More Resources on the Emergent Church

Nicene Creed in Cyrillic

Bill Honsberger from “Nietzsche, the Death of God, and the Emerging Church Movement” (audio):

So while hiding behind the skirts of the creeds, Tony Jones is famous for saying, “Well, I believe in the Nicene Creed and you can’t say that I don’t.”

Well, we don’t know what that means, do we? I mean, if I don’t know what the Bible said 2000 years ago, then why would I know what the creeds meant 1700 years ago or 1600 years ago, or any other creed? How could I know? It’s all interpretation.

So while hiding behind the skirts of the creeds, they’ve attacked the Trinity, hell, Biblical inerrancy concerning homosexuality, substitutional atonement, inerrancy concerning the nature and person of God, etc...

We need to understand how corrosive this stuff is...It is corrosive to everything it touches and it is corrosive to the Christian Church.

Also, additional audio lecture on same subject, an ENMR presentation, available at the Watchman Fellowship website. Similar content but with different application and review of info.


Apologetics Index Information
Introduction, overview and other information on Emergent Church


Ravi Zacharias on Emergent Church

After a discussion of postmodernism, the material about the emergent church begins at 11 Minutes into the interview. And his testimony to follow is beautiful.



“Truth is too important to kill it in the streets for the sake of peace.” RC Sproul




Ethics and Religion Documentary on PBS

Greg Koukl on the Emergent Church

CLICK TO ENLARGE GRAPHIC from Stand to Reason
From Stand To Reason's
"Solid Ground" Newsletter (text and graphic)

Truth is a Strange Sort of Fiction Part V: Christianity and Postmoderism: The Emerging Church by Greg Koukl

Emerging Christians, then, are reacting to a church establishment that deeply offends them. They have been embarrassed by what appears to them to be systemic hypocrisy. They are unsettled by what they take to be indifference toward the poor, a fear of (and therefore hostility towards) diversity, and a dogmatism borne of religious conceit....

The driving force for many emerging Christians, therefore, is not orthodoxy, but orthopraxy; not right thinking, but right living – a practical “love lived out” way of life...

My own concerns are theological and philosophical, not cultural. My uneasiness with the movement is not with the emerging church in general, but with a subgroup on the vanguard that I fear is being seduced by a postmodern culture God intended them to transform, not be transformed by. This subgroup goes by the name “Emergent,” a proper noun identifying those following the lead of the Emergent Village...

Four Concerns

For me, four concerns form the watershed: the truth/ knowledge equation, the authority of the Bible, the work of the cross, and the Great Commission. First, does Christianity give us an accurate picture of the way the world really is, and can we know it? This is just another way of asking if the claims of classical Christianity are true in the objective,
correspondence sense.

Because there is little objectivity (here to be understood as “detachment”) regarding knowledge, some seem to think knowledge of the objective world is not possible. Truth may exist in the mind of God, but it’s something we can never know with certainty. Yet the Bible clearly – and frequently – speaks of truth, knowledge, and certainty as if each were attainable in significant measure by mortal men. The price to pay for this mistake is high. Remember, faith does not save. You are saved by the One you put your faith in, so you better invest that faith wisely. If you have an unshakable faith and your facts are wrong, then you have an unshakable delusion. And delusions don’t save.

Second, in what sense is the Bible God’s authoritative communication to us? Do we find between its covers the very words of God or merely the poetic narratives of ancient shepherds? If Scripture asserts something, can it be trusted? Does God underwrite the accuracy of the specific claims in the text? Paul says that the writings are profitable to accomplish a host of vital spiritual tasks precisely because they are the very “breath of God” itself (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Was Paul right?

Third, did Jesus actually pay for anything or purchase anything when He suffered so terribly on that cross? Did He die for us, that is, in our place? What did Isaiah mean when he penned the words, “He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him….The Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him” (Isaiah 53:5-6)? Is the idea that Jesus willingly died in our place a sublime expression of divine love, or a crime of “cosmic child abuse”?

Finally, is Jesus a singular Savior or just a first among equals? Was Jesus’ answer to the problem of sin truly the “narrow gate” (Matthew 7:13-14), or is the way to life a broad one that many eventually find? Does the Great Commission start with a message of sin or of social justice? Is it primarily about discipleship or about redistribution of wealth?

According to Tony Campolo, a sympathetic voice regarding Emergents,

“These [Emergent] church members…tend to reject the exclusivistic claims that many evangelicals make about salvation. They are not about to damn the likes of Gandhi or the Dali Lama to Hell simply because they have not embraced Christianity.”

By contrast, when the Apostle Peter explained to the gentile Cornelius his own commission by Jesus, here’s what he said:

And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:42-43)

Each of these questions needs an answer, and I have been troubled with much that I’ve heard from Emergent leaders in response. Postmodernism has its dogmas of denial on each of these issues. When these denials are embraced by any Christian, they are like atomic acid, burning right through the foundation of the faith. At the end of the day, the views that give me pause seem to be indistinguishable, in the main, from theological liberalism. Granted, they do differ in intellectual motivation. Liberal views are driven by a modernist animus, while these Emergent views by postmodern sentiments, but ideologically they both seem to end up in the same bed.


Read the entire article HERE.
. .

The Postmodern Decay of Language: Why People Talk More and Say Less

"Paul Preaching In Athens" by Raphael

In response to several inquiries, I posted some information postmodernism which has opened up into more questions people have asked me about exactly how language has degraded within our culture. Now, more than ever, a growing number of people speak and use eloquent-sounding language, but their messages demonstrate a gross lack of content. Cults and spiritually abusive groups capitalize upon this process. One astute reader asked me how it is that more and more speakers and ministers can offer content-free speeches and sermons but how few people can recognize that their messages actually lack content. People “sound good,” offering “feel good” rhetoric, but they essentially say nothing and are rewarded for it. This reader asked me about possible sources of information to help them understand more about exactly how communicators manipulate language in order to say nothing.

