Emergent Teologie

Belangrike Eerste Dinge

Wat is emergent teologie?

Artikel oor Panenteïsme / Bob DeWaay oor die emergent kerk. (Video) / Prof. Johan Janse van Rensburg oor emergent teologie / Kritiek op Brian McLaren, emergent guru extraordinaire / Philip du Toit oor die emergent kerk / Hoe verstaan mens postmodernisme? / Die emergent godsbeskouïng / Die emergent aanslag op die Bybel en God se openbaring

Die emergent dwaling in die NG Kerk.

Tekens dat jou gemeente dalk die pad byster geraak het / Bewyse van afvalligheid in die NG Kerk (Videos) / Die dwaling van die Algemene Sinode van 2011 (1) / Die dwaling van die Algemene Sinode 2011(2) / Louis Trichard se ring oor die sinode se dwaling / Korrespondensie met Dr. Ben du Toit / Ferdie Mulder se Opgestaan!

Emergent Teologie: Demoniese rysmierdwaling in die NG Kerk

Bad theology dishonors God and hurts people. Churches that sever the root of truth may flourish for a season, but they will wither eventually or turn into something besides a Christian church.

John Piper

The emerging church is not an evangelistic strategy. It is the last rung for evangelicals falling off the ladder into liberalism or unbelief.

Kevin DeYoung

Die NG Kerk is in ‘n krisis, omdat mense in sleutel posisies in ons kweekskole en moderamen emergent teologie aanhang. Ek verwys spesifiek na Dr Ben du Toit wat in Beeld verklaar het dat hy die bestaan van die duiwel verwerp, en na Prof Julian Muller wat homself in die openbaar ‘n post-teïs noem, panenteïsme as wereldbeeld verkondig, en nog steeds kwekelinge oplei by Tukkies.

Sy kollega Prof Jurie le Roux is onskuldig gevind aan leerdwaling deur die ring van Pretoria Oos, omdat hy geweier het om kommentaar te lewer oor die bestaan van die duiwel tydens die ondersoek. Die volgende is ‘n aanhaling uit die verslag van Pretoria-Oos ring se tugondersoek teen hom:

“Die beskuldiging ten opsigte van die ontkenning van die bestaan van die satan en die bose berus nie op substansiële getuienis nie. Die enigste bron waarna verwys word, is prof le Roux se reaksie op die klaers. Die kommissie is van oordeel dat die reaksie nie gronde vir ‘n klag van leerdwaling is nie. Prof le Roux beklemtoon in sy reaksie die feit dat die bose ‘n mag is, maar ‘n mag wat oorwin is. Hy wil hom nie verder daaroor uitspreek nie.”

Was Prof le Roux skuldig aan leerdwaling? Uit die gelewerde getuienis lyk dit wel of dit so mag wees. Wat verstommend is, is dat die ondersoekkommisie tevrede was met sy weiering om te verklaar wat hy glo, en hom op grond daarvan onskuldig bevind het.

Ek verwys dus ook spesifiek na die mense in die kuratoria van ons universitieite, ringsregskommisies en selfs in die moderamen wat dwaalleraars soos Proff Muller, le Roux en dr Ben du Toit beskerm in plaas daarvan om hulle dwaling aan die kaak te stel. En dan is daar talle dominies wat hierstaanek.com gekontak het en duidelik hulle emergent onderrokke in hulle korrespondensie met my laat uithang het.

Die emergent leerdwaling is anti-Christelik, en is verder verwyder van die Christelike godsdiens as Islam. Die Koran stem op meer punte met die ortodokse Christelike leer ooreen as die emergent teologie! (Islam stem op hierdie punte, wat deur emergent teologie verwerp word, saam met die Christelike godsdiens: Teïstiese godsbeeld. Jesus se maagdelike geboorte. Jesus se sondelose lewe. Jesus het liggaamlik opgevaar na die hemel. Jesus se letterlike, liggaamlike wederkoms. Die uiteindelike vernietiging van hierdie aarde. Die finale oordeel. Die ewige, bewuste verdoemenis in die hel. Die bestaan van die duiwel. Die bestaan van demone. God openbaar homself verstaanbaar in heilige geskrifte.)

Dit is ‘n demoniese dwaling wat die NG Kerk van binne rysmier.

Kyk bietjie hier wat leer emergent teologie. (Ek moet net beklemtoon dat daar geen ortodoksie in emergent teologie is nie, en dat daar ondelinge verskille tussen teoloë voorkom. Oor die algemeen is hierdie egter ‘n goeie beskrywing van die beweging.)

a) Skrifbeskouïng:

In “A General Introduction to the Bible”, skryf Norman Geisler and William Nix dat daar drie skrifbeskouïngs is:

“The orthodox believe the Bible is God’s Word; liberals believe the Bible contains God’s Word; the neo-orthodox hold that the Bible becomes God’s Word.” (bl 171) (Met “neo-ortodoks” bedoel hulle emergent.)

