*** NOTE --- The youth pastor referred to in this post has resigned his position as of June 2007 to pursue seminary studies at Princeton Theological Seminary
If you love someone you will warn them if you see them headed toward danger or if they are already in danger. Out of concern for their well being and the well being of those effected by them you warn them even though it may be an uncomfortable task.
Therefore, the purpose of this post is to warn the parents of kids in high school and middle school age who are involved in the youth at UBC (you know who you are). This warning is done out of love for God, and his Truth- the Word of God (Jude 3-4) and out of a love for the kids and their families, and out of obedience to God (1 Thess. 5:21, 1 John 4:1). In this post I will point out some
of the errors and dangerous teaching occurring in the youth department which are spiritually unhealthy and destructive (Matthew 18:6). Colossians 2:8 states: "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."
This verse explains exactly what I believe to be happening to the youth department at UBC through the deceptive influence of the Emergent church and its close association with Roman Catholicism.
Some reading this post may be familiar with the Emergent church movement and others may not. (At the end of this post you will find links which go into a lot more detail about Emergent and some of the authors I will mention)
. On the surface the Emergent movement may just seem like a "new way of doing church" with the intention of reaching the postmodern generation
but in reality it is a dangerous movement within evangelicalism which questions and challenges some of the foundational pillars of our faith. Things like the inerrancy of scripture and the exclusivity of Christ for salvation. This movement embraces mysticism and the mystics of the past, promotes methods of Contemplative prayer like breath prayers, silence and solitude and celebrates uncertainty. Uncertainty and mystery are considered virtues to those in Emergent. They are also enamored and fascinated with traditions, customs, rituals and liturgy from early church history ESPECIALLY
traditions of Roman Catholicism. This may explain why so many of the things pointed out in this post continue to look like a return to Catholicism. Many in this movement see themselves as radicals and revolutionaries who want to change the world through social justice causes not unlike a rehash of the Social Gospel
movement. They claim neither the left nor the right politically (although they do lean heavily to the left). They see their form of radicalism as establishing the "kingdom of God"
on earth but it really looks more like a version of Liberation Theology
. They seem to be big on the concept of "community" almost in a way that resembles the 60's with it's communes and it's beatnik type coffee house settings
. In some ways the Emergent movement is almost like a rebellious
hippie movement within the church.
Here's why I am concerned, every Wednesday night, week after week parents are dropping off their kids at Roots thinking they are going to a bible study when in reality are also being indoctrinated
with the teachings of Emergent authors like Rob Bell
, and Brian McLaren
, and the social activist Left-leaning Tony Campolo
and Richard Foster
all with a Roman Catholic twist.
No one really knows from one week to the next just exactly where the teaching will be coming from. Will it be from the bible this week or will it be some strange new concept from an Emergent author or perhaps an ancient doctrine from a Catholic mystic?
Here is how I came to these conclusions. One night, in October 2005 I decided to attend Roots just to check it out and to see what my daughter was being taught. I could not believe what I heard! The youth pastor began to speak to the kids of the "rhythm of life" and of "balance", and the "harmony of creation", phrases I had never heard before in the context of a bible study. He began to explain how the cross was about more than just saving human souls, it was about saving the trees, birds, stars, etc. I left the meeting very upset and concerned. It wasn't until months later did I discover he was teaching the kids concepts from Emergent pastor Rob Bell
from his book Velvet Elvis. [Roots, Applying our Ingredients (4 of 6) - Kingdom of God, 10-5-05
] (CLICK HERE to read about it)
The things I heard that evening compelled me to begin to research some of these phrases. I did not know who Rob Bell was at that time and neither did I know anything about the Emergent church movement. Until one day my brother and I were talking and he told me to take a look at one of the recommended books on UBC's website, the book "Emerging Church" (by Dan Kimball, Rick Warren, Brian D. McLaren). He said maybe it's this "Emergent" thing they're drifting toward. So we started to do research on this movement and wouldn't you know it? but whose name should come up? None other than Rob Bell followed only as a close second to Brian McLaren. This all started to make sense. The words-reimagine, rethink, the terminology-radical, mystery, the themes-the kingdom of God, social justice all started to sound the same and the same authors would pop up again and again. Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, Richard Foster, Dallas Willard, Henri Nouwen, Dan Kimball, Doug Pagitt, Shane Claiborne, Leonard Sweet. I started to then realize, this certainly is a movement which is gaining influence and sway over evangelicalism. So I began to follow more closely what was being taught at Roots. And unfortunately I had become more and more convinced that this Emergent movement was having a very strong effect on this entire youth group. What you actually have going on here is another church within
this Baptist church.