This question is huge, and I believe it is a very philosophical one dating back the Garden of Eden when the serpent asked Eve if God meant that man would “surely” die if she ate of the Tree of Knowledge. As Christians who believe that we are created in God’s image, we have the example of God creating through speech. God said “Let there be light,” and light came into being. Both God’s example of creating in this fashion and the serpent’s example of distorting language convey the significance of language and how language profoundly affects us. Plato wrote of rhetoric, the animosity he held toward the Sophists, and how rhetoric of “empty speech” stands apart from true and valuable knowledge. The study of the philosophy of language through men like Wittgenstein discusses how words build “knowledge-making” and how language shapes our thoughts. Nietzsche argued the death of God and moral code, ultimately heralding the death of meaning of language. Postmodern thought and the post-structuralism within postmodernism argues that language has no meaning apart from other language which is subjectively defined by the listener. Barthes heralded the "Death of the Author." Hermeneutics investigates the process of the interpretation of meaning and can include both verbal and non-verbal meaning of communication. The field of semiotics studies the theory of signs and symbols as techniques of communication, using semantics, syntactics and pragmatics to convey true meaning and to promote myth. Homiletics applies the general principles of rhetoric to theology in order to persuade listeners to accept their theological viewpoints. Where to start?

I find myself going back to one of the first books that made a profound impact on me as a young person when I read Tim LaHaye’s “Battle for the Mind,” in 1980. I know I still have the book in some box or pile somewhere, but I cannot turn it up at the moment. I recall this work as the first description I recognized of how connotation could be used to manipulate readers and how modernists and how the growing popularity of what we now the call “the politically correct” used connotation. His approach countered secular humanism and addressed worldview, but he also explained, in a basic and concrete of how language could be used to persuade and distort understanding and meaning.

That said, I primarily understand mindless rhetoric in the context of worldview, affected today by the increase in relative morality and value pluralism that now typifies our modern day culture. Personally, I don’t believe that we can truly understand how language is now used in our Post-Christian Era apart from moral relativism. In “Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air,” Beckwith and Koukl note that relativism concerns two different concerns: that of ethics (right and wrong) as well as the difference between subjective and objective truth. If I mention that “Pepsi is, far and above all others, the best carbonated soft drink,” this statement is true in context because the statement is neither about Pepsi nor soft drinks but about my personal subjective esteem of what is true in a statement about me. If someone happens to like a different soft drink, my statement is not a lie because the statement is not one of objective truth.

However, what if I speak in terms of something objective? These authors of “Relativism” also note that the “sum of two plus two equals four” presents a very different kind of claim because it is objective. If you claim that two plus two equals anything other than four, I can argue against you “without being accused of impropriety” (pg. 27). This objective mathematical equation has only one correct answer, and discussion of our different understandings would not be about sharing our subjective understandings about math but about the objectivity of a constant and true principle. Mathematics rests on objective truth, not upon subjective belief or feelings about mathematics. Moral relativism blurs these distinctions between subjective and objective truth (or amorality), and it opens up the doors of thought to argue against objective truth, not just ethics alone. (Hopefully, more about this will be presented later posts). I believe that one of the primary reasons why language sounds good and can mean nothing stems from this obscuring of subjective and objective truth, and by redefining ethics as relative. But for now, let us consider how rhetoric promotes meaninglessness through blurred distinctions.

How can we communicate subjectivism? Language provides one of our most potent tools used to redefine distinctions between that which is subjective and objective, and these implications of language or other communication can be implicit or explicit. Implicit statements (tending to be subjective) can be implied vaguely through context and explicit meanings (tending to be objective) convey specific information that leaves no question as to what is meant. When language redefines objective truth as subjective, truth loses meaning or gains new meaning (as relativism really defines its own type of morality, something from which we moral creatures cannot escape) through the use of language. In the Principles of Literature, Christina Myers-Shaffer offers this example:

To tell someone that “sometimes water systems can become contaminated” is implicit; to tell someone that “the Health Department found unsafe levels of bacteria in the water system of the XYZ Restaurant and shut it down this morning is more explicit. One primary way of conveying implicit information comes about through connotation.

Connotation as a rhetorical device presents one of the most powerful means of conveying such implicit meaning. Myers-Shaffer offers this example of the difference between different types of connotation by describing an “old chair” (neutral connotation) as either an “antique” (positive connotation) or “junk” (negative connontation). Connotation subtly helps sway readers to see information in either a negative or positive light, or it can sway a reader to identify with a character through emotional appeal. Poets, salesmen and ministers can use connotation to persuade their listeners, both for good and for evil. Examination of the entire context along with connotation conveys implicit meaning or explicit meaning, but often connotation presents “red herring” emotional arguments that inhibit a person’s ability to view the context through introduction of an irrelevancy. (They get stuck on the emotional impact of the meaning connoted by language and get drawn away from the true context.) I recall how during Bill Clinton’s first presidential election, I discussed my conservative views among a group of very liberal coworkers. In order to trump the argument, one coworker who happened to be African-American (as she preferred to be called) stated that I was of “a wealthy Anglo” background that had enslaved “her people.” When I contrasted the past references this young woman had made to the business that her grandfather and father operated to the very humble beginnings of my own family, I exposed the false myth and “ideological abuse” that she attempted to promote through the use of connotation. But her technique well could have worked, much like “Na, na, na, na, na, na ” works on a playground full of children who lack discernment. Emotional and connotative manipulation work well because they take advantage of emotion.

Modernism centered around certain truths, that which rested primarily upon the optimism of both the Enlightenment (faith in reason and science) and in Hegel’s idea of the Unity of all Knowledge (man’s evolutionary process of growth of the mind from ignorance into total being). These ideas were defined as the grand narratives that shaped our secular culture throughout most of the 20th Century. Inevitably, modernism rendered itself quite limited and unable to solve humanity’s problems, proving itself to be just another futile means of man establishing himself as his own salvation. But according to men like the Postmodern theorist Lyotard, the Enlightenment failed miserably, and science also proved that it was not a universal constant. Neither could really lead us to total truth and the grand, transcendent narratives proved to be limited, so Lyotard and the postmodernists abandoned objective truth in favor of a new strategy: disbelief in the truth of grand narratives by replacing it with the subjective use of language and media to prop up subjective ideas about purpose, meaning and truth.