Hulle beskryf ook eksistensialisme in hulle woordelys as volg:

“Religious existentialism holds, among other things, that revelation is not propositional but that it is personal. That is, it is not found in objective statements but only in a subjective and personal encounter with God.” (Bl 639)

Dwight J. Friesen skryf in ‘n hoofstuk in “An Emergent Manifesto of Hope” deur Doug Pagitt en Tony Jones (redakteurs),

“The theological method of orthoparadoxy surrenders the right to be right for the sake of movement toward being reconciled one with the other, while simultaneously seeking to bring the fullness of convictions and beliefs to the other. Current theological methods that often stress agreement/disagreement, win/loss, good/bad, orthodoxy/heresy, and the like set people up for constant battles to convince and convert the other to their way of believing and being in the world.” (bl 208)

Die emergent leer is postmodern. Dit beweer dat dit onmoontlik is om die Bybel te verstaan omdat dit in ‘n ander konteks, waartoe ons nie toegang het nie, geskryf is. Die skrif word dus uitgelê deurmiddel van “dekonstruksie” waarvolgens elke leser dit opnuut interpreteer vanuit sy eie konteks. Die gevolg hiervan is dat die leser se eie konteks en subjektiewe gevoel verhef word tot “waarheid” bo die openbaring van God soos opgeneem in die Bybel. Die Bybel word tipies beskryf as “woorde oor God” en nie die “Woord van God” nie. Daar is nie een waarheid en baie leuens oor die Byble nie, slegs baie (selfs weersprekende!) waarhede. Hierdie skrifbeskouing in ‘n aanslag op die openbaringsgrondslag van die Christelike godsdiens en dus die Evangelie self.

b) Wêreldbeskouing:

Leonard Sweet skryf in “Quantum Spirituality”:

New Light embodiment means to be “in connection” and “information” with all of creation. New Light communities extend the sense of connectionalism to creation and see themselves as members of an ecological community encompassing the whole of creation. “This is my body” is not an  anthropocentric metaphor. Theologian/feminist critic Sallie McFague has argued persuasively for seeing Earth, in a very real sense, as much as a part of the body of Christ as humans. We are all earthlings. Indeed, in the biblical view of creation human earthlings do not stand at the apex of God’s handiwork. Above us are the angels.

The medieval great chain of being preserved this emphasis by placing humans at the midpoint, not at the peak. The world of nature has an identity and purpose apart from human benefit. But we constitute together a cosmic body of Christ.  (bl 124)

(Edit 02/03/2012: Sweet distansieer hom skynbaar van die uitgesproke panenteïsme in sy eie boek by hierdie skakel, omdat hy beweer hy verkeerd verstaan word. Sy bewering dat hy verkeerd verstaan word is nie baie bevredigend nie, maar hy maak ‘n redelike ortodokse belydenis in die artikel en ontken panteïsme sterk. Ek wil hom dus die voordeel van die twyfel gee, en sal hom in die vervolg, tot ek meer data het, beskou as ‘n bekeerde emergent. – Met dank aan Prof Nelus Niemandt wat my bewus gemaak het van hierdie artikel, maar nog steeds weier om my vrae oor sy eie geloof te beantwoord)

Die emergent wêreldbeskouing is panenteïsties. Dit beteken dat alles in god en god in alles is. Die mens is dus eintlik god. Dit beteken ook dat boosheid die gevolg is van die feit dat die mens “onbewus is” of “vergeet het” dat hy god is. Panenteïsme is onverenigbaar met God se openbaring van Homself in die Bybel.

Emergent teoloë is lief om ‘n vals strooipop van die Bybelse wêreldbeeld
te skep (hulle verwys dikwels na die “drie vlak wêreldbeeld” wat in die 21ste eeu onaanvaarbaar is) en dit dan af te skiet. Wêreldbeeld het niks te doen met die vorm van die aarde – of dit plat of rond of hartjievormig is nie. David Hesselgrave het wêreldbeeld definieer as die mens se beskrywing van drie verhoudings: God tot mens, mens tot skepping en God tot skepping.