I believe the UBC's Roots weekly gatherings are
an Emergent church.
Let me give some examples.
This youth pastor seems to be intrigued with Catholicism and the monastic life. He speaks highly of and admires the Desert Fathers
like St. Francis of Assisi
and Madam Guyon
. This would make sense, since he considers the catholic mystic St. Francis one of his heroes and frequently uses his teachings and illustrations when speaking to the youth. This is the same St. Francis of Assisi
who used to preach to the birds and was afraid to walk upon the ground so as not to harm the creatures beneath his feet. He considered all creatures sacred and used to refer to the moon as "Sister Moon" and the sun as "Brother Sun".
At Roots one evening the youth pastor began to tell the kids of a story of St. Francis of Assisi and the encounter he had with a leper. He then began to explain how St. Francis saw the poor as being a "sacrament". He then went on to explain what he meant by a sacrament. After this he began to talk about how the monks viewed the eucharist when he stayed at a monastery and how much he loved the sacraments. He told the kids how he believes
the poor are a sacrament as well and "if you look deep enough into their eyes...you'll see Christ"
. These comments are strange, disturbing, and are taught no where in the bible. Here is what he told the kids:"You know what the sacraments are? You know in the Catholic church, I know a lot of you come from Catholic backgrounds, they have the seven sacraments. Things like confession and baptism and holy matrimony these different things that they say that the sacraments are ways in which Jesus comes to us. Ways that God has given to us by grace to experience him. I have to confess here that I got a little Catholic blood in me that I really love the sacraments actually. I loved that, when I stayed with these monks in New Mexico that communion, the eucharist was such a serious thing. And when they take that bread and that wine they believe that they are experience.... [sic]. I mean it's a beautiful thing the sacraments are." [Roots, Thoughts on Africa, 6-8-06]
Of course they believe they "experience" Christ because according to Catholic doctrine
, Christ's literal
physical body mystically enters into the wafer and his blood in the wine. They believe that Jesus is really, truly and substantially present in the elements and the presiding priest has the power over Christ's "unbloody sacrifice" each time this most sacred of all Catholic sacraments known as the eucharist
takes place. This is known as Transubstantiation
and it is a blasphemous doctrine. The Reformers considered this to be an abomination. Bishops Ridley and Latimer, John Bland, William Hunter, John Wycliff, Sir William Sautre, William Flower, Thomas Watts and many other Reformers all understood the blasphemy of this doctrine and willingly gave their lives to be burned at the stake in opposition to it and yet this youth pastor says it is something which is "beautiful"? Now either he doesn't quite understand this Catholic doctrine of the eucharist and is just unaware of how appalling this should be to Protestants or he does
understand and does not have a problem with it which would be far worse. Also the majority of times he refers to what we would normally call Communion, he continually calls it the eucharist which is the Catholic term for the sacrament. Why would he do this? I believe this is another indication of a fascination with Roman Catholic traditions. I don't know if he really believes this way or not. I don't think he does but just the fact that he made those comments demonstrates his lack of discernment, especially since so many families come from a Catholic background. This causes confusion.
It doesn't stop there. He goes on to say:"You know why I like the sacraments so much though? Because when you have sacraments, everything begins to be sacramental, like the poor. I believe the poor are a sacrament" --[Roots, Thought on Africa, 6-8-06]
It just so happens that Tony Campolo said almost the exact same thing at the National Council of Churches Poverty March 2002. Here is Campolo's quote: "When it comes to a theology of the poor, there are few who can match that developed by Francis of Assisi. This 10th-century saint let us know in no uncertain terms that the poor were, as he called them, sacramental, and not just objects of pity. What Francis meant by the term sacramental is that the eternal Christ somehow infuses the poor so that, as we meet them face to face, we are meeting not only the poor, but encountering something of the presence of Christ. To Francis, the poor were not Christ, but he believed that Christ came through the poor to those who would look into their eyes with spiritual discernment. Even as Lutherans believe that there is a real presence of Christ in the bread and the wine in Holy Communion (though the elements still remain bread and wine), so Francis believed that, though the poor remain what they are, Christ flows through them to those who have eyes to see him and ears to hear him."