The void of meaning is filled with metanarrative and micronarrative which does not seek any legitimization outside of their own processes of story-telling and the subjective meaning given to it by the story teller. It rather seeks self-legitimization through performativity and pragmatism, no longer trying to elucidate real or objective truth. As “Postmodernism for Beginners” notes, the mantra of meaning becomes a tautology of “We do what we do because that’s the way we do it” (pg 31). Truth becomes displaced from objectivity onto subjective truth as validated by information, performativity, and the impressiveness of the form of the communication. Thus, as Baudrillard stated, “The media becomes the message” and the veracity of the message becomes completely dependent on the medium of communication, sometimes proving to be more veracious than the truth that the message itself represents.

So in addition to the concerns of men like Os Guinness, Mark Noll, Alan Bloom and Neil Postman that people will resort to nearly any measure to alleviate themselves from the burden of thinking, I believe that the pessimistic postmodernism of our age and the increase in access to overwhelming amounts of information has dulled our ability to discern language. (See Cialdini for the some of the effects of information overload.) The post-structuralist approach to the deconstruction of language (where each element of language has no inherent meaning and represents no transcendent truth) has rendered language impotent. In a society wherein men derive meaning based on subjective appeal, pleasure, niceness, and the packaging that meaning comes in rather than meaning itself, language within the popular culture means very little. Sadly, Christians have fallen prey to this as well, ranging from the popularity of Joel Osteen’s vacuous, self-help messages to the freedom lust pursued by the Hegelian/Nietzschean “forms” of the emergent church.

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers.
2 Timothy 4:3



Alan Bloom on Nietzsche

Thoughts on Physical Disease and the Effects of Stress of Cultic Groups and Relationships

Our thoughts and emotions have a profound effect on our automatic body systems, and these systems are regulated and balanced in a steady state or “homeostasis” by the Autonomic Nervous System or “ANS.” This information from our thoughts and emotions informs the ANS, automatically preparing to help us adapt and survive. When we feel threatened or if we think about and anticipate circumstances, our mind stimulates the immediate release of certain neurotransmitters and/or “stress hormones” that are mediated by the ANS. Our neurotransmitter levels fluctuate to help our bodies respond, doing things like raising our heart rate so that we can pump plenty of blood and oxygen to our muscles in order to run from danger. Our pupils widen so we can take in more light and see more clearly. Our bowels can either become less active or more active, depending on our emotions and how the ANS responds to threat or information (like worrying about taking a test the next day). The ANS stimulates the adrenal glands to release both epinephrine to bathe the whole body in stimulation as well as cortisol (a natural steroid) which regulates inflammation and affects blood sugar, making more fuel immediately available for energy production. The system works quite well when we experience only limited episodes of periodic excitement and when we have the opportunity to discharge the energy that our body produces in response to this excitement.

Chronic stress is quite different, and it creates a high degree of ANS stimulation all the time. Some of these symptoms are more well known, contributing to problems like high blood pressure or irritable bowel syndrome, all due to the stimulation of these body systems by the ANS, a system informed by the mind and the emotions. Healthcare is now learning more and more about the “less immediate” effects of stress on body systems that are effected by this high degree of ongoing stimulation, particularly on the hormonal system. This includes high cortisol production and altered action of insulin, now a major problem in the US because of the dramatic rise in obesity, diabetes, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and immune system disorders like chronic fatigue (all of which are also aggravated and exacerbated by poor diet). Cortisol in high amounts alters how the body regulates sugars, insulin release, blood pressure, immune function, and inflammatory response. The release of too much cortisol on a continual basis results in diabetes, immune system disease, heart disease, arthritis, chronic pain syndromes, autoimmune diseases, headaches, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, female reproductive disorders and depression. We see effects of this kind of chronic stress in populations of people like children of parents that have certain personality disorders. For example, children of parents with Borderline Personality Disorder demonstrate high degrees of allergy, asthma, headaches/ migraines and irritable bowel syndrome, likely owing to the effects of chronic high levels of cortisol (Roth, Friedman & Kreger, 2003).

Researchers have identified a new field of study of “Heart Rate Variability” (HRV) as an indicator of the function of the ANS in order to identify those at high risk for later development of diseases such as heart disease and diabetes (diseases linked with high cortisol and stress). HRV measures certain subtle electrocardiogram findings and characteristics, evaluating the electrical impulses generated by electrical system in the heart. Certain groups of professionals with high degrees of daily stress manifest greater degrees of HRV, as do those who suffer with certain psychological problems including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and panic disorder. Based upon more than 30 years of the objective, rigorous scientific study of thought reform, we know that those who emerge from certain controlling relationships and spiritual abuse settings demonstrate high degrees of PTSD and other related psychological disorders such as anxiety and panic. Though no studies have focused on spiritual abuse victims and survivors directly, we can speculate that because of the overlap in findings between the psychological symptoms of spiritual abuse with those who experience documented high levels of chronic stress, PTSD, anxiety and panic disorders are also subject to a similar risk for the development of cortisol-related physical disease.



Collins, JJ. The Cult Experience: An Overview of Cults, Their Traditions and Why People Join Them. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas Pub Ltd, 1991.

Funari, L. Born or Raised in High-Demand Groups: Developmental Considerations. ICSA E-Newsletter 2005, 4:3.

Gasde, I, Block, RA, Cult Experience: Psychological Abuse, Distress, Personality Characteristics, and Changes in Personal Relationships Reported by Former Members of Church Universal and Triumphant. CSJ 1998, 15:2, 192-221

Haines AP, Imeson JD, Meade TW. Phobic anxiety and ischaemic heart disease. Br Med J 1987; 295: 297-299.

Kawachi I, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Prospective study of phobic anxiety and risk of coronary heart disease. Circulation 1994a; 89: 1992-1997.

Kawachi I, Sparrow D. Vokonas PS, Weiss ST. Symptoms of anxiety and risk of coronary heart disease: The Normative Aging Study. Circulation 1994b; 90: 2225-2229.

Kawachi I, Sparrow D, Vokonas PS, Weiss ST. Decreased heart rate variability in men with phobic anxiety. Am J Cardiol 1995; 75: 882-885.

