of the Fall. This character is an ungodly, primal, carnal, self-absorbed pagan who ends up destroying every other character in the movie. Yet Eldredge sets him up as a role model for what a man is really supposed to be, a man’s man! Other characters Eldredge touts are William Wallace (Mel Gibson’s highly fictionalized Braveheart character), Maximus (Gladiator), and John McClain (Bruce Willis’s Die Hard character).

Wild at Heart has been a catalyst for removing the Bible from Bible studies and replacing them with DVD/VCR players. Men’s groups no longer spend time reading and “digging” into the word of God. No, men now watch clips from Braveheart and discuss how William Wallace is what a real Christian should look like - rugged, outdoorsy, adventurous.

What this boils down to is a lack of trust in the sufficiency of scripture. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” What equips us for every good work? Scripture. It is the source for training in righteousness, correction and teaching. But that’s not enough for Eldredge. Men “need” William Wallace, Tristan and John McClain to inspire them, and they do a great deal of digging into these characters to the neglect of Scripture.

What is perhaps most striking is Eldredge’s outlandish call to men to throw off the shackles of “religion.” Now I am in agreement that a religion without a relationship with God working itself out in love and righteous fruit-bearing is both worthless and useless. But heaven forbid I be a faithful churchman who loves God and serves Him as an usher, a deacon or even janitor. No, according to Eldredge, I am not fulfilling my destiny. I was made for something more – the great outdoors.

Eldredge’s View of Sin and Redemption

Eldredge boils sin down to a personal, relational, social issue of being wounded (usually by your father) and, therefore, being damaged. I don’t recall him ever referring to sin as rebellion against God or a violation of His holiness, a falling short of His glory. No, sin is a wound inflicted upon us by someone else. Our objective personal guilt before our thrice-holy God is supplanted by a subjective emotional scar. Therefore, in order to be freed from sin, we must journey into our wound to do some introspection, some forgiving, and some healing, so that we can unveil the manly man deep inside – a man destined for adventure, battle and a beautiful woman. Remarkably absent from all this is the mention of God’s holiness, our guilt, and the need for repentance; only a call to adventure.

The Bible portrays sin quite differently. In Knowing God, J.I. Packer writes:

By sin the New Testament means…rebellion against, defiance of, retreat from, and consequent guilt before, God the Creator; and sin, says the New Testament, is the basic evil from which we need deliverance, and from which Christ died to save us (1973:171).

Sin is spiritual death (Rom. 5:12ff; Eph 2:1-2). Sin is rebellion against God, even making oneself out to be God (Isa. 14:13-14). Sin is falling short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Sin incurs the wrath of God in increasing measure (Rom. 1). Sin, not “the wound,” is a man’s core problem. Sure there are wounds, and many of them are inflicted on us by others we trusted at one time. But the root of it all is sin, and sin is primarily rebellion against an infinitely holy God who is indignant with our sin (Ps 7:11). Packer goes on:

All that has gone wrong in human life between man and man is ultimately due to sin, and our present state of being in the wrong with our selves and our fellows cannot be cured as long as we remain in the wrong with God.

The problem with fallen, unregenerate mankind is that they are, as we once were, enemies of God (Eph 2:1-2). God was our enemy once until Christ reconciled us to God (Rom 5:10). This is why Jesus came into the world, to be the propitiation for our sins. Jesus endured the wrath of God for all those who would believe and receive Him (Rom 3:25). Propitiation is a biblical word that means Jesus was put forth in our place to absorb the full brunt of God’s objective wrath against us. Therefore, when we stand before God, we stand righteous not because of anything we have done or will do. We stand righteous because we were credited with righteousness through the blood-atoning work of Jesus Christ. That work was completed on the cross and fully applied to us when we received Christ through faith. Our problem, the curse of sin, was solved. God’s wrath was abated. We were reconciled to God! Sin is now our relentless enemy and will be as long as we draw breath, but we have been delivered from its dominion forever. This is the meaning of biblical redemption.

Conclusion

Christ’s work of redemption is fairly straight forward New Testament theology. Yet it is strangely absent from Wild at Heart, along with other pop-Christian books, that actually present a distorted and false gospel laced with pop-psychology or a man-centered or self-esteem gospel that is leading thousands of people away from sound biblical truth.

Furthermore, I cannot subscribe to the defense given for books like Wild at Heart, that God uses these books in spite of their theological flaws. I find it hard to believe that God would use something that robs Him of His glory and gives it to men, something that diminishes God’s name for the sake of man, something that directly and blatantly contradicts His written word. Books like Wild at Heart might “help” people with their psychological issues, emotional problems and “wounds.” But true spiritual healing comes from God’s prescribed means of grace that are outlined in His word. Anything outside this is highly suspect. This, along with the previously mentioned reasons, makes Wild at Heart irreconciliable with the truths of Scripture.

___________________________________________________________

For further study, here are three suggested reviews of Wild at Heart:

http://www.svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?id=94

http://www.ccwonline.org/wild.html

http://www.churchofthegoodshepherd.info/structuralimages/resourcesimages/wildatheart.pdf

Are Erwin McManus' Teachings Biblical?

2008-01-14T19:03:00.000-08:00

Part 2: You Have Incredible Potential

“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.’” – Isaiah 14:14

“Create the future” – Erwin McManus.

Two of Erwin McManus’s favorite topics are heroism and potential: Every person has a hero inside of them waiting to be discovered, and every person has great potential to be realized. In this article we take a closer look at this view of McManus.

In an article on his Mosaic Alliance website, Erwin McManus wrote concerning himself:

When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice. This is central to the heart of Mosaic.

In McManus’s sermon entitled “Passages: 2 Kings 7,” he commented in reference to the lepers in verses 3-9:

…even lepers can be heroes. And, I think, if you want to summarize what’s in this book [the Bible], that’s actually the central story, that Jesus Christ has come for us. God has stepped into humanity, the Creator into the created…and declared to us, ‘I’ve not come to condemn you but to bring you life…Allowed himself to be brutalized, beaten, crucified so that all of our hatred and bitterness and anger and sinfulness could be laid upon him so that he could overcome that and rise from the dead. And what I love about Jesus is that he doesn’t come back to us and say, ‘You know, you’re a leper.’ He comes back to us and says, ‘Do you know how much I love you? You have incredible potential.” And so this morning, here’s my invitation to you. Get to that place of desperation where God can squeeze that hero out of our soul.”

The hero theme is a prevalent motif in McManus’s teachings and writings, with particular emphases on the themes of the underdog or the barbarian hero who stands up against overwhelming odds. Mosaic’s men’s retreat, called “Highlander,” inspired by movies like Braveheart and Gladiator, pits man-against-man, team-against-team, in one grueling competition after another, from tug-o-war to orienting to kayaking. Men have even been known to strip naked for the competitions. It is a way to inspire men to find the hero within themselves. Several of McManus’s books also carry this theme, from The Barbarian Way, which inspires you to find your inner barbarian, to Uprising, which encourages the revolutionary spirit in each of us. McManus’s favorite Bible character is Jonathan, who did a “William Wallace” against the Philistines, a story he elaborated on in great detail in another one of his books Seizing Your Divine Moment.