Citing authors is not always a problem depending on who it is (although anyone who frequently references Campolo I believe has a problem) but when your theology is determined by them rather than from scripture you have a huge problem. No where does the Bible teach that the poor are a "sacrament" so why is he teaching this to the kids? These concepts derive from St. Francis and echoed by Tony Campolo and G.K. Chesterton not the bible. This view is mystical. The passage in Matthew 25 does not teach this. Interestingly, Mother Theresa stated the same when she said “I see Jesus in the eyes of the poor. It is in serving the poor that I serve Jesus...We cannot know Jesus in the sacraments unless we are willing to see him in the eyes of the poor...”
Comments like these sound a lot like Pantheism
. What's wrong with Mother Theresa some might ask? Let me know if these comments from her book "Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers" are problematic?:“We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men — simply better — we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.” [Pages 81-82]
“All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.” [Page 31]
This youth pastor takes trip to a Catholic monastery each year. [Roots, Identity - Abba's Love, 10-4-06]
He comes back with his head shaved. This is another example of his affinity for Roman Catholicism as well as an indication of a lack of discernment. Doesn't this cause any confusion with the kids?
Also if you listen to the sermons from Roots you will hear comments and statements which just make you stop and say "what did he mean by that?" Like: "so there's no separation of sacred and secular, everything for us becomes sacred"
or "the good news of Jesus is not just good news for christians, it's good news for everyone because if it's not good news for everyone, it's not good news for anyone"
or how about this one: "it's not reform, it's reforming"
Comments which sound odd, unusual and you may hear things you've never heard before. You may find yourself saying "no don't say that...is that what you meant or are we just misunderstanding you? or "maybe that's not what he meant, he just didn't say it right". Here's another example: "we don't go to heaven, heaven comes to us"
. Or the comment "I'm watchin' my boy Jack Bauer who just happens to be the fourth person of the Trinity"
. I cannot comment on all of these but I will comment on this one example: He told the kids about an incident when he confronted a guy in Little Haiti who was soliciting a prostitute. He did a very good job encouraging the kids not to engage in immoral sexual activities but he lost me when quoting G.K. Chesterton saying "every man that knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God"
. He took this peculiar viewpoint from this devout Catholic writer and based an entire theological viewpoint on it.
This what he went on to tell the kids:"That man that was in Little Haiti that day with me and [name excluded] …was looking for God. And some of you...when you get on the internet tonight, you are looking for God...and guys as you brag about this girl and doing this with her...and having that little...what you're really doing is searching for God. This is the strongest desire of the human heart. Whether or not you know it you long for a deep intimate relationship with God."
OK, this may sound nice but this is NOT TRUE! Before a person is regenerated by the Holy Spirit making them alive to Christ they are in total darkness, in rebellion and defiance toward God. The strongest desire in their heart is for themselves as Lord, not a desire or pursuit for God. If they were looking for God they would be lead to the cross in sorrow and repentance and hatred for their sin against this holy God who cannot look upon sin. The opposite is what's true here. They love their sin and hate God, they hate the light. John 3: 19-20 says "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."
That guy soliciting a prostitute was not looking for God he was listening to the father of lies, Satan. When a kid is looking for porn on the internet he is NOT LOOKING FOR GOD he is delving into lust with a deceitful and desperately wicked heart (Jer. 17:9). This idea is not found in scripture. These comments are more examples of ideas and doctrines which are branching outside of orthodox christianity. These are not doctrines clearly taught in the bible therefore they should not be taught to the youth. They cause confusion.
On one occasion he taught the youth "Application of the Senses" exercises from the Catholic (Counter-Reformer)
and Jesuit priest Ignatius of Loyola. James Sandquist in this article
states this about Ignatius of Loyola: "Ignatius was the first general of the Jesuit army. The Jesuit army infiltrated churches to destroy all that were not related to the mother church. One of the bloodiest times in the history of mankind, the Jesuits were probably the most cruel and fierce as they justified torture and murder for the church....The Jesuits were responsible for the Inquisition. Loyola's JESUIT ORDER under his personal direction was responsible for the MARTYRDOM OF COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF GOD'S SAINTS who would not bow the knee to the papal demand for unconditional obedience."
This exercise encourages one to place themselves in the gospel stories using their 5 senses and imagination to embellish the Biblical narrative. The youth pastor claims he did this when the use of scripture was an insufficient tool to combat against temptation. [Roots, The Pleasures of God (3 of 4) - Fight Pleasure with Pleasure, 12-15-05
]. This idea is not found in scripture. Isn't it a dangerous thing to add your imagination to scripture? Our imaginations should be subject to scripture not used to embellish or add to what is written in the Word. 2 Cor. 10:5 states "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."