Kumar V, Fausto N, Abbas, A. Robbins & Cotran's Pathologic Basis of Disease, 7th ed. St. Louis: Saunders, 2004.

Kristal-Boneh E, Raifel M, Froom P, Ribak J. Heart rate variability in health and disease. Scan J Work Environ Health 1995; 21: 85-95.

Lakusic N, Fuckar K, Mahovic D, Cerovec D, Majsec M, Stancin N. Characteristics of heart rate variability in war veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder after myocardial infarction. Mil Med. 2007 Nov;172:11, 1190-3.

Lalich, J.A. Dominance and Submission: the Psychosexual Exploitation of Women in Cults. CSJ 1997, 14:1, 4-21.

Lalich, J, Tobias, M. Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships. Berkeley: Bay Tree Publishing, 2006.

Langone, MD, ed. Recovery from Cults: Help for Victims of Psychological and Spiritual Abuse. New York: W.W. Norton, 1993.

MacHovec, FJ. Cults and Personality. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Pub Ltd, 1989.

Martin, PR, Langone, MD, Dole, AA, Wiltrout, J. Post-Cult Symptoms As Measured by the MCMI Before and After Residential Treatment. CSJ 1992, 9:2, 219-250.

Mittleman MA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Mulry RP, Tofler GH, Jacobs SC, Friedman R, Benson H, Muller JE. Triggering of acute myocardial infarction onset by episodes of anger. Circulation 1995; 92: 1720-1725.

Offerhaus RE. Heart rate variability in psychiatry. In: RJ Kitney, Rompelman O (eds). The Study of Heart Rate Variability. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980: 225-238.

Panter-Brick, C, Worthman, CM. Hormones, Health, and Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Roth K, Friedman FB, Kreger, R. Surviving a Borderline Parent: How to Heal Your Childhood Wounds & Build Trust, Boundaries, and Self-Esteem. New York: New Harbinger, 2003.

Sack M, Lempa W, Steinmetz A, Lamprecht F, Hofmann A. Alterations in autonomic tone during trauma exposure using eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR)--results of a preliminary investigation. J Anxiety Disord. 2008 Oct;22:7, 1264-71.

Sloan RP, Shapiro PA, Bigger T Jr, Bagiella E, Steinman RC, Gorman JM. Cardiac autonomic control and hostility in healthy subjects. Am J Cardiol 1994; 74: 298-300.

Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and the North American Society of Pacing and Electrophysiology. Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation and clinical use. Circulation 1996; 93: 1043-65.

Van der Kolk, B. “The Body Keeps Score” (lecture & conversation) Pioneers in Recovery Annual Symposium 2007. Novi, MI, October 12, 2007. (Sponsored by The Meadows: Wickenburg, AZ)

Van der Kolk BA, Spinazzola J, Blaustein ME, Hopper JW, Hopper EK, Korn DL, Simpson WB. A randomized clinical trial of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), fluoxetine, and pill placebo in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder: treatment effects and long-term maintenance. J Clin Psychiatry 2007 Jan;68:1, 37-46.

West, LJ, Martin, PR. Pseudo-identity and the Treatment of Personality Change in Victims of Captivity and Cults. CJD 1996, 13:2, 125-152.

Yeragani VK, Balon R, Pohl R, Ramesh C, Glitz D, Weinberg P, Merlos B. Decreased R-R variance in panic disorder patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1990; 81: 554-559.

Yeragani VK, Pohl R, Berger R, Balon R, Ramesh C, Glitz D, Srinivasan K, Weinberg P. Decreased heart rate variability in panic disorder patients: a study of power-spectral analysis of heart rate. Psychiatry Res 1993; 46: 89-103.

Problems with Viewing History and Truth through a Postmodern Lens

A week ago, I watched video of President Obama’s visit to Arlington National Cemetery where he paid his respects at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. I recalled my own visit there, my first one, in 1987. I wept uncontrollably as I stood there for the changing of the guard, imagining and empathizing with all the mothers, wives, daughters and sisters that had stood and would ever come to stand where I was standing then. “But for grace, there go I,” always floods through my mind as I ponder those who suffer. And on Monday of last week, I recalled my childhood tradition of watching the Martin Luther King, Jr. speeches on Channel 17 in Philadelphia every year. I would ponder why God put me in the family that He did in the day and time that He did, as I surely differ little from all of those who have seen greater tragedies and had fewer comforts. When history presents itself to me and gets my attention, it becomes a deeply personal experience. I see myself as some character in most every narrative I read, because “but for grace,” I might have been them. I have something to learn from those people, particularly those who have lived through something that I find to be very different from my own experience.

I found this example of thinking about history quite different from my own, one that highlights the paradigm shift in how postmodern adults perceive truth. Very late on Friday night (the Jan 23 airing --See Video Below), I watched an interview with Scout Tufankjian, photojournalist and author of the new book entitled “Yes We Can,” that documents the events of the Barack Obama Presidential Campaign from its early 2006 start through its 2008 finish. Many interviews on the Charile Rose Show pop up on Google Video, but I have not yet found this one online. Meanwhile, here is a video photo collage narrated by Turfankjian. She looked to be a young twentysomething, a member of what Barna calls a Mosaic, that generation that follows Gen X. I found myself transfixed by the gold ring that protruded from her left eyebrow that became especially noticeable in semi-profile as she faced Rose for the discussion. Had I not known she authored a book, I would have described her as a confident and fairly articulate adolescent, based upon her manner. And though I had an easy time identifying with Charlie Rose, I did not not with the author of the book, save to remember looking that young once, now many years ago.

She described how Obama treated her like a young relative that comes to visit and tends to get in the way, getting “short” when occasionally irritable. She also recalls how he hugged her, I believe, on the occasion of her birthday. When Rose asked her to describe her experience of watching history unfold before her eyes and whether this had been a life-changing experience, I realized how increasingly surreal the whole interview seemed as it unfolded. Of course, I kept reminding myself that she had just authored a fairly thick book that had been featured in an Amazon “suggested purchase” email that I read earlier that day. This young woman showed a demeanor more befitting a teen while catching up with an older relative at a family gathering rather than a book author appearing on national TV to discuss her experiences while following this notable campaign.

