Question: Do the following statements (not necessarily the author of the statements) pass muster¹ with regard to orthodoxy? Why or why not?

According to the biblical narrative and church tradition, at some point in the primordial past, Satan managed to deceive humanity and co-opt us into his rebellion against God, seizing the world and making humanity his slaves. Jesus came into this world not only to take it back and free earth’s inhabitants but also to put an end to the war altogether. . . .

Now, through his death and resurrection, Jesus accomplished the task for which he came. He defeated the kingdom of darkness and set humanity free. In principle, therefore, the world has already been reconciled to God (2 Cor 5.14-21; Col 1.15-20). In principle, the wall of sin that separates humanity along ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic, and tribal lines has been destroyed. In principle, all have already died in Adam and been made alive in Christ (1 Cor 15.22; 2 Cor 5.14). In principle, we are already one new humanity in Christ (Eph 2.14-15). In principle. Yet Scripture as well as our own experience make it painfully clear that what is true in principle has not yet been manifested as accomplished fact (see, for example, Heb 2.8). . . .²

The author then explains that Jesus Christ is “the first fruit of the new humanity (Rom 8.29, Col 1.18)” and that we are also first fruits.² He continues

To be these first fruits, we must allow the kingdom to grow in us and through us. When we genuinely repent (turn from) our idolatrous allegiances to the world and submit to God’s loving rule, the kingdom gets planted in our innermost being . . . We learn how to walk in freedom from violence, self-centeredness, materialism, nationalism, racism, and all other false ways of getting life. . . .

As we grow in Christlikeness, we grow as conduits of the kingdom, increasingly manifesting the fact that we are ‘first fruits.’ Through our Christlike love, others are brought under the influence of the kingdom until, in time, it is planted in them and the process taking place in us begins to take place in them.

Bonus Question: Who is the author and in what work do these quotes appear?

Here’s what touched off this rant:

Scot McKnight wrote a wonderful rebuttal of Spencer Burke’s A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, especially rejecting Burke’s contradictory universalism, denial of the Trinity and Personhood of God, and lack of an orthodox gospel. The post above is the fourth in a series on the book and, while all are worth reading, it can stand alone without having read the previous posts.

So far, no rant.

Then I read Andy Jackson’s response and – whoosh! – up goes the blood pressure! Andy says, to begin with,

First, No one should use Burke to condemn everyone in the Emergent movement. Condemnation by association is not right.

First, why is it that everytime an emergent author gets nailed for poor or heretical theology, all the drones start squawking, “Oh, no! Not us! We’re as innocent as lemmings doves!” Well, it seems to me that if you hang out in with charlatans, praise charlatans, and gobble up the books written by charlatans, you’re asking for condemnation by association.

Now it is true that Jesus hung out with outcasts (such as prostitutes) but it didn’t pervert His theology and He didn’t distance Himself from them when they were attacked. Neither, however, did He defend their philosophies or theologies: He sought to change them. Big difference. Critical difference. And I can’t recall Him associating with charlatans, although I do seem to recall Him going off on a rant or two against them.

Just once I’d like to hear someone in the emergent movement – excuse me, conversation – stand beside one of their own authors instead of running like scared little puppies when the big dogs arrive at the fight. Or, at the very least, admit that their leaders are heretical at this or that point and that the conversation needs to change its tone, direction, and assumptions. Getting an emergent to criticize another emergent is like getting a liberal to criticize a liberal – or a conservative a conservative. Actually, it’s more difficult, I think.

Andy does go on to say,

Second, Emergent leaders should continue in their conversation, but also realize that they have biblical leadership responsibility for those they influence. God will hold all biblical leaders accountable for our teaching and ministry. In other words, our ministry effects people.

Third, Recognized Emergent leaders need to ’show their cards’ as it relates to Burke’s theology. We need to hear what key Emergent leaders think, and provide correction. Hopefully, it will start with McLaren.

Second, using the word “biblical” with regard to emergent leaders is akin to the trite Jello and a tree metaphor. Besides, surely God won’t judge them because He just wants everyone to get along with one another: Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Jew, Protestant, atheist. After all, He’s a generous kinda God, isn’t He? Calling for emergents to adhere to biblical standards is too broad: they tend to pick and choose which standards they want to accept.

Third, Burke is one of the “key Emergent leaders,” being the inspiration of the emergent The Ooze website. So we’ve heard what a leader has to say. Does anyone seriously believe that McLaren will say anything negative or corrective about Burke? If there is but one fatal flaw (this is optimistic: their fatal flaws are legion) it is the total unwillingness of emergents to clean up their own houses.