The youth pastor also encourages kids to read the author Richard Foster (who also promotes Ignatius of Loyola's Application of the Senses exercises in Celebration of Discipline--p.26 1978 edition).
Richard Foster is a Quaker. Quakers believe all humans contain the "Inner Light"
, whether you are a christian or not. Foster also teaches astral projection in Celebration of Discipline
. (p.27 1978 edition). This is important to know since Celebration of Discipline by Foster and Brian McLaren's, A Generous Orthodoxy
are among two of UBC's youth pastor's favorite books, based on the his bio in the "crew" section on the Roots wesite.
And, just in case anyone has any doubt about the influence of Catholic rituals in the UBC youth, on Wednesday March 28, the kids conducted a corporate fast followed by having ash marked on their foreheads during Roots in recognition of Ash Wednesday. [Roots, Progression to Easter - Ash, The Little Way, and Resurrection, 3-28-07]
Yes, in case you didn't know, they had the opportunity to go forward and have their foreheads marked with ash as they heard the phrase "from ash you came, to ash you will return" uttered by the leader. (this was not conducted by the youth pastor this time but a guest speaker). What is the purpose for doing this? WE ARE NOT CATHOLIC!
That night two more Catholics were used as sources (St. Therese of Lisieux and Dorothy Day).
This is what the kids were taught that night:"As christians we're called to be a eucharist for the starving and thirsty world just as Christ is the eucharist for this starving and thirsty congregation here tonight. So, we're called to be the eucharist and what this means is we're called to serve and to break ourselves open for those who are around us"
These concepts of the church being the eucharist for world are not taught in the bible but rather were taught by Rob Bell from his "Isn't She Beautiful" conference in January '07 which was attended by UBC's youth pastor, and repeated by Rob Bell from his sermon "The X,Y,Z's", 2-18-07
. The talk this night at Roots was so similar to the things Rob Bell said it almost seems like some of it was repeated verbatim. So once again we have doctrines being taught to the kids from the word of Rob rather than the Word of God.
The youth pastor refers to the psychiatrist Carl Jung
to the kids [Roots, Mysteries - The Cross, 3-21-07]
. Jung was into the occult, Gnosticism, Zen Buddhism, Taoism, yoga, astrology, and alchemy to mention a few. In his autobiography Jung claimed: "The possibility of a comparison with alchemy, and the uninterrupted intellectual chain back to Gnosticism, gave substance to my psychology." [Memories, Dreams, Reflections, 1961/1989, p. 205]
. The youth pastor told the kids about Carl Jung's view of our dark side known as our "shadow". Carl Jung believed that our dark side needed to be integrated with our good side to make us whole. Jung also believed in what he referred to as "psychological bisexuality" meaning that every man has a female soul (anima) and every female has a male soul (animus). From THIS ARTICLE
we read the following about Carl Jung:"John Kerr claims that Jung’s so-called anima "the woman within" which he spoke to, was none other than his idealized image of his former mistress, patient, and fellow therapist, Sabina Spielrein. After breaking with both Spielrein and Freud, Jung felt his own soul vanish as if it had flown away to the land of the dead. Shortly after, while his children were plagued by nightmares and the house was seemingly haunted, Jung heard a chorus of spirits cry out demanding: ‘We have come back from Jerusalem where we have not found what we sought.’
In response to these spirits, Jung wrote his Seven Sermons to the Dead. In these seven messages Jung ‘reveals’, in agreement with the 2nd century Gnostic writer Basilides, the True and Ultimate God as Abraxas, who combines Jesus and Satan, good and evil all in one. This is why Jung held that "Light is followed by shadow, the other side of the Creator." Dr. Noll, a clinical psychologist and post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University, holds that "Jung was waging war against Christianity and its distant, absolute, unreachable God and was training his disciples to listen to the voice of the dead and to become gods themselves."