Tufankjian offered a response to Rose’s question about how life-changing she found the experience of witnessing the campaign from so close of a proximity, a response that sent a weak but still cold chill down my spine. She stated that she knew that this had been a life-changing experience, but she had not yet decided how or why it had been so. For her, the word “history” brought back memories of elementary school moments when she heard about events of history that were, for her, just “artifacts” that never seemed like actual events. She offered her experience of looking at photography of Martin Luther King, Jr. as a clearer example of what she meant by her statement. Even when viewing the photos of King, she explained that she cannot imagine that there was anyone there actually holding a camera as the artifact, this disconnected information byte, actually occurred. She explained that she realized that someone had clearly been there, filming his speeches in real space and time, but her description struck me as though she viewed these events as something like a work of fiction that seemed to have no impact on her life. I’m sure she would say that the history of racism definitely had some affect on her life, particularly after participating in the Obama campaign in such a coveted and unique way, but it seemed to me that the events around her neither significantly or profoundly pierce, change or inspire her. Her own, personal experience of the world arbitrated reality as well as the truth of the artifact info bytes of history. I observed her description of the events around her and history of them as something of a novelty.

Tufankjian described her interest in the campaign as beginning in 2006, before Obama ever openly indicated is interest in the candidacy. While she was living in New York, she went to an event in New Hampshire at the last minute to take photographs of some political event, not excited about it at all. She immediately phoned her editor and asked if she could follow Obama to cover his campaign which seemed inevitable to her because of the heightened emotional response of his supporters in New Hampshire. She described the politically interested in NH as generally unemotional, so the zealous emotional response of the crowd to this Barack Obama operated as a sure indicator of significance for her, just as a true and trustworthy compass points to Magnetic North.

As the interview became even stranger for me, Scout Tufankjian described a notable event during the campaign where she said that she realized that she had “better start paying attention” to what she was really witnessing. The campaign traveled to Philadelphia, PA, a town with its own history of race issues that hosted Reverend King in days gone by. I am not sure, but I from my understanding of events, President Obama debuted this “More Perfect Union” speech in Philadelphia, that which Tufankjian described as his “race speech.” Apparently, this was a moment of awakening for her, but not because of the significance of the topic of racism, her witness of King’s dream unfold as she watched Obama speak, and not because of the fact that Philadelphia was a town with a history of racial wounds. Her awakening did not strike me as remotely or notably different from her almost detatched description of other events and “artifacts” of her Obama campaign experience. That also came about through observing the emotions of someone else, perhaps another artifact for her, but it was an emotional artifact, so it demanded her attention.