Here’s one more observation. McManus’s staff profile at his yelo site reads:

[McManus] can often be heard saying: “You cannot choose how and when you will die, but you can chose [sic] how you will live your life.”

Which sounds remarkably akin to:

Everyone dies. Not everyone really lives. [1]

Unleashing the Hero Within You

“Jesus comes to us and says, ‘…You have incredible potential.’” I couldn’t find where Jesus said that in my Bible. In fact, the word “potential” doesn’t even show up in the gospels, or the New Testament for that matter. Furthermore, there is no reference in Scripture where Jesus speaks of the “incredible potential” of sinful human beings at all. In fact, in Luke 18:10ff, Jesus actually teaches quite the opposite. The story goes like this:

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The tax collector in this story went home justified because of his humility before God. Jesus commended this man for his poverty of spirit and recognition of his unworthiness before God.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus’s first words were, “Blessed are the poor in spirit.” What does that mean? Who are the poor in spirit? They are the ones who, like this tax collector, come to Jesus saying, “Nothing in my hand I bring, simply to the cross I cling.” [2] Would Jesus come to this man saying, “You have such incredible potential?” No. Jesus taught us that the reason this man was justified was because he saw the truth of his condition: he was devoid of any righteousness and goodness of his own and in desperate need of God’s mercy. Erwin McManus would have us come to God offering the precious jewel of our uniqueness and our potential and then have Him polish it into something worthy of His glory. Jesus, on the other hand, would have us come to God, like this tax collector, agonizing over our spiritual bankruptcy, lowering our eyes and beating our breasts, saying, “I am nothing but a worthless sinner.”

It was this tax collector who was pleasing in God’s sight. The Holy Spirit opened his eyes to see that there was no good within him (Jer 17:9; John 3:19; Rom 3:10-12; Eph 2:1-2). Anyone coming to God offering Him anything, even his precious potential, is in danger of being turned away, i.e. eternally condemned. Jesus made this plain when He said, “This man went down to his house justified, rather than the other.” The Pharisee, who esteemed himself, went away condemned.

The danger of the Human Potential Movement, which is plaguing many of our churches even as I write this, is that it stands in direct opposition to Jesus’s teachings. Coming before God with any notion of one’s own worth and potential puts them in violation of the kingdom’s first entrance requirement – an acknowledgement of spiritual bankruptcy (Matt 5:3). Yet this is exactly what McManus and other Human Potential advocates are teaching in our churches today.

In an interview with Infuze magazine, McManus said, “We created Awaken [an organization spawned by Mosaic] as an organization to focus on unleashing the potential in every human being.” He goes on to say, “We’re so convinced that if we can help people see that they’re created in the image and likeness of God, they will be drawn to relationship with Him.” Is that how the gospel draws people, by showing them their worth in God’s eyes? Will they come running to the throne of grace longing for a relationship with their Creator if they can just see themselves more clearly in the mirror? (I’m speaking metaphorically). Did Jesus not say, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all people to myself” (John 12:32)? Are people drawn to God by the beauty of the cross or by the beauty of themselves?

Romans 3:10-18 gives us a very good picture of ourselves without Christ, a sort-of looking glass assessment of our spiritual condition:

None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands;no one seeks for God.All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;no one does good,not even one.Their throat is an open grave;they use their tongues to deceive.The venom of asps is under their lips.Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.Their feet are swift to shed blood;in their paths are ruin and misery,and the way of peace they have not known.There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Yes, we were created in God’s image, but that image has been irreversibly marred by sin apart from the new birth. “…sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men.” (Rom 5:12) Spiritual death dominates all of humanity, so that “every intention of the thoughts of [man’s] heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). Only by regeneration of the Holy Spirit are we even able to see the kingdom of God (John 3:3-6).

McManus goes on to say in this interview:

And so part of what we're trying to devote through Mosaic is creating an active sense of spirituality, that I am created to create the future. That it's part of my stewardship.

The danger of that quote is its subtle deception. The term “stewardship” is tagged onto the end to make it sound biblical. However, this kind of creating is not within the domain of stewardship (= management) but sovereignty, because God alone is sovereign over all of His creation and its future. We as stewards are called to wisely manage God’s creation, not co-create with the sovereign Creator. Yet McManus continually asserts that man is sovereign over creation. Has God really abdicated His throne to mankind, as McManus suggests?

Big Dreams, But Where’s God?

On Mosaic’s Yelō website, it says:

We all have dreams, passions, and talents. The quest to live out your dreams begins by unleashing your creative spirit and coming face to face with the uniqueness of your potential.

It goes on to say:

yelō is an Awaken event that focuses on unleashing your creativity, elevating your influence, challenging your character, and maximizing your leadership potential.

The yelō team experiences first hand the reward of living in a strength-based diverse community. Using the metaphor of a mosaic, we bring our unique and substantial pieces together for a common purpose: to unleash creativity and build community in your organization. Inspired by an ardent and sincere belief in what we offer, we are committed to serving you and your organization. All of us have dreams hibernating inside of us, but we often find it difficult to make them come alive. The quest to live out our dreams begins by unleashing our creative spirit and coming face to face with the uniqueness of our potential. Along the way in life, we discover the importance of character in this journey and are confronted with the primal essence of who we are.

The author of this site writes that yelō is a “strength-based…community,” placing the emphasis on the strengths of the community members. I personally remember one of the first things I had to do when I began attending Mosaic – take the Myer-Briggs personality test. I remember that was pretty much how anyone was identified at Mosaic. “What is your Myers-Briggs?” was THE question asked of me for some time after that. Then, a few years later, McManus introduced the leadership to the Gallup Strengths Finder test. We were all “encouraged” to take it, and I remember long leadership meetings where we discussed our profiles, and once again, we were identified by our top five strengths. But then I started to reflect. The Apostle Paul’s words came to mind: “I will boast all the more gladly of my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me” (2 Cor 12:9). Our weaknesses are gifts from God, perhaps even greater blessings than our strengths, because they force us to rely upon God’s strength. Yet I wasn’t boasting in my weaknesses. I was boasting in my strengths, my talents, my uniqueness, my potential. The prophet Jeremiah’s warning was applicable: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the Lord.’” (Jer 17:5).