Lees hier wat sê die Bybel oor panenteïsme.

c) Saligheidsleer:

Steven Chalke skryf in sy boek “The Lost Message of Jesus”:

“John’s Gospel famously declares, “God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son” (3:16). How then, have we come to believe that at the cross this God of love suddenly decides to vent his anger and wrath on his own Son? The fact is that the cross isn’t a form of cosmic child abuse – a vengeful Father, punishing his Son for an offense he has not even committed. Such a concept stands in total contradiction to the statement “God is love.” If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God towards humankind but borne by his Son, then is makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.” (bl. 182-183)

Let asb op dat Chalke se boek “The Lost Message of Jesus” sonder voorbehoud aanbeveel word deur Brian McLaren op sy webwerf. McLaren skryf die volgende:

The Lost Message of Jesus: My new friend in London, Steve Chalke, has written a book that will have broad popular appeal, and will nudge our understanding of Jesus and his message out of old and tired ruts and into some fresh, open paths.

Net so skryf Alan Jones in sy boek “Reimagining Christianity”:

“The Church’s fixation on the death of Jesus as the universal saving act must end, and the place of the cross must be reimagined in Christian faith. Why? Because of the cult of suffering and the vindictive God behind it.” (bl. 132)

Die emergent kerk verwerp oor die algemeen die versoeningsdood van Jesus aan die kruis om te betaal vir ons sonde, omdat die idee dat God sonde straf dikwels verwerp word. Die leer van Christus se offerdood word beskryf as “kosmiese kindermishandeling”. Jesus se kruisdood is bloot ‘n voorbeeld van selfopofferende liefde vir ons om na te volg, en Jesus se Godheid verskaf bloot die filosofiese basis vir die mens se eie vergoddeliking. In plek van die leer van verlossing deur Christus se versoening aan die kruis, verkondig die emergent kerk ‘n teologie van verlossing wat in lyn is met oosterse “enlightenment”: Die proses waardeur die mens deur middel van “spiritualiteit” (meditasie ens) bewus raak van die godheid in homself en ‘n mistiese eenwording met die godheid ervaar.

Abel Pienaar se webwerf beskryf dit as die “Reis van Homo Sapiens na Homo Christos”.

d) Universalisme:

Hierdie is uit Rob Bell se boek “Love Wins”:

A staggering number of people have been taught that a select few Christians willspend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better. It’s been clearly communicated to many that this belief is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided, toxic, and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear. (bl viii)

Voortvloeiend uit die emergent teologie se onbybelse skrifbeskouing, wêreldbeeld en saligheidsleer leer dit dat alle mense uiteindelik gered sal word. Die Christelike godsdiens is dus nie noodwendig beter as enige ander heidense godsdiens nie. Dit is direk teenstrydig met die Bybel.

e) Spesifieke dwalinge wat die Bybel direk weerspreek:

–Die oordeel van God en die ewige hel word ontken. Dit is ‘n direkte, logiese afleiding van panenteïsme.
–Die bestaan van die duiwel en demone word ontken. Dit is ook ‘n direkte, logiese afleiding van panenteïsme.
–Christus se maagdelike geboorte word bevraagteken of ontken.
–Christus se sondelose lewe word bevraagteken of ontken .
–Christus se wonderwerke word bevraagteken of ontken .
–Christus se liggaamlike opstanding word ontken.
–Christus se Godheid word ontken, in die sin dat Christus nie méér God is as enige ander mens wat nog ooit gelewe het nie. Die res van die mensdom is ook nie minder god as Jesus nie. (Panenteïsme)

Wat sê behoudende teoloë van die emergent leerdwaling?

Cooper sê oor Moltmann se panenteïsme in “Panentheism The Other God of the Philosophers”:

This overall theological perspective is clearly Neoplatonic when compared, for example, with the Augustinian-Reformed tradition of Christianity. In that tradition God is perfectly and eternally triune, good, loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereignly free whether or not he creates a world; he is free whether to permit a fall; and he is therefore fully gracious and agapic in the love by which he creates, sustains, redeems, and perfects the world. Although they affirm many of the same basic doctrines, these are two quite different understandings of the Christian faith as a whole.  Moltmann was educated as a Reformed theologian, but he abandoned that tradition early in his career and has not returned.

DeWaay, op die flapteks van sy boek “The Emergent Church- Undefining Christianity”: 

“…Emergent is not new at all; it is age-old heresy repackaged in postmodern subjectivity whose purpose is the further seduction of the naïve and of those who refuse to love and obey the truth.