Scout described Martin Nesbitt, the treasurer for the “Obama for America” campaign, as the kind of guy who she typically saw wandering around in the back of rooms, looking at old high school trophy cases. She describes her epiphany of sorts that took place for her in Philadelphia when she observed Nesbitt sitting in the front row of the crowd, weeping as he listened to Obama’s speech on race. She was moved not by the ideals and principles that so strongly moved Nesbit, nor was she moved by Obama’s words, but she was moved by her observance of Nesbitt’s emotional response. Her signposts and context clues were not ideological or objective, as she noted only the clarion “wake-up” call of another person’s emotions. As she spoke about Nesbitt’s weeping, clearly among the most profound experiences she had on the campaign trail, she didn’t really appear to be moved by it as she recalled this experience. I wondered if I’d actually been more moved by hearing her dispassionate discourse than she had been, having witnessed it all as a first-hand experience? It all seemed odd...surreal.

~~~

This afternoon, I received an email from someone who read my most recent blog post, and they described their own epiphany regarding how emotionalism rules and reigns in many churches. This person described discontent in their former church, but they did not readily recognize the “unwritten rules” of the church as such, nor did they realize why truth was such a personal experience for those in that church. This particular, very large church had two primary unwritten rules: 1.) “Be nice,” and 2.) “Obey authority at all costs.” This person said that “Getting along was more important than truth. The problem was that this left the authority with the power to do evil but you could not say anything about it or you were ruining the unity.” Because truth was a personal experience, people were like “moving targets.” Niceness among members and niceness through submission ruled out any possible discussion of truth for this former member, because clarifying misconceptions in something like a Sunday School setting would challenge everyone’s individually-based perception of the truth and would violate the cardinal rule of niceness. Someone might realize that their view was different from someone else’s view, and that would not “be nice.” The Scriptures become little factoids and artifacts like Tufankjian’s esteem of history, all isolated and remote, all because the truth of Scripture’s depth might not be very nice.

And then, when I visited the True Womanhood blog this afternoon, I found a link to another blog post that appears on the quite irreverent Sacred Sandwich blog (listed under this True Womanhood thread that also encapsulates many of my concerns as well) . Here are a few highlights from this satire about what happens when feelings trump truth in a church. It seemed a perfect way to illustrate my concerns.

From “Tired of Postmodern ‘Conversation,’ Pastor Tells Congregation to Shut Up”:

Jacob Mason, the church’s Supervisor of Holistic Meditation, witnessed the shocking event. “Tuck was facilitating our usual sermon-dialogue time on Sunday when Karen, our director of pottery, tried to express her inner feelings on what God was saying to her. Before she could share her feelings, however, Tuck said that he had a feeling to share, too. He said he felt like she needed to shut up and focus on God’s word instead of her feelings. Needless to say, Karen’s feelings were hurt, so she told him how she felt about his feelings toward her. Then we opened up the discussion for others to express how they felt.”

According to several eyewitnesses, Pastor Wynn then screamed, “What is WRONG with you people!” and fled the building.

Sadly, this was not the first time Wynn had exhibited a drift toward fundamentalism and biblical certainty. Two months earlier, church leaders became concerned when Wynn became noticeably excited about ordering the new ESV Study Bible. “Things just didn’t seem right with Tuck after that,” said tattoo and piercing minister Leslie Moore. “First he started using big words like hermeneutics, exegesis, and perpiscuity. Then he started hammering us on doctrine, of all things. Before we knew it, he was blowing out our candles and turning up the dimmer switch in the sanctuary so we could read the Bible during worship. Talk about a buzz kill. We could barely see the Nooma videos with all the lights on.”

Read the entire post HERE.

Maybe that virtual “Intermountain Hospital” can reserve a padded cell for me next door to the room where the virtual Pastor Tucker Wynn “takes a break” from the frustration induced by his powerlessness “to make people focus on the clear teachings of Scripture instead of their feelings”? As I am zealously committed to improving my interpersonal “niceness” factor for the sake of patience and meekness, maybe a few weeks in a virtual padded cell will help me figure out how to both temper and improve my delivery of the truth without compromising it.
.


.
.

Generation Gaps and the Moral Imperative of Totalitarian Niceness

The following list describes the desired traits that non-Christian young people desire to see in Christians, particularly among their elders as compiled by the authors of “unChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity....And Why It Matters.” When I presented quotes from this book on my blog last year, I suggested that we as believers should extend the same considerations to those who follow patriocentricity as well as to young unbelievers. I would like to use this list (from pp 194-5 of the book) as a point of departure for relating to young adults in general. Those interviewed suggested that these considerations would improve their receptivity to the Gospel message from Christians, both young and old.

1. Listen to me.
2. Don't label me.
3. Don't be so smart.
4. Put yourself in my place.
5. Be genuine.
6. Be my friend with no other motives.

The Problem of Truth in Postmodern Interpersonal Relationships

As a Christian who does not share this mindset, I have a few problems with this list, as I readily see great potential for contradictions within the list itself. I believe that truth is not fluid and believe that it is sinful to think outside of the Law of Non-Contradiction in terms of belief and truth. (If a ping pong ball is spherical, it can not be cuboidal at the same time. It is either a sphere or it is not anything like being a sphere, particularly if it is a cube. It cannot be both at the same time.) Postmodern thought largely rejects the Law of Non-Contradiction. (One person believes that the ping pong ball is spherical, and another person believes that the very same ping pong ball is a cube. Postmodernism declares both to be accurate and correct about the same ping pong ball at the same time.) Please join me in an exploration of possible rationales which might explain why some of these considerations might be problematic for those over 40 (those who esteem truth in a modernist fashion versus a postmodern one).

Of all of these ideals listed here, I am personally more adept at being genuine, a virtue that epitomizes non-contradiction in my understanding of truth. At times, I am genuine to a fault. Being genuine means being truthful, and sometimes being truthful means labeling, being smart or having motive. Sometimes being genuine means that I might not be able to listen to material that I find to be inappropriate. Being genuine bears more significant importance to me than all of these other directives on the list. But far and above the other desired considerations, “labeling” presents the most problematic competition. The moral priority of niceness above all other virtues for young adults presents difficult communication challenges with those who view objective truth and Christian principle as the foremost moral priorities in the Christian life.


Validating Truth

There’s a saying that if something or someone looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it’s a duck. Circumstances constantly call upon Christians to discern matters in this very fashion, exercising critical thinking, an analytical skill. Unfortunately, when postmodern thought shifted veracity away from objectivity and from the law of non-contradiction, truth became experience-based rather than fact-based. Something very interesting happened when this took place. Prior to this, truth always rested upon facts that were external to the self and was not a personal experience. When truth’s value became dependent upon how people esteemed truth, it became an internal and personal experience.

If I believe that the earth is round and follows an orbit around the sun and if anyone criticizes my belief in this truth, because it is based on a truth that is external to me, the criticism or rejection of the truth or my belief in it does not reflect poorly on me personally. Truth can certainly rise to the occasion to demonstrate its own truthfulness. I am certainly responsible to present reasons for credulity, but whether a person declines to embrace the truth is their own affair. Objective reality and faith in principles that embody truth present their own best evidence, and that evidence is external and independent from me. Likewise, in matters of Christian faith and belief, the Word of God requires that I be able to articulate reasons for the hope that lies within me in meekness and patience, but the Holy Spirit bears up that truth. God uses my faithful witness and good fruit as a testimony, but even the coordination of this process is governed and orchestrated by God. Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Word of Truth does not. God’s character and qualities in no way depend upon my performance and my lack of performance does not detract from them.