Yelo writes they have “an ardent and sincere belief in what we offer…,” referring to the products they offer – a series of strength assessments and personality profile tests - to “maximize your potential.” This is problematic on multiple levels. First, they have a sincere belief in their product; that is, they have confidence, faith in and reliance upon their products, resting their faith squarely on the wisdom of men (1 Cor 2:5). Second, the object in which they have this sincere and ardent belief is a product (or products). And third, these products are focused on human achievement and potential. There is no mention of “God” or “Jesus” on the entire yelō website, while, on the front page alone, the word “potential” was present three times and the word “dream(s)” four times, and these not referring to God directly or indirectly. It would seem pretty clear that what their website and their organization endorses is humanism.

Yelo also says, “All of us have dreams hibernating inside of us.” Perhaps, but who’s to say these dreams are good, i.e. God-honoring? For “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick, who can understand it” (Jer. 17:9)? For “none is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God” (Rom 3:10-11). Yet everyone is encouraged to follow hard after their dreams.

They tell us, “The quest to live out our dreams begins by unleashing our creative spirit and coming face-to-face with the uniqueness of our potential.” First, notice the use of “our…our…our.” This focus is undeniably egocentric. [3] Second, “dreams, creative spirit, uniqueness, potential.” Again, every one of these words is more readily associated with animistic and/or mystical spirituality than with biblical Christianity. For example, the Native American vision quests employs similar terminology and engages is similar endeavors, whereas an encounter with the thrice-holy God of the universe calls for different vocabulary (see Isaiah 6:1-7).
Yelo goes on to write, “…the primal essence of who we are.” However, isn’t “the primal essence of who we are” fallen, sinful, depraved, spiritually dead sinners in need of a Savior to ransom us from God’s wrath and reconcile us to God by blood atoning work on the cross? Referring again to the story in Luke 18, the tax collector was the one who recognized the “primal essence” of who he actually was – a wretched, worthless sinner in need of mercy. On the other hand, it was the Pharisee who saw his strengths who was condemned by Christ.

So, in summary, what McManus and his team are offering is a product of human potential that will help you to fulfill your biggest dreams and become the best you that you can be. But Jesus Christ is only a means to an end in this “quest” to achieve greatness of self (see 2 Tim. 3:2). McManus offers our precious Lord Jesus as nothing more than a tool to unlock your potential and your uniqueness.

The primal essence of McManus’ gospel of human potential is the very antithesis of the teachings of Jesus. His is actually the “anti-gospel,” propounding the self-glorification of man and the dethroning of God. And it is a faint echo of those cunning words spoken so very long ago - “You will be like God” (see Gen. 3:5). Ω

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] That’s William Wallace’s famous line in the movie Braveheart.[2] This comes from the third verse of Augustus Toplady’s hymn “Rock of Ages.” See http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh361.sht[3] The philosophical definition of “egocentric” is: “taking one’s own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.”

Erwin McManus' Mishandling of Scripture

2008-01-14T18:59:00.000-08:00

In Erwin McManus’s sermon entitled “Is Faith Nonsense?” [1] he commented on Isaiah 6:9-10 saying, “This is God in one of His most facetious moments.” He goes on to say, “This is God speaking into the human condition saying, ‘You are broken and your capacity to know me and even be aware of my presence.’” Is God being facetious in this passage, as Erwin claims? Is it even in God’s nature to be facetious? Well, let’s look at the context.

1. “God is Being Facetious”: The Misuse of Isaiah 6:9ff:

The prophet Isaiah had been called by God to pronounce judgment on Israel for their abominable idolatry. The Word of God, when proclaimed, is a double-edged sword, calling to repentance those who are the elect of God and hardening those who are reprobate. This passage is a vivid description of that reality, of what happens to those who hear the Word and choose to remain in their sin. God turns His face away from them, releasing His restraining grace upon them, abandoning them to their ever-deepening wickedness. Romans 1 is one of the clearest portrayals of how God’s abandoning judgment works. Paul begins in verse 18 by saying that God’s wrath is being revealed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” Verse 24 says that God, therefore, gave them up to dishonoring of their bodies, which led to false worship. This sinfulness leads to great judgment, and in verse 26, God again gives them over to dishonorable passions, which led them into an inflamed desire for unnatural relations. Then again, in verse 28, God gives them over to a debased mind “to do what ought not be done.” This passage is a detailing of God’s progressive abandoning of sinners to their own depravity. This vividly describes one aspect of the wrath of God – abandonment. The withdrawal of God’s restraining grace upon our corrupted inclination to ever-increasing evil propels us toward being what we truly are without God’s constant gracious intervention, debased and utterly depraved. [2]

This was Israel’s condition when the prophet Isaiah came onto the scene. Israel was whoring after other gods, and God’s righteous indignation and jealousy was already at work, revealing His wrath against Israel for their abominable wickedness in His eyes. This passage is not the facetious ramblings of a love-smitten god, but the pronounced judgment of a sovereign, righteous and holy God who is indignant toward the sins of His people.

Later is Isaiah 63:17, Isaiah says to God, “O LORD, why do you make us wander from your ways and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?” Is Isaiah also being facetious? No, the prophet understood God’s sovereignty in salvation. Israel chose to despise the word of the Lord. And God released them in His wrath, turning them over to their own sinfulness, which brought about greater degrees of spiritual deafness and blindness. This was a judicial decree, a judgment upon Israel for not obeying the word of the Lord. Amos prophesied that God would no longer speak to a stubborn, obstinate, idolatrous people who would not listen to truth (8:11). Rather, he would hand them over to those things they took pleasure in. 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 says that God Himself “sends them a strong delusion so that they will believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” There comes a time when God says, “Enough” and gives people over to their depravity, removing His restraining grace, even sending strong delusions Himself so that people will be swept away in the very lies they have chosen to believe (also see Ezek 14:9). This is strong judgment from the hand of God. Woe to the nation or the person on whom this judgment of God comes.

Isaiah 6:9ff is a revelation of this judicial decree of God to Isaiah, and a disclosure to the prophet that his prophecy would not have the positive effect Isaiah desired – the repentance of the people. Rather, it would produce in the hearers spiritual hardness, deafness and blindness until God’s wrath consumed them. This passage is not to be understood to have some facetious undertones of a scorned but desperate God babbling to His prophet about the human condition. Facetiousness has no place in God’s nature, and it has no power to win back His people to reason and faith.

2. God as an Energizing Reality: Misinterpreting Ephesians 2:1-2 and John 3:3

Commenting on Ephesians 2:1-2, Erwin says, “What Paul was telling us is this. There’s this spiritual reality that’s all around us. And when we live our lives outside of God, it’s not that we’re not connected to this reality, we’re disconnected from it, but that all of us are spiritual beings… The scripture tells us that we’re all connected to an invisible reality and because we are broken, we are blind to this reality. It exists, but we can’t hear it…smell it…taste it…touch it, even though we were created to live in it.”