According to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover "For Jung, good and evil evolved into two equal, balanced, cosmic principles that belong together in one overarching synthesis. This relativization of good and evil by their reconciliation is the heart of the ancient doctrines of gnosticism..." [Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, p. 240]
Carl Jung has no business being referenced to a youth group. This condones Carl Jung to the kids. This is yet another example of a major lack of discernment and another example of doctrine being taught to the youth based on sources other
than the bible. (by the way, Tony Campolo also favorably references Carl Jung)
On another occasion he has shown an irreverent, crude and disrespectful attitude toward God. He made a reference to God from Isaiah 40:22 as "sitting on the throne", if you know what I mean. Yes that's exactly what I mean, and that is exactly what he meant. This is the idea the youth pastor put in the minds of the kids. Every time they read that passage they can chuckle when they picture the image of the Omnipotent, Holy, Almighty God "sitting on the throne" [Roots, Love, Sex, & the New Society - The Voice of our Culture, 2-7-07]
The more I think about that the more dumbfounded I am that he actually dragged God down into the gutter picturing the Almighty Creator of the universe sitting on a toilet defecating.
Here is another interesting concept taught to the youth about the command by Jesus to "love thy neighbor". We know the Bible says to love the Lord with all our heart, mind and strength. It also says to love our neighbor. I don't know about you but when I think of my neighbor I think of the average person walking down the street or the guy right next door to me. When this youth pastor thinks of his neighbor he thinks of "the environment". He said the environment was his neighbor. [Roots, Our Ingredients (4 of 5) - Kingdom of God, 8-3-05
]. According to him if you really love your neighbor, the environment, you will keep the rivers clean and fight against pollution. Not your common run-of-the-mill Sunday School lesson is it? I still have not been able to figure out where he got this crazy notion from.
As mentioned earlier, ideas from authors Rob Bell and Brian McLaren have been taught at Roots. To give you a better idea of what these men believe here are some quotes, starting with Rob Bell: [The Bible is a] “human product...rather than the product of divine fiat"
- Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today
"What if tomorrow someone digs up definitive proof that Jesus had a real, earthly, biological father named Larry, and archeologists find Larry’s tomb and do DNA samples and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the virgin birth was really just a bit of mythologizing the Gospel writers threw in to appeal to the followers of the Mithra and Dionysian religious cults that were hugely popular at the time of Jesus, whose gods had virgin births?
But what if, as you study the origin of the word “virgin” you discover that the word “virgin” in the gospel of Matthew actually comes from the book of Isaiah, and then you find out that in the Hebrew language at that time, the word “virgin” could mean several things. And what if you discover that in the first century being “born of a virgin” also referred to a child whose mother became pregnant the first time she had intercourse?"
-Velvet Elvis, p. 26
“Who does Peter lose faith in? Not Jesus; he is doing fine. Peter loses faith in himself. Peter loses faith that he can do what his rabbi is doing. If the rabbi calls you to be his disciple, then he believes that you can actually be like him. As we read the stories of Jesus’ life with his talmidim, his disciples, what do we find frustrates him to no end? When his disciples lose faith in themselves..... Notice how many places in the accounts of Jesus’ life he gets frustrated with his disciples. Because they are incapable? No, because of how capable they are. He sees what they could be and could do, and when they fall short it provokes him to no end. It isn’t their failure that’s the problem, it’s their greatness. They don’t realize what they are capable of....God has an amazingly high view of people. God believes that people are capable of amazing things. I’ve been told I need to believe in Jesus. Which is a good thing. But what I’m learning is that Jesus believes in me....God has faith in me.”
-Velvet Elvis, pp. 133-134
As far as the Universalist Brian McLaren
goes, I am surprised he is still even considered a "christian" author. Nonetheless this youth pastor teaches concepts from McLaren like when he told the kids that God doesn't just want to save the passengers of the Titanic, He wants to save the whole ship. [Roots, Our Ingredients (4 of 5) - Kingdom of God, 8-3-05
]. This implies that God is not just saving humans but saving the whole world. This sounds like "Planetary Salvation"
or a form of Universalism
Here are some quotes from McLaren:"What if there are thousands of John Calvins out there....what if God decided to make a lot of them gay?"
––Brian McLaren, Lecture at Princeton Theological Seminary, Nov. 2005
"I don't think we've got the gospel right yet. What does it mean to be 'saved'?.... I don't think the liberals have it right. But I don't think we have it right either. None of us has arrived at orthodoxy."
––Brian McLaren, The Emergent Mystique, Christianity Today, 2004
"What if Jesus' secret message reveals a secret plan?".... What if he didn't come to start a new religion--but rather came to start a political, social, religious, artistic, economic, intellectual, and spiritual revolution that would give birth to a new world?"