In contrast, if truth rests only upon my esteem of truth and is true only because I accept it as such, when that truth is criticized, that criticism or rejection of “my truth” becomes an extensively personal experience. James Sire says that this existential way of esteeming truth makes truth “inextricably bound to the knower” as a consequence. I become personally and psychologically connected to that truth because I assigned value to it when I esteemed it as true. Attack what I hold to be true and you attack my person, whether or not I am directly involved with your process of evaluating the truth or not. If I am a postmodernist, and I say that the earth orbits around the sun, the facts about astrophysics and astronomy mean nothing because my belief alone establishes the veracity of my claims. If a critic challenges this belief and my facts, this amounts to a personal threat. The only valid proof and evidence that I can possibly offer derives from my faith in the idea that the earth orbits the sun. Proving my belief to others then becomes a matter of convincing others of “my truth.” My own personal integrity of self is then hinged upon the veracity of my belief.


Psychological Development

Truth’s own veracity only adds to the dilemmas of the psychological crises that young people experience. Erik Erickson identified eight such crises that are common to certain age groups across the human life span. Teens primarily learn fidelity during their years of development, and Erickson identified their challenge and task as “Identity versus Role Confusion." They are concerned with the question of “Who am I?” The individual teen relates to society primarily through ideology during this stage, learning how ideology affects them. For young adults between the ages of 20 and 40, provided they have successfully traversed the psychological crisis of adolescence and discerned “who they are” in relation to the world, they proceed into a new psychological task of “Intimacy versus Isolation.” They are concerned with the question of “Am I loved and wanted?” as they add the ability and skill of loving to the fidelity they learned in the earlier stage of their personal development. The individual young adult relates to society through patterns of cooperation and their psychological crises primarily concern interpersonal issues.

For those who are of the approximate ages 18 -30, they are busy about sorting out who they are, how they fit into the world, what they believe, to whom and where they belong, and how they properly relate to society. Individuals carve out their development and their identities through a balance between internal information (self-esteem) and external information (interpersonal relationships). Because truth’s value in postmodernism depends only upon internal factors and personal esteem, the world becomes a very adversarial place. Balance between internal and external information becomes skewed and distorted. The inherent psychological tasks of young adulthood become all the more intense and far more difficult, placing far more psychological pressure upon the individual, because everything rests solely on the individual’s personal abilities and personal psychological integrity.

When the modernist-minded older adult relates to the postmodernist in young adulthood, the demand to be genuine makes discernment a difficult business. Interpersonal relationships that are of intense concern to the young adult because of their age-related developmental challenges become terribly complicated. Those over 40 perceive truth as primarily objective, and discernment necessitates what young people perceive and disdain as “labeling.” My husband always readily points out that this young adult aversion to being labeled is not always an aversion, but it concerns only negative labels. And I believe that the reciprocal is also true. Young people seem to demand positive affirmation and positive labels, another aspect of relating to young people that often challenges my own personal sense of truthfulness and genuineness. My husband describes this strange, postmodern twist on the golden rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”) as a nearly impossible task: “Do unto others as those others would have you do unto them.” Since truth rests in the perception of the individual, social etiquette seems to demand that I have foreknowledge and omniscience to really properly relate to others. Is this even possible?

In a recent Mars Hill Audio Journal, Ken Myers noted in an interview that author Tim Clydesdale describes what Myers called the foremost moral priority of “totalitarian niceness” among American teens in his book called “First Year Out: Understanding American Teens After High School.” Most all other learning has been “distilled down into” a message that conveys that we should “be nice to other people,” whether it is a moral issue or not. Teachers couch all information in terms of a “niceness” message. Clydesdale observes that young people become anxious about, distracted by, and overly preoccupied with how others perceive them, owing both to the spirit of the age as well as factors like immediate communication technology. He also notes that young people view all authority with great suspicion, and the young person’s moral priorities maintain that they are the arbiter of what is right and permissible. He described that young people prefer a God that is more like a “golden retriever,” a warm, cuddly companion that offers comfort as opposed to a God who serves as a standard of truth. I wonder if this “totalitarian niceness” and the “golden retriever” concept of God emerges as a coping mechanism to protect against the tender ego that is so fragile because postmodernism makes truth so intensely personal?

Unique Challenges

Young Christian adults, those under the age of thirty (born after 1978) face many unique challenges that generations who came before them did not face. Postmodernism affects how truth is validated and esteemed, the consequences of which are quite profound. Those who teach Christian truth must consider the problems inherent in the postmodern worldview and must recognize that pietistic separatism does not solve the dilemmas that the postmodern worldview presents. The worldview and culture predisposes believers to a weak and Existential Theism wherein the believer assigns value to God, unlike the Biblical Theist who derives meaning about objective truth from God’s Word apart from and not contingent their own experience. The young believer must overcome this tendency, recognizing God’s Word as authoritative without intimidation. And unfortunately, the perspective of those raised in a postmodern culture makes communication with the generations that preceded them especially problematic because of the differences between each generation concerning the value of truth. This “generation gap” also poses unique challenges for older adults and older Christians who ascribe to the objective truth of the Word of God, conceiving of it in an entirely different way than do their younger counterparts. May God give us grace and wisdom to master the task so we can find unity in love as opposed to uniformity through “totalitarian niceness.”
.
.
.

Geniuses Are Leading Our World Astray..... "I have a strong sense that the Son of God weeps at the loss and misplacement of such genius."

Ravi Zacharias -

Postmodernism Philosophy

Evaluating Deconstructionism Using Responsible Hermeneutics

Five years ago on this very date, I sat with a now deceased laptop computer in the University of Texas Library, writing an essay. I'd been asked to present how thought reform played into the Vision Forum mindset from the vantage of one who attended a Presbyterian church with the followers of Doug Phillips and, on rare occasion, with Phillips himself.

I believe that I watch the world from an interesting and unique vantage. Though I was born in the first year of Generation X, I don’t bear all of the same qualities as most Xers. Perhaps because my parents missed the hippie mentality by what probably amounts to a few months and owing to slower life in a rural community, both my parents and I think much differently than our peers of the same age. I identify more strongly with Baby Boomers born later in that generation, as though there is a bridge period between Boomers and Gen X that theorists never define or capture. My most comfortable niche places me in an category with those born roughly somewhere between the early fifties and mid-sixties. I tend to march in tune to that drum rather than the drum of my same-aged peers. Though I am Christian first, I think like and communicate best with a modernist and tend to relate to others like a postmodernist living in a postmodern world.