Erwin is saying that this “spiritual world” all around us exists but we cannot access it unless we have faith enough to get connected to God. “God is everywhere and He’s this energizing reality that sets us alive, and faith is what grounds us so that we can actually receive the Spirit of God. And faith doesn’t just allow us to believe in God but to be aware of this spiritual reality all around us.”

Let’s analyze this quote. “Faith doesn’t just allow us to receive God…” First of all, believing in God, that is, receiving God, being reconciled to Him and becoming His child and He becoming our Father is salvation! Receiving God, not spiritual extrasensory gifts, not even spiritual gifts, and not even heaven itself, but God and God alone is the good news. The end aim of sending Christ to die in our place was so that we could have fellowship with God. John Piper sums it up best when he said, “God is the gospel.”

Second, it is not faith that allows us to believe in and receive God, but grace. “It is by grace you have been saved through faith” (Eph 2:8). There is a difference. Grace is freely given to us through faith, and even faith is not our own, but a gift from God. If anything grounds us, it is grace, because grace is what came to us freely through Christ’s atoning death on the cross. God’s wrath was propitiated by Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross. And when we believe and receive this gift of grace, God imputes Christ’s righteousness to our account. This is not a subjective, mystical experience, but an objective reality verified in God’s word.

“…but to see this spiritual reality all around us.” The emphasis of the entire sentence is placed on this clause, which makes the previous event, that is, our salvation and reconciliation to God, secondary to “seeing this spiritual reality.” Erwin is saying that God is this invisible super-reality all around us and we need to exercise faith in order to “plug into” Him. There are two major flaws in this theology. First, it makes salvation our responsibility. In this theology, we have to dig deep into our souls and come up with enough faith so that we can be “grounded” into this reality known as God. The Bible, however, is very clear that God is the One doing the saving from beginning to end. He is the one who calls, justifies and glorifies (Rom 8:30). He is the One who works in us “both to will and to act according to His good purpose” (Phil 2:13)

Second, this theology makes the end of salvation into something other than receiving God’s free gift of forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which Jesus defines as knowing God (John 17:3). No, in this salvation, we also receive divine insight into unseen realities, seeing things as God sees them. Faith becomes this doorway to another “universe” where we can perceive invisible realities through a kind-of enlightenment of our spirit. Using John 3:3, where Jesus tells Nicodemus he must be born again, Erwin says, “You need faith because the realities of what it means to be alive cannot be seen with the senses. There is a reality that is ‘nonsense.’” Again, he boils being born again to entering into this mystical reality rather than being called to life by God by grace so that we can believe the truth and be saved. Then going on to verse 8, “The wind blows where it wills…,” he comments “What Jesus is telling us is there’s more going on that meets the eye. What faith does is it reenergizes us; it brings us back to life. And when we come to life we begin to see what we could not see.”

But the Bible defines faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things unseen” (Heb 11:1) What is unseen is not a mystical spiritual reality beyond our senses, but the finished work of Christ as atoning sacrifice and His ongoing work as our High Priest. God gives us faith to believe in Christ’s objective work, but He has already laid it all out in His word. There is no other source where we will find God’s truth. We are not instructed to “connect” to anything, just to believe, to put faith in Christ.

Faith rests squarely on Christ’s finished work. Hebrews 11:1 follows ten chapters that demonstrate Christ’s supremacy over all things and His role as THE eternal High Priest who makes intercession for His people in the heavenly temple. The Jewish recipients of this letter were struggling with believing in Christ’s invisible priesthood, which was in heaven and were being tempted to return to Judaism, to a priest they could see and a sacrifice they could touch. The writer of Hebrews reminded them that faith was the “evidence” that Christ’s work was an objective reality by which He has “once and for all perfected those who are being sanctified” (10:14). It doesn’t seem to me that that is the kind of faith Erwin is talking about. His faith is a mystical doorway into an enlightened spiritual experience with God and the supernatural where a person obtains or realizes an ability to perceive another reality.

3. “The Kingdom is Within You”: The Misinterpretation and Misapplication of Luke 17:20-21 and Related Passages

Erwin comments on Matt 12:22ff, “If you want to know how Jesus sees reality, this is what He says. He says that there is a war going on and there are two kingdoms: the kingdom of Satan and the kingdom of God. And that every human being is integrated into this conflict... And when you live a life connected to God by faith, all the sudden, the invisible becomes clear to you.” Going to Matt 12:43, Erwin says, “He’s telling us that there’s more going on than what you can [see, hear, feel, taste, touch]… The invisible reality shapes the visible reality. ‘I’ve come to war against this kingdom that holds you captive, and by the way, you are spiritually permeable.’” Erwin is affirming a dualistic, mystical religious experience. We are integrated into this spiritual world, this spiritual war between the forces of good and evil. We can’t see it, but it exists. It’s all around us.

Erwin then takes us to Luke 17:20-21, “Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” Erwin uses a translation that says, “…the kingdom of God is within you.” Erwin comments on this passage by saying, “Jesus is saying that you are a portal, an intersection of the kingdoms. And if you want to begin to find the evidence that you are more than just flesh and blood, begin to look inside of your soul.” This concept of looking inside your own soul is also heavily reinforced in Erwin’s book entitled Soul Cravings. The concept goes like this – God, or some intrinsic imprint of God, is inside of you, and if you want to find God, begin a spiritual journey inside of yourself. You’ll find that God was there all along. But this theology runs completely contrary to what scripture actually says. Nowhere are we ever told to look within our own souls for God. Rather, we are told to look without to divine revelation – His revealed Word. “Faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ.” Faith does not come by looking within, as Erwin suggests, but by hearing and believing the word of Christ.

Concerning Luke 17:20-21, Bob DeWaay writes:

Whether “within” or “in your midst” is the preferable translation is often determined by one’s eschatological views. Many wish to teach that there never was or will be a visible manifestation of the Kingdom; but that it only exists inside of people. However, those who favor “within” are not considering the many other passages in Luke/Acts about the Kingdom. The Kingdom is something people enter by faith, not something that enters them (Luke 18:17); The Kingdom is something that has come near (Luke 10:9, 11); some there will see the Kingdom
(Luke 9:27); People will eat bread in the Kingdom of God (Luke 13:29; 14:15); The Kingdom will be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6, 7) and many other similar issues. None of these passages makes sense if the kingdom is internal to humans. The Kingdom was present in the person of Christ, so “in your midst” is the translation which fits everything else we learn about the Kingdom in Luke/Acts. [3]

It is clear that when Luke refers to the Kingdom of God, he is not talking about some mystical kingdom that dwells within the soul of every individual waiting to be discovered. No, the Kingdom of God must be entered into by faith, it is not something that enters or already resides within them.

