Emergent Heresy

If there is one thing that the Emergent types all agree on, it is a hatred for the Gospel. There is an utter detestation for the biblical truth that God would become a man, not to make this present world better by making bad people good, but to give dead people life- to spare sinners from the judgment and wrath that is to come. Or as the apostle Paul puts it in 2 Thessalonians 5:9-10, "For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we are awake or asleep we might live with him." Please take careful note of how salvation is contrasted with wrath, which means that salvation is a deliverance from God's righteous judgment and that escape from it is only through the death of Christ, for those who believe on His name. But the Emergent folks hate this Gospel. To the point of blasphemous mockery. Read some of Brian Mclaren and Rob Bell. Or read and listen to the disciples that they have spawned. Just observe this quote from a local church "pastor" by the name of Casey Travis (an admirer of both Mclaren and Bell):

"Let's not even take into account that what appeases God is His eternally bloody Son. And how long do I have to keep up this charade? Is there any point in eternity where I can stop wearing my Jesus camo and God will be ok with me being in Heaven? Do I just sneak by Him at the pearly gates as He's reading the paper, hoping that He doesn't look too closely as I walk by, "Oh, hey Son, be sure to wipe your feet so You don't track too much blood on the carpet."
Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father, not His blood lust. He went to great lengths to communicate how we are infinitely special to Him, how we are His sons and daughters, so much so that yes, He did send His Son to die a horrible death by crucifixion. But is that moment in history frozen for all eternity? Is God always looking for a bloody Jesus? Are we to perpetually live with eternal Jesus camo?"


You can find the whole article here. Just peruse his blog and observe how he attempts to redefine Christianity and how he mocks (the main pastor seems to take part too and you can find his articles here) the Gospel and those that not only proclaim it but defend it, too. Yet, these two men are supposed to be "pastors" or better stated, shepherds of the flock. But how can one call themself a "pastor" when a pastor is to lead the sheep and protect them from the very poison that they are feeding them!? Pastors preach the Word of God not pervert it. A biblical under-shepherd will not hate the Gospel but love it, preach it, teach it and defend it- even if they are not liked for it. Now of course I may be viewed as the bad and mean guy for mentioning names and stating that they are not qualified to be "pastors." My reply is, that this is what we are called to do: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive" (Ro 16:17–18). See also 2 Timothy 4:1-10. Furthermore, it is not false teaching that will be condemned on judgement day but false teachers (Gal. 1:8-9, 2 Pe. 2:1-11, Jude).

Now to deal with Mr. Travis's assertion about "Jesus camo." First, dealing with these folks and pinning them down on what exactly they believe is sometimes stressful and difficult. They are quick to deny or question core biblical truths like penal substitutionary atonement (or the more shy ones don't blatantly deny it but minimize it and never teach on it) but fail to define what exactly they believe about the cross.
They love to un-define terms and then re-define them not with explicit definitions (this is a reason they scorn doctrine) but as Bob Dewaay writes, "Emergent leaders loathe definitions. Definitions create boundaries, they say, and boundaries keep people out. I find that Emergent Church leaders do their best not to be understood, suggesting that being clever, coy, contradictory, or even provocative is a better way to help people emerge from old categories of thought into new, synthetic ones" ( The Emergent Church: Undefining Christianity. Location 77 of 3207 Knidle Edition). Bingo! This is precisely what Mr. Travis does in his article. He attacks the biblical and historic teaching about the death of Christ, while leaving no explicit teaching on the subject. We are left with statements like "When God sees us, He isn't looking for His bloodied Son, He sees us, warts and all, and loves us just as we are. That love is what will wash us. That love is what will cure our sin disease. That love is what will transform us into His very likeness, His image."  But where in the Holy Writ does it say that God's love will "wash us" or "cure our sin disease?"

 In the Bible we do find clear teaching like, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.  Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him" (Heb 9:21–28) and "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin"(1 Jn 1:7).

And just who are these people that say "I'm wearing the blood of Jesus?" I've never met any one that is wearing any "Jesus camo." What the Bible does teach, and the Church has always taught, is that we are cleansed by the blood of Christ and clothed with His righteousness (Zech. 3:1-5, Is. 61:10, Rom. 4, Matt. 22:11-12 Phil. 3:9). One of the most comforting passages of the Bible, clearly teaches this: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). There is just no way around it- to be seen apart from Christ is to perish. Period. Do we wear the blood of Jesus? No. Are we cleansed by His blood and clothed with His righteousness? Absolutely, for there is no Christianity apart from it!

One of the most troubling statements in that whole vitriol is: "Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father, not His blood lust." Sound familiar? Doris Williams, then, of Union Theological Seminary once boldly asserted, "I don’t think we need folks hanging on crosses, and blood dripping, and weird stuff” and one of Dr. Al Mohler's seminary professors conveyed a similar thought when he said, "I will have no more bloody cross religion in this classroom.” It is old liberal heresy resurfacing in a new package. What it really boils down to is a hatred for the holiness of God. That a holy God would demand justice for those that have sinned against Him and this sacrifice was the death  (a very bloody death) of His very own Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is incomprehensible to them. No loving God would require this for salvation. And nor is salvation deliverance from judgment, they say. Rather, Jesus came to show us a "way of life" that is primarily about "kingdom living" in how we live in "community" with each other. In their minds, it's all about social justice. Taking care of the poor and needy e.t.c. (which are things Christians most definitely do, as a result of the Gospel). Albeit, these things are a part of Christianity but flow from a person who has been given life by the Gospel. It is never said to be the Gospel nor the primary emphasis of it.

Not sure how "Jesus went to great lengths to communicate the love of the Father" without understanding, that he had to satisfy the wrath of the Father for the people He loved? In fact, the bloody death of Christ is what God says is how we know what love is: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 Jn 4:8–10 see also 1 John 3:16 and John 3:16-36). Is this not what Isaiah foretold why Jesus came to the earth? "But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" (Is 53:5–6). Does God have a "blood lust?" Of course not but because He is holy, He declares, "Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins" (Heb 9:22). 


I will continue to be blogging on this topic because I am tired of the sovereign Lord Jesus presented more like a Ghandi figure than the Lamb of God- who is the Living God, the Lord of Lord and king of Kings,-that is worshiped as such: "And they sang a new song, saying,Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth” (Re 5:9–10). They are free to start their own religion and call it "Bell-ism" or "Mclaren-ism," if they so wish. What they are not free to do is call it Christianity and attach the name Jesus to it! Christianity is not about behavior modification. It is the wrath delivering, life giving message of the perfect life, substitutionary death and victorious resurrection of Christ Jesus, for the people that repent of their sins and believe on His name. This alone, of course, results in a life that is dedicated to glorifying Him through the way we live. Better known as being a disciple ( a term they love to spin). Soli Deo Gloria!


"I said to him, “Sir, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Re 7:14).


For His Glory,
Fernando