But my point is this: don’t jump on the emergent bandwagon if you’re going to jump off as soon as it starts to stink. Have the courage to take a stand – somewhere, anywhere. Either get with them – which in this case means leaving orthodox Christianity behind – or get away and stay away from them. You can (as I have) read their books, publicly reject their theology (if you can call it that), and pay attention to their at-times valuable insights into problems in the church.

It must be recognized, however, for all the wonderful exposure of problems they might offer that they have zero solutions that will benefit anyone beyond this lifetime. Denying the Godhead, espousing pantheism, and making the gospel unnecessary is no solution at all; in fact, it is worse: it is snake oil, i.e., it is no solution packaged as the only solution and sold to people dead in their sins.

Addendum: Andy at Smart Christian responded to this post here; I sent him the following email which I’ll reproduce here for anyone who’s interested or has voyeuristic inclinations.

Andy:

“First, a suggestion: you might consider leaving comments open when you mention someone by name in one of your posts. That would allow people like me to clarify a thing or two at your site as well as mine (I’ll be adding a post script shortly).

“Second, my beef is with fence-straddlers, as I tried to make clear (but may have failed). Taking a stand does not mean totally abandoning the emergent group: my role model would be John Stott (I think it was John Stott) who stayed with his own denomination for years and years even though he had serious theological disagreements and concerns. As long as they didn’t depart from the gospel message, he said, he thought he could do more good on the inside than on the outside. But he never hesitated to speak out or write against the errors in his denomination.

“So that’s the main point, although it may have gotten lost in tangential thoughts and ideas.

“Finally – and this is what I’m going to add at my post – my rant was triggered by your post but not aimed at you. Your post was merely the proverbial “last straw” that caused me to break. Sometimes I think emergent churches should meet at a Waffle House, since that’s what they seem to do best – waffle.

“So, sorry if the attack seemed personal; it wasn’t meant to be.”

Related Tags: emergent, emerging, Spencer Burke, Scot McKnight, theology, church

The evidence of God’s divorce comes directly from the prophets Hosea and Jeremiah. The former declares,

Say to your brothers, ‘Ammi,’ and to your sisters, ‘Ruhamah.’

“Contend with your mother, contend, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband; and let her put away her harlotry from her face and her adultery from between her breasts, or I will strip her naked and expose her as on the day when she was born. I will also make her like a wilderness, make her like desert land and slay her with thirst. Also, I will have no compassion on her children, because they are children of harlotry.” – Hos 2.1-4

Instone-Brewer explains that it is best to consider that God did not end nor seek to end His marriage to Israel until He was effectively forced to do so. He adds,

Hosea 2 makes it clear that Israel suffers divorce. The words that Yahweh speaks in verse 2, ‘she is not my wife and I am not her husband,’ are an ancient Near East divorce formula . . .

“This divorce is also referred to at Hos 9.15:

‘I began to hate them. Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of my house. I will love them no more.’

The word ‘hate’ (shana) becomes a technical term for divorce when it is in a context such as this that also refers to ‘driving out of my house.’” – Divorce and Remarriage, pp 37-38

Through Jeremiah, God makes the same point very clearly:

Then the LORD said to me in the days of Josiah the king, ‘Have you seen what faithless Israel did? She went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and she was a harlot there. I thought, “After she has done all these things she will return to Me” – but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.’” – Jer 3.6-8

Jeremiah is warning Judah, the southern half of the divided kingdom, to avoid the same fate as Israel: divorce. The phrase “given her a writ of divorce” was another technical, legal term indicating that a divorce had indeed taken place. Again, Instone-Brewer clarifies:

This reference to a divorce certificate in v. 8 may be an allusion to the verbal divorce formula in Hos 2.2, which became a divorce certificate by the act of Hosea writing it down.

“Jeremiah is keenly aware that a divorce has taken place because he sees this as an impediment to their reconciliation. In 3.1 he summarizes the law of Deut 24.1-4, which states that a wife cannot remarry her first husband after she has married someone else. Although Israel has not actually married someone else in the meantime, Jeremiah says that she has done far worse because she has had many lovers.” – D&R, p 41

A problem obviously exists, the solution to which is outside the scope of this post. What is to be noted here is that both Hosea and Jeremiah have no doubts about the fact that God has divorced the northern kingdom of Israel.

God was divorced. And God will remarry.