Looking at the context, to whom was Jesus responding when He answered this question about the Kingdom? It was none other than the Pharisees. Was Jesus answering them by saying, “Look inside yourself and you’ll find God there.” That would be ridiculous. Luke 10:21 plainly states that God had chosen to hide the Kingdom from these “wise and understanding” ones and reveal them to “babes” – to the outcasts – to tax collectors, fishermen and other unlikely recipients. If Jesus meant the Kingdom was inside the very Pharisees he was responding to, then He also meant that they could look inside their souls to find it, extending to them the hope that they could find what God had in fact hidden from them. Take a look at John 10:26:

Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.”

Notice the cause/effect relationship here. Jesus did not say, “You are not part of my flock because you do not believe.” No, just the opposite. “You do not believe because you are not part of my flock.” What is Jesus saying? He’s telling the Pharisees that their unbelief is a result of not being part of Jesus’s flock. And why were they not part of Jesus’s flock. Verse 29: “My Father, who has given them to me…” God the Father gave Jesus His flock. As a result, they believed. These Pharisees Jesus was addressing were not part of this flock. Therefore, they did not, and in fact could not, believe. So the Kingdom of God could not be within these Pharisees!

What Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, He is referring to is an objective, external Kingdom. The translation “the kingdom is in the midst of you” makes much more sense contextually, since it was in fact the King that they were unknowingly addressing when they asked Jesus this question. It was the King Himself who was right in their midst, but they could not “see” Him because they were “blind.” “Be ever hearing but never understanding, be ever seeing but never perceiving.”

Erwin is saying, based on this passage, that humans are some kind of doorway between spiritual worlds, and therefore there can reside in them both spiritual good and spiritual evil, like some kind of personified Venn Diagram where good and evil interlock in each person. But what Jesus is in fact saying is that He is the King and His kingdom had arrived in a Person, namely Himself. The Kingdom of God can be found in no other place than in the King of Kings, an external, Personal reality, not an internal, mystical imprint on the human soul.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This Podcast sermon, preached on October 8, 2006, is available for download from http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/08/www.mosaic.orgor through iTunes. My entire article is addressing scriptures used in this sermon.2. Dr. John MacArthur’s sermon entitled A Nation Abandoned by God is a remarkable exposition of Romans 1:18ff.3. This excerpt is Footnote 11 in Bob DeWaay’s article.

Erwin McManus' Position on Scriptural Authority

2008-01-14T18:56:00.000-08:00

In a recent article, Erwin McManus shared in pretty straight-forward fashion that his position (as outlined in Mosaic’s list of core convictions) is that “the Scriptures are God’s authoritative Word to us.” [1] Erwin, no doubt, holds the Scriptures in high esteem. But how he interprets and teaches them, and how he trains others to teach them, reveals a lot more about his true convictions and what he really means when he uses the word “authoritative.” Is Scripture objective truth or is it open to a vast array of interpretations based on personal observations, opinions and circumstances?

How We Were Trained to Lead Mosaic Small Groups

I remember a conversation I had with a top leader on Erwin’s (paid) staff [2] when I first came to Mosaic. I had become a small group leader recently and was asking his advice on how to teach the Bible in a Mosaic small group. I told him how important it was for me in the past to thoroughly prepare the lesson, prayerfully studying the passage(s) of Scripture beforehand. He interrupted me and told me something that changed my “teaching” approach for years to come. He said, in so many words, “Don’t waste your time preparing a lesson. It’s better to be unprepared because then the discussion can be open. Everyone gets to figure out together what the text means and how it applies to them personally, and everyone benefits from that sharing experience. If you really want your group to grow, let them figure out what the Scriptures mean all on their own. You’re only doing them harm if you come to your group knowing more than they do.”

I wish I had had the discernment at the time to ignore that counsel, but I didn’t. And for the next five years or so, every discussion I “facilitated” amounted to reading a Scripture passage, then having everyone discuss what they thought it meant. It was a pooling of ignorance, mine included. Oh, did I mention that Mosaic leadership assumes unbelievers attend and participate in small group discussions?

There were times I felt guilty for stepping in and correcting an obviously faulty interpretation of Scripture, like I might be impeding the spiritual growth of the group. The guilt came because we were trained to help our groups learn to freely interpret the Bible from their own point of view, not as objective truth. Here were a few questions our leaders gave us to help us facilitate Bible discussions: “What are your observations about the passage? “What does it mean to you?” “What is one way you are going to apply what you learned?” (By the way, that last question is great if you actually know what the passage means!)

What Do You Mean When You Say “Authoritative”?

Now one might argue, “Well, that was a leader at Mosaic who gave you that advice, not Erwin himself.” Well, first of all, that leader previously mentioned conducted several small group leader training seminars under Erwin’s guidance. And second, Erwin himself said the same thing at many of our leadership seminars. He told us, “Never do anything a one-week old Christian couldn’t do.” Well, most one-week old Christians don’t know how to study their Bibles, use commentaries, use the context of the passage to discover its meaning, go back to the original language (I’m still learning to do that), investigate the author’s intent, etc., all while praying in the Spirit for wisdom. That’s why God appoints some as teachers, isn’t it? And so it followed, according to Erwin, that as a small group leader, I wasn’t supposed to be doing any of these things either. And this philosophy was to be applied to casting vision for our groups, raising up apprentices/new leadership, and facilitating Bible “discussions.”

Since I left Mosaic, I’ve had the opportunity to step back and reflect on all of this. Here are some conclusions I’ve reached. Mosaic is a community so full of ministry and evangelism potential, with a youthful, pioneering spirit and a decent understanding of the postmodern paradigm that permeates our culture. Mosaic is in a unique and strategic position to impact that very culture, being in Los Angeles, which some regard as the heart of American postmodernism. And there are some faithful followers of Christ at Mosaic who have a genuine passion to obey the Great Commission and share the gospel with this lost culture. And Erwin’s strategy is to build a “followers of Jesus” culture within the unchurched culture so that Mosaic can influence the culture. It sounds great at first glance. But how exactly is he obeying the Great Commission when, at the same time, he is training his leaders to disregard the authority of Scripture? Doesn’t the second half of Jesus’s command say, “…teaching them to obey all I have commanded you?” Small groups are the heartbeat of Mosaic, pretty much the “discipleship” and training program of the church. And when small group leaders are trained to facilitate their groups in such a way as to undercut the authority of Scripture (by leading already subjective thinkers into deeper subjectivity concerning objective Truth), how exactly does that line up with Jesus’s words? Answer: it doesn’t. No, that approach only makes sense if you place little or no value on Scriptural authority, and it contradicts Erwin’s previous statement regarding his (and Mosaic’s) conviction about the authority of Scripture.