––Brian McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, p. 4
"I am a Christian because I believe that, in all these ways, Jesus is saving the world. By “world” I mean planet Earth and all life on it, because left to ourselves, un-judged, un-forgiven, and un-taught, we will certainly destroy this planet and its residents. And by “the world” I specifically mean human history, because again, it was and is in danger, grave danger, ultimate danger, self-imposed danger, and I don’t believe anyone else can rescue it.”
---Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 97
"I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts."
---Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260
All of these authors and teachers mentioned here are loaded with false teachings and heresies. There is absolutely no excuse to allow these false doctrines to infiltrate the church and allow influences of Roman Catholcism to distort our true
means of grace. The kids are already malnourished on the basic doctrines of the christian faith without having to be introduced and seduced by heretical Emergent and Catholic doctrines.
Is this what UBC's youth pastor believes? I think that is a valid question.
The kids are being introduced and taught things which ARE NOT
in scripture. I have heard many occasions where some scripture is
being taught at Roots. This is a great thing, but far too often the study of scripture at Roots is mixed with large doses of Roman Catholicism or Emergent heresies and thus the messages become spiritually lethal.
I am sure the youth pastor and the UBC leadership are sincerely trying to reach the youth for God's glory but they have allowed pragmatism at the expense of sound doctrine to dictate their methods instead of allowing the direction of the Holy Spirit through Sola Scriptura
All of these things mentioned show a great lack of discernment on the part of this youth pastor and even more so
on the church leadership which is allowing error to be taught at Roots on a consistent basis.
I would like to know where are the older spiritual men, like Paul who would step in with authority and correct these erroneous teachings. (Titus 2:6-8) Where are the spiritual leaders who are checking scripture to see if what is being taught is correct or not? (Acts 17:11) It is true I am pointing out problems with the things taught by the youth pastor in this church. He should be responsible for the things he teaches. However, the ultimate responsibility does not lie with the youth pastor, it lies with those responsible for hiring him and with the senior pastor.
If you are a parent who has a child attending UBC, I hope you will prayerfully consider the validity of the warnings listed in this post. As any loving parent would want to protect their child from physical harm, I hope and pray that you would also take the same approach to protecting your child from spiritual harm. Dirty water is still water and you can drink it if you like but why settle for the contamination? Why not seek out pure clean water for our kids?
For detailed information on the dangers of this movement, you will find links on the right column of thinkerup and check out these links below:Exposing the Emergent ChurchDangers of the Emergent ChurchApprising MinistriesEmerging Church Is Leading Protestants Back To RomeThe Emergent Church Markets Catholicism John MacArthur on the Emerging ChurchHow to Know When the Emerging Church Shows Signs of Emerging in Your ChurchCrossroads Articles on Emergent“Throwing Our Future Church Leaders to the Wolves”BEWARE THE “EMERGENT CHURCH MOVEMENT”Eastern Religion Watch Archives on Emergent‘Alarm Bells’ – Rob and Kristen BellA Critique of Rob Bell's Velvet ElvisTony Campolo QuotesIn Depth Look at the Teachings of Tony CampoloThe ‘Summer Madness’ of Brian McLaren and ‘The Mind’ of Tony CampoloBrian McLaren - New Age/Mystic/ContemplativeRichard Foster ExposeA Response to a Letter Defending Richard Foster
--This is an excellent and very thorough explaination of Richard Foster's many false teachings--"none of them, or their teachings [the authors and false doctrines Richard Foster promotes] should be brought into our houses or houses of worship. And by doing so, we do become partakers of their evil deeds....yes false doctrine is evil deeds. We must command them as Paul did Timothy to the Ephesians to “Not teach false doctrines any longer!”” Richard Foster's teachings whether or not he says otherwise, are a blend of Eastern mysticism and gnosticism...another Jesus and another gospel."
~~~ Just in case anyone is wondering, my two brothers and I did meet with the senior pastor and the pastor of church conflict in which we discussed our concerns with the church and a great deal of the meeting dealt with the youth pastor over some specific issues. We were told "things were taken care of" but were not told how. We felt our concerns were handled with a sort of nonchalance by the pastors. This meeting went on for about 2-3 hours. We did not really see any changes. As time went on we continued to see the things taught in the youth become more and more Emergentesque. Many of the things mentioned in this post occurred after this meeting took place. I also spoke with this youth pastor and questioned him on certain points. He replied by defending his positions. Matthew 18 is not applicable here since no one has personally sinned against me. My issues were never with one person in particular but rather with the church's leadership and how they have allowed these dangerous tendencies to take "root" and flourish in the church.
This post serves as a warning to others still involved