Prof Johan Janse van Rensburg het onlangs die volgende stellings oor emergent teologie gemaak in ‘n lesing wat ek bygewoon het:

1) Verwerping van die Goddelike natuur van Christus. Hierdie waarheid lê aan die hart van die evangelie en tog is daar al deur ‘n teoloog gesê dat Postmodernisme hom bevry het van die twee nature van Christus.
2) Verwerping van die maagdelike geboorte
3) Verwerping van die gesag van die Skrif. By geleentheid is Ron Martoia (een van die nuwe denkers wat homself sien as ‘n ‘Transformational Architect’) deur die stigter van E-Kerk (Stephan Joubert) as spreker genooi om by die Mosaiek gemeente in Johannesburg op te tree. Hy het beweer dat die Bybel ‘n klassieke boek is en dat ons dit soos bladmusiek moet lees, d.w.s. om dit
altyd nuut te kan interpreteer
4) Die geringskatting van die Kerk. Die kerk is in ‘n Kerkbode artikel as niks belangriker as ‘n piekniek met jou gesin bestempel nie.
5) Daar het ‘n verskuiwing plaasgevind van ortodoksie na ortopraksie

(Die opsomming van sy lesing is hier te vinde )

Die volgende is ‘n transkripsie uit ‘n onderhoud wat met John MacArthur gevoer is oor die emergent beweging:

PHIL: Let me…let me give you an example of what you’re talking about here. I’m going to read you a quotation from a book, this actually was published in America by Zondervan. It’s by a British post-modern evangelical author, he calls himself an evangelical. This quote that I’m about to read would really raise a fair question of whether the man is evangelical. The author here is Steve Chalke, the book is called The Lost Message of Jesus, and this book was highly controversial because of what he says about the atonement. And I want to read you just a brief section here and get your response to it. But this…this shows that some of the issues that are questions that are being raised, the doctrines that are being attacked are not just peripheral or questionable issues, but some of the things that are at the very heart of what we believe and proclaim. This raises a fair question about the gospel and
what did the cross mean? That’s the very thing he’s talking about here.

He writes this: “The fact is that the cross is not a form of cosmic child abuse, a vengeful father punishing his son for an offense he has not even committed. Understandably, both people inside and outside of the church have found this twisted version of events morally dubious and a huge barrier to faith. Deeper than that, however, is that such a concept stands in total contradiction to the
statement that God is love. If the cross is a personal act of violence perpetrated by God toward human kind but borne by His Son, then that makes a mockery of Jesus’ own teaching to love your enemies and to refuse to repay evil with evil.”

PHIL: He’s saying if you believe Jesus died as a substitute for sinners, then that’s a form of cosmic child abuse…his words.

JOHN: God is a bad guy. Jesus is a victim. My response to that is that you couldn’t be a Christian and say that. That’s just…that’s outright heresy. But the…the issue to me is what does this come from? Is this a…is this a…does he find Bible verses, texts of Scripture that led him to that conviction? That sounds like the language of an atheist, doesn’t it?

PHIL: It does.

JOHN: It sounds like the language of a flat-out anti-Christian pagan atheist mocking the cross of Jesus. That’s mockery. That’s…that’s outright mockery. These people…and he thinks he’s really cute and clever, this kind of stuff is going to shock people…and it does, that’s why it stood out when you read it. But this is not even Christian thinking. There’s nothing about looking at the Word of God there. There’s nothing about trying to interpret the Scripture. This is more of what I was saying earlier. Bashing the truth, shredding the truth without having put anything in its place. Being cute and clever and novel and
shocking and all of that and leaving people stunned but with nothing else. This is the worst kind of stuff because it sows seeds of doubt in the most fragile. This is a…this is the stuff that victimizes the children who are tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine. But that’s not even Christianity, that is an attack on Christianity so to call yourself an evangelical and
attack the heart and soul of the gospel.

But, of course, we would expect this, right? Because Jude says that the sad reality is, he says, “I would like to have written to you about our common salvation,” as he starts his epistle, but he can’t, as hard as he may have tried because he realizes that there isn’t going to be a common salvation, or a common understanding of the gospel and salvation if they don’t earnestly contend for the faith. Because unless you’re going to battle for the truth, you’re going to lose it since, he says, the heretics have crept into the church
unawares. They’re embedded, they’re in the church, they’re in the love feast, they’re surrounding you. They’re at the table. They’re right there embedding themselves in the church. And that’s where they do their damage. That’s why he calls himself an evangelical. That’s not an evangelical viewpoint, that’s a heretic. And that’s…and if you have this mass of quote/unquote professing Christian people that make up the large part of the church, the visible church, with no discernment, with no real theological understanding, then this stuff can be very, very seductive to them, very attractive to them. So see, if it’s worded clever…cleverly…that’s what makes Brian McClaren effective. He’s…he’s clever, deceptively clever to the uninitiated and the undiscerning.

Mag God ons kerk genadig wees!

Wynand Louw

Nota: Ek het hierdie artikel effe gewysig op 02/01/2012 om sekere punte te verhelder.