We live in a day and age when postmodern “scholars” say no one can know for certain what truth is. “Your truth is your truth, my truth is my truth,” and so on. That’s to be expected from an unregenerate culture living in spiritual darkness, (and that is why we must take Light into that darkness). But Erwin is a professed Christian and a pastor. He is gaining increasing prominence as a spokesperson and spiritual/cultural leader, and he has authored several books that are influencing many churches, Christian organizations and individuals in the U.S. and throughout the world toward a new paradigm of ministry. When challenged openly, Erwin is quick to defend himself by making “orthodox” statements like, “the Scriptures are God’s authoritative word to us.” But then he turns around and train his leaders to perpetuate the unregenerate mind of the culture in their own circles of church leadership, telling their followers that the Word of God is God’s word “to us” and for us, and is all about us; that it means, more or less, whatever you think it means. The contradiction should be screamingly apparent to anyone reading this! Scripture, according to Erwin’s definition of “authoritative,” doesn’t sound authoritative at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Erwin’s article to which I am referring can be found at: http://www.thecronline.com/mag_article.php?mid=1016&mname=June.
[2] Mosaic refers to all their members as “staff,” so I am distinguishing this leader as one who was on paid staff, i.e. an equipper, trainer and leader of leaders.

Are Erwin McManus' Teachings Biblical?

2008-01-14T18:08:00.000-08:00

Part 1: Ditching Discipleship for the Doctrines of Demons

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons” – 1 Tim 4:1

“My goal is to destroy Christianity” – Erwin McManus.

Erwin McManus has made it crystal clear that he hates Christianity. This is very well documented. He has said, “The greatest enemy of the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity,” and “My goal is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a recatalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ.” [1] Now before you argue that I am taking his words out of context, understand that I am fully aware of forms of “Christianity” that every true Christian should hate, forms that aren’t Christian at all. There are many who claim to be Christians but show no evidence of Christ being their Lord. And there are many churches that do the same. We should hate that kind of “Christianity,” which isn’t really Christianity at all.

But that’s not the kind of Christianity Erwin McManus is talking about. No, he’s talking about biblical Christianity. He’s talking about the Christianity of the Gospels, the Christianity of the Apostles, the Christianity that triumphed in the Reformation when certain godly men stood up for truth against Roman Catholic heresy. When Erwin says he wants to destroy Christianity, he is speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ that exalts God’s glory in justification by faith alone to the glory of God alone. Simply put, Erwin wants to destroy Truth. Now, let’s see how.

“Teaching Doctrine Isn’t Biblical”

Erwin doesn’t believe in teaching doctrine. This year at the Southern Baptist Convention General Meeting, he said:

The practice of opening up the Bible and preaching verse-by-verse every Sunday and teaching doctrines that those who come already believe, and somehow think that that will transform society, you can’t find it in [the Bible].” [2]
Teaching doctrine isn’t biblical? Well, what about Titus 1:9: “He [an overseer] must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it”? What about Titus 2:1: “But as for you, teach what accords with sound doctrine”? In these verses, the Greek noun didache/e can be translated as “doctrine” or “teaching,” (see 2 Tim 4:2-3: “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching (didachee). For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching (didaskalias: a form of didache). So Erwin stands opposed to the Bible itself in saying that teaching doctrine is not biblical.

Erwin is right in line with many Emerging leaders who want to create a new generation of Christians who are divorced from doctrine. Erwin said in a Willow Creek video clip, “Christians love to get more and more information about God so they can know more and more without having to actually do anything about it.” [3] That’s his take on discipleship. He’s saying that conversion inherently brings all the “information” you need to know about doctrine, and all God is calling for now is action. By the way, that word “information” Erwin is throwing around is his substitute word for biblical knowledge. (We’ll come back to that in a minute.)

“Don’t Disciple Believers, Only Unbelievers”

Erwin said in an interview with The Baptist Standard, “My job isn’t to feed the Christians, so they can feed the sheep. My job is to make them hungry so they can feed themselves.” [4] But didn’t Jesus command His undershepherds, beginning with Peter, to “Feed my sheep” (John 21:17)? Isn’t that the model for all pastors (Acts 20:28-32; 1 Tim 4:11-16; 2 Tim 4:1-2; Titus 2:1)? In an interview on the Drew Marshall Show, Erwin conveniently excused himself from this high responsibility as a pastor by saying he doesn’t consider himself a pastor. [5] Why then does his own website say that he, “serves as the lead pastor…of Mosaic?” Maybe because Erwin really does know the role and responsibilities of a pastor, he just doesn’t want to obey?

Erwin goes on to say, “The church isn’t here for us. We are the church and we’re here for the world.” [6] Yes, that is a very well-known mantra at Mosaic, one I’m sure Erwin is very proud of. It’s so altruistic. But is it biblical? Well, it is, partially. And that pretty much sums up the entire Emergent movement – biblical, partially. Yes, we are the Church and we are here for the world. But the Church is also here for us, or rather, we the Church are here for one other. The early believers “devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and prayer” (Acts 2:42) Galatians 6:10 says, “Let us do good to everyone, especially to those who are of the household of faith.” Paul did command acts of kindness toward unbelievers here, but he placed special emphasis on doing good to other believers. Jesus Himself said that it is by our mutual Christian love for one another that the world will know we belong to Him (John 13:35).

So Erwin doesn’t disciple believers. He says that according to Scripture, discipleship was never meant to be focused on believers but unbelievers. And he uses the Great Commission to support this position: “make disciples of all nations,” i.e. unbelievers.

What Does the Bible Say About Discipleship?

Now Jesus did indeed command His Apostles to evangelize the nations, but He added, “teaching them to observe all I have commanded you.” (By the way, the word “teaching” there is the Greek word didaskontes, the active participle form of, yes, you guessed it: didache.) The phrase “make disciples” in Jesus’s command is actually an active verb that literally renders the phrase as “teach the nations.” “Baptizing” and “teaching” are participles incorporated into that command to teach the nations, or “make disciples.” In other words, making disciples is not merely making converts, but also baptizing and teaching them AFTER they become believers. Paul wrote, “Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ” (Col 1:28) The word “mature” is the Greek word teleion, which is also used in James 1:4 to refer to being made “perfect” or “whole” (in that case through trials). Christian maturity does not automatically happen at rebirth. Therefore teaching and discipleship must continue on to Christian maturity. Paul labored to that end and Christian ministers are called to do the same.

So what is (biblical) discipleship all about? In John 8:31-32, Jesus said, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” Abiding, or remaining in the word of Jesus is indicative of true discipleship. That word “abide, ”in Greek, signifies ongoing action – “keep on abiding.” Jesus was speaking to a group of Jews who believed Him but were not fully committed to Him. He was saying that it isn’t enough to just believe. You have to remain in His word to be His disciples. As we continue to do this, we will come to know the truth.

Discipleship also calls for “intelligent worship.” Now when I use the word “intelligent,” I am not referring to human intellect but to revealed knowledge. The reason I use the word “intelligent” is to separate Christian worship from this notion of mystical worship that some are so fond of. Jesus tells the woman at the well, “God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) and the psalmist tells us, “The sum of Your word is truth” (Ps. 119:160) Worshiping God requires knowing the truth He has revealed from His word.

Discipleship calls for loving one another in the body of Christ. I already addressed this previously in this article, but here are a few more references: Romans 12:10 says, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.” 1 Th 3:12 says, “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all, as we do for you.” Heb 13:1 says, “Let brotherly love continue.” 1 Pet 3:8 says, “Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” 1 Pet 4:8 says, “Above all, keep loving one another earnestly, since love covers a multitude of sins.” And 1 John 2:10 says, “Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling.” And there are many, many more.

Discipleship calls for preserving and defending the faith, i.e. doctrinal truth. Paul reminds Timothy that the Church of Jesus Christ has the utmost responsibility and privilege to be the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and Jude likewise warns Christians in his epistle to “contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Being Christ’s disciple is a high call to preserve and fight (contend) for that truth.

Discipleship calls for “intelligent evangelism.” Again, the Great Commission commands us to make “teach the nations.” Teach them what? Truth! As I said earlier, worshiping God requires knowing the truth He has revealed from His word. That is why evangelism is so crucial. Romans 10:17 says, “Faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.” Faith comes through hearing the word of Christ being proclaimed because Christ’s word brings knowledge of the truth which leads to pure worship of God. God’s ultimate end in all He does is the glorification of His great name, and only intelligent evangelism, proclamation based on knowledge of the truth He has revealed, can lead people into God-exalting worship.

Departing from Biblical Doctrine and Discipleship

Now here’s my question. Why would Erwin McManus hold such an unbiblical position about discipleship when the Bible is clearly for Christian discipleship and/by doctrinal teaching? Let’s answer that question by putting some pieces together.

1. Erwin is against teaching doctrine.
2. Erwin is against discipling Christians (including, I assume, even one-minute old Christians, brand new believers who just received Christ). “Doctrine is inherent in salvation, so “turn ‘em loose.”
Now, let’s do some “math.” According to Erwin:

Don’t teach doctrine (if that looks redundant to you by now, I’m elated) + Don’t disciple believers
= Don’t obey the entire Great Commission = Don’t follow Paul’s example in Col 1:28 = Don’t make biblical Christians (sound contradictory? That’s because it is!)

Can’t Erwin see that this equation spells disaster? Here’s what I think. Discipleship of some sort is going to take place no matter what, right? Erwin knows that whoever leads a person to Christ does, in fact, disciple them. He can call it by another name – “investing in,” “unleashing your God-given potential,” etc. – but it’s still discipleship. And the convenient thing about changing the terminology (from “discipling” to “investing,” for instance) is that you don’t have to do it the prescribed way (biblically prescribed, that is). But hear this. Some form of doctrine will be taught and learned. In a teacher-student, mentor-protégé relationship, there will be doctrinal instruction, no matter what you call it. It’s inevitable. But it won’t necessarily be biblical.

So if Erwin isn’t teaching Christian doctrine to his new converts, what exactly is he teaching? Based on what I’ve seen and heard at Mosaic, he is teaching his own mixed up, half truth/half lie, humanistic doctrine. Jesus said, “In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt 15:9). Satan is not idle when the truth is suppressed. He fills the vacuum with his own perverted teachings (1 Tim 4:1)

Erwin has the sense to know that Christians (unfortunately fewer and fewer) have the discernment to know biblical truth from man-centered fiction. Perhaps that’s why he doesn’t like Christians. [7] See, if Erwin can make his own converts from people of unchurched backgrounds, people who have never even opened a Bible or heard a sermon, then he can make “disciples” out of them however he wants. It reminds me of Jesus’s words to the Pharisees in Matthew 23:15: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.” That’s Erwin, making converts to himself. He rebukes the Church for its lack of evangelistic zeal (see, that part’s true), but then he goes and makes converts to his own distortion of the gospel, which isn’t the Gospel at all.

“Discipleship is All About Standardization – It’s Christian ‘Cloning’”

In Erwin’s Catalyst Video Talk, a video clip promoting the Catalyst Conference this coming October, Erwin said there are five words he would like to share that reflect and describe where the Church needs to go to be a genuine, authentic spiritual community. The first word was “Uniqueness.” He said,

There has to be a shift from standardization to uniqueness. The Church of Jesus Christ is known in the western world as being the advocate and defender, the protector of standardization… Discipleship is all about standardization…you have to do things exactly a certain way…and so a follower of Jesus Christ is a disciplined person…and so what you have to do to come to Jesus Christ is you’ve got to become like everyone else who was ever a Christian before. We all know that’s what Jesus died for (laughter). He died to clone us all (laughter). But people without God have a spiritual instinct. See I think a lot of us who are in Christ lose our instinct for what’s real and authentic, but people without Christ, they smell it. They’ve been conned so many times.

And what happens in when we try to standardize people, when we create discipleship cloning systems where we try to make everyone the same, people without God go, “You know I’m not sure I really want that.” But the Church of Jesus Christ, if she’s going to be going to be relevant and effective and actually create the future that needs to be created, needs to become a place where people around the world go, “Do you want to discover your uniqueness? Do you want to be seen for the person you really are? Do you want to find out the unique fingerprint of God on your soul, you need to go anywhere Jesus is because that’s where uniqueness is valued and discovered and unleashed.

First of all, let me say I would be honored if someone were to say to me, “Hey, you’re nothing but a clone of Christ.” Do you know where the term “Christian” came from? It was a derogatory insult thrown at the church of Antioch (Acts 11:26). These Antioch disciples of Christ all started to look and act the same way, apparently like Christ, in their character and actions, in their love for each other and for unbelievers, so the people around them started calling them “Little Christs” or “Christians.” And the name stuck.

See, Erwin is trying to put an image in our minds of the most grotesque thing we can think of – a clone, an automaton, a mindless, go-through-the-motions robot. Then he links that image with Christian discipleship. His purpose is clear – to make discipleship appalling to us.

More Biblical Insight into True Discipleship

The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 1:3-10:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall.

What Erwin calls “information” the Bible calls knowledge. And what is the purpose of this knowledge? It is one of the building blocks of the Christian faith that leads toward effectiveness and fruitfulness in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again knowledge! Those without these qualities, knowledge included, are considered nearsighted to the point of blindness because they do not remember that God is the one who cleansed their sins. Peter says that if we do practice these qualities, we will never fall. Wow! What high praise for godly knowledge!

Now check this out. The word “knowledge” in verse 5 is the basic word for knowledge. It is used in the New Testament to refer to knowledge of truth and doctrine. But notice the word “knowledge” in verse 8. That’s a different Greek word. It means discernment. So here’s how you put them together. Growing in these qualities the Apostle Peter mentions, including knowledge of truth and doctrine, leads to effectiveness and fruitfulness in discernment of the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, growing in the knowledge of biblical truth leads to increasing discernment in distinguishing between the real Jesus Christ and counterfeit Christs, or antichrists.

Let me say this as politely yet emphatically as I can. If someone were trying to preach a different gospel, a different “Christ,” which would be no gospel at all since there is only one Lord and Savior Jesus Christ – if someone were trying to do this, or if the devil were trying to do this through someone, what’s one of the first things he’s going to do to validate his false christ? He’s going to do his best to eliminate spiritual discernment. And how’s he going to do that? By putting away the knowledge of truth Now look at verse 9. That’s a verse about sin and how when we don’t practice these godly qualities, we lose sight of how sinful we were, of how great the Father’s love for us was in putting forth Jesus as a propitiation for our many sins (Ro 3:25). Hear this. If a person belittles the absolutely catastrophic effects that sin had on him before Christ saved Him, or the dominating impact that sin still holds on those who are still without Christ, or the infinitely great price God has paid in the excruciating death of His Son to reconcile us to Himself by atoning for our sins, if a person does that, he is the kind of person Peter is describing in verse 9.

The Peculiar Absence of Sin from Erwin’s “Discipleship”

Erwin McManus doesn’t believe in sin, at least not in the biblical sense. [8] The sinful nature that holds dominion over lost sinners is not even a consideration for Erwin. Jesus’s death on the cross was meaningful only in the sense that it cleared the way for us to become fully human, to be able to achieve our full potential. Oh, I’m sure Erwin believes in some form of atonement, but its more of a “you’re all in unless you opt out” atonement where Jesus’s death was universally applied to everyone at the cross and now we just need to embrace and unleash its power – “believe, belong and become” all you can be! That’s the gospel according to Erwin. Oh, it includes evangelism, of course, but Erwin has also redefined that to mean nothing more than helping people find the unique fingerprint of God on their souls, that fingerprint that reveals their true self and unleashes that self to make its unique contribution to the “Kingdom of God.” That sounds a lot like Abraham Maslow to me:

Human nature is not nearly as bad as it has been thought to be. In fact it can be said that the possibilities of human nature have customarily been sold short…Since this inner nature is good or neutral rather than bad, it is best to bring it out and to encourage it rather than to suppress it. If it is permitted to guide our life, we grow healthy, fruitful, and happy. [9]

Maslow is best known for his humanistic “Hierarchy of Needs,” as well as for introducing, along with Carl Rogers, the idea of the Third Force in psychology – humanistic, existential psychology which stressed human freedom and potential. What is not as well known is that in his later years he introduced still another Fourth Force – transpersonal psychology. This Fourth Force was clearly occultic in nature, having to do transcendental meditation. It was in developing this Fourth Force that Maslow appended his pyramid which previously capped off with self-actualization by adding “transpersonal,” i.e. self-realization. [10] His work is held in high esteem by yoga masters, astrologers and other New Agers. [11]

Erwin’s “ministry” and ”preaching” places a great deal of emphasis on the “self.” Of course, he, like most Emergent types, uses Christian lingo to make his apostasy sound biblical Add a verse or two here and there, taken out of context (who’s gonna know since there’s no one being biblically discipled), and you’ve got a pretty cleverly disguised heresy masquerading around as authentic Christianity. But don’t be deceived. Spirituality, yes. Authentic Christianity, no. It’s New Age, humanistic, and demonic!

Erwin’s “discipleship” program consists of a three-step process. First, he gets people as far away from sound doctrine, from discipleship, from knowledge of the Word of God, as he possibly can. That leaves them blank slates; empty containers ready to be filled. (Now who are the clones?) Second, he gets people to discover how they are unique and valuable “to God” (self-actualization). And third, he helps people to transcend themselves by letting God unleash them and their potential to “create the future” that God imagines (transpersonal/self-realization). [12] First of all, without truth/doctrine, how can we know what God is imagining? Without objective truth, it’s all subjective opinion and projected “reality.” And second, is “imagining” an word we should be attributing to our sovereign God “who works all things according to the counsel of His will”(Eph 1:11), who “declares the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done” (Is 46:10)?

Conclusion

I say it again, don’t be deceived. Erwin likes to mix a little truth in with every lie. But then, that’s been going on since the Garden of Eden, hasn’t it? Beware of this man’s teachings. They tickle the ears, but deep down, they are poison.

I’ll have more to say in my upcoming articles concerning Erwin’s teachings and how they depart from sound doctrine. This little article serves as more of an introduction to Erwin’s philosophy of discipleship and his distaste for biblical doctrine. So stay tuned.

Finally, I leave you with this warning from the book of Colossians:

Therefore, as you received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him, rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. (Col 2:6-8)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] The link for this article is http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles Mar05/Art_Mar05_09.html
[2] Mike Corley did a radio program entitled “Christianity 101” featuring Erwin’s speech before the SBC. That program is no longer available at Mike Corley’s link at Oneplace.com, but I’ve contacted Mike and he is working on sending me a link to that program. If it arrives, I will post it in my next article.
[3] See this short video clip The Biblical Model is to Disciple Unbelievers with Erwin McManus.
[4] Interview with The Baptist Standard posted on March 9, 2007.
[5] The interview was on January 27, 2007. Drew Marshall said to Erwin, “You don’t describe yourself as a pastor,” to which Erwin responded, “No, I don’t.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] There are some web interviews where Erwin has stated his dislike of Christians, but one particular quote from Erwin goes like this: “My wife tells me, ‘You don’t even like Christians. I say, ‘and?”
[8] The Bible sees sin primarily as a violation of God’s infinite holiness. Therefore sin must be punished with infinite severity. In Emerging Church philosophy however, sin can have multiple meanings such as interpersonal sins (against others), environmental sins (against nature), structural sins (homophobia, racism, etc.) and personal sins (defined as “actions harming oneself.”) See Emerging Church, Liberal Theology, and Liberation Theology within this article at http://www.wikipedia.org/
[9] Abraham H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, 1968, 1999), p. 5.
[10] While there are several websites that elaborate on this Fourth Force, they are New Age in nature and I cannot recommend them without prayerful discernment. That being said, there is a somewhat neutral website dealing with Maslow: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/maslow.html.
[11] No offense to my readers, but I am going to refrain from directing you to sites that are occult-oriented – New Age, yoga, astrology, etc. If you have discernment enough, you will find abundant research done on Maslow, Rogers, Jung and other psychologists’ connection with the occult.
[12] In the Catalyst Video Talk, Erwin said, “If we as spiritual leaders are called to do anything, we are called to invest our lives in the community of faith to the body of Christ to the Church of Jesus Christ and begin to shape and create and unleash and nurture and develop and maximize what God imagines today that He commands for us to make a reality tomorrow.”