Mark Noll proposed the concept of “theological innovation,” a process that I describe as one by which Christianity tries to adapt in order to remain culturally relevant. Each generation adapts to the demands of their culture, profoundly impacting the articulation of philosophy and theology within each unique age. Leaning very heavily on Noll’s concepts as I wrote my essay, and without naming any particular group, I identified Doug Phillips' ideas and many other variations on what amounts to the next-generation ideology of the Shepherding/Discipleship Movement as a theological innovation or a reaction against the tensions postmodernism posed for Christians. The very first handful of posts on this blog addressed and defined elements of postmodern thought because I see patriarchy as an extreme reaction to posmodernism. The relationship between patriocentrism and postmodernism seems as complicated as my personal relationship to the characteristics of those of Gen X.

I believe what I now identify as “patriocentricity” seeks to take away the sting of the profane elements of the Christian living in a postmodern world, while it also simultaneously capitalizes on postmodernism as a vehicle of communication. Patriocentricity becomes a very postmodern theological innovation that uses its own Christian version of kitsch, simulacra, and the hyperreal to protest select elements of postmodern relativism, actually demonstrating what seems to me an ironic process that Jacques Derrida would likely admire. Derrida focused on the language elements of the evolution of thought and culture which derive meaning through synthesis, and Vision Forum’s effort to mix a variety of ideologies together seems to me to be a fine example of this process of postmodern amalgamation. Vision Forum demonstrates an Hegelian dialectic that merges the thesis of Christianity with the antithesis of postmodernism, resulting in the synthesis wherein the medium of communication (“He is a godly man with a lovely family,” the language of evangelical Christianity, and photo shopped faces online) becomes as important and convincing as the message itself (the special purpose religion of homeschooling).

When I wrote for Sandlin, I had no idea that there was actually a more openly postmodern version of Christianity, what I now understand to be embodied in the “emergent church.” I knew of Gadamer's Hermeneutics of Trust, but frankly, I didn’t believe that a serious, Bible believing, committed, and evangelical Christian could possibly accept this hermeneutic, primarily because it cannot be applied to Scripture and remain true to Scripture at the same time. One cannot approach the Word of God using Derrida’s deconstruction of language wherein each idea that language represents typifies meaninglessness. Meaningfulness comes through a dialectic comparison of one meaningless element to another in a never-ending evolution of an individual’s personal experience, and this is what it means to be human and a little above other animals, setting us apart from them. As I understand Derrida, his approach of deconstruction and this hermeneutic cannot be used to interpret Scripture if one believes that it is God-breathed, effective and sufficient for doctrine.

After observing this dialectic of opposites and commenting on “deconstruction” elsewhere online recently, more than a few people requested that I revisit this topic again here on this blog. There is concern that many have left patriocentricity and reactively rebelled against too many aspects of it, swinging from authoritarian interpretations ascribed to the Word of God without Christian liberty into something that calls itself Christianity but actually simultaneously argues that the language of the Word of God cannot really convey much meaning at all. Some might say and apparently use the Creeds of the Church, not as a representation of the Word with the Word being the fixed center, but rather as man’s ascribing of meaning to the Word of God through existentialism. Faith then, for some of these reactionaries, begins with the meaning man gives to God through language rather than from the meaning and structure that man derives from the fixed objectivity of the all sufficient Word of God. It is a subtle but powerful distinction.

Though it is fresh in my own mind, I realize that it has been 18 months since I specifically discussed what I understand of “deconstruction.” Some look at the word “deconstruction” and interpret it as *a simple compound word* that represents the opposite of construction, thus defining it as what I would call the examined life. We all mature and recapitulate our ideas as we grow in wisdom, and those who follow the principle of the examined life will constantly re-evaluate the usefulness and validity of their ideas. As Christians, we are called to do this, and one might call this examined life the process of a Christian’s “fear and trembling.” But it is feared by many that the use of the term “deconstruction” in Christian circles is *greatly misunderstood* and not seen for what the “emergent church” actually means when they use Derrida’s and Bultmann’s language. Language can be confusing, and it is ironic, as one of the tenets of postmodernism maintains that the meaning of words comes from one’s individual esteem of them rather than their fixed definition. But note that Derrida fixed the definition of deconstructionism and defined it well. The emergent church uses Derrida’s definition and Bultmann’s interpretation, not this simple understanding of a compound word.

Let me offer you an example of what is meant by “deconstructionism” of language. As someone who enjoys British literature, I love to learn of their terms and how they differ from our American vernacular. Let me offer to you an example of some of this language that I like to use to describe what deconstructionism means: “The randy old sod smoked a fag.”

If you are a “blokey bloke” who is familiar with British expressions, this statement refers to a lecherous person (randy) who may or may not be a bloke, obnoxious or someone that might actually be a sodomite (sod), but he does not necessarily have to be a sodomite. They are indicated to be old, so this could just be describing what we Americans often call a “dirty old man.” Concerning his activity as described in the statement, he is smoking a cigarette (fag).

According to a professor that taught one of my English classes and was a poet himself, he believed that poetry conveyed meaning in such a way, and he taught his students that “these words in this precise order convey only one set meaning.” I argued with him that unless I understood the meaning of the words themselves and the context in which they were written, I agreed with him, but without that understanding the words were actually vague and meaningless. The person who receives the communication has a responsibility to discern the meaning, otherwise the communication is ineffective. One who takes this approach to language observes the context through what is known as the grammatico-historical method. This is the approach that the Baby Boomer modernist takes to literature (along with odd young fogies like me who should be more hip like the rest of the Xers). For the modernist, defining one’s terms and agreeing upon their set meaning is essential for true communication. Not so for the postmodernist.

For someone who is a postmodernist (most all Gen X and Gen Y “Mosaics” as they are called, definitely those born after 1970), the meaning of any language is based upon their own esteem, knowledge and experience. For an American who is completely unfamiliar with Brit Lit, they read “the randy old sod smoked a fag” and may understand this to mean “An aging man named Randy who is a landscaper (laying turf for a living) used a gun to shoot a male homosexual.” When using this example to explain deconstruction to a friend of mine this past week, they thought that the example described a man named Randy who was performing fellatio on another man. The modernist and a displaced GenXer Christian would state emphatically that these specific words represent only a limited number of possibilities based upon fixed definitions and usage of language as true to the context wherein the writer applied the terminology. We would say that these two examples of a man named Randy who is described as performing either of these reprehensible acts could not possibly be more wrong in their meaning. The postmodernist who embraces deconstruction has every right to argue that they are right and the true meaning is not necessarily true, based upon their own perspective and nothing else. Because the postmodernist assigns the true meaning of language on a relative basis based on individual experience and emotion, they believe that they possess true meaning and that the modernist might actually be wrong. They can tell the modernist, ever so rudely if not profanely, to take their objective meanings and “sod off” (leave).

Until the next post, please consider how this “deconstruction,” just as the term is used by authors and speakers in the emergent church, might affect the interpretation and meaning of the Word of God.

In an upcoming posts, I hope to explain how our understanding concerning the objectivity of the meaning of language changed, and just why and how deconstructionism and “true for you but not necessarily for me” springs not from any kind of Christian perspective but from evolutionary dogma and the humanistic religion of men like Nietzsche and Hegel. I hope to clarify how the postmodern approach to language can do nothing other than emasculate the Word of God with human perspective, making the sacred unavoidably profane.

It is my hope and purpose to encourage others to see the postmodern tendencies that affect us deeply by nature of our culture for what they are so that we can more sharply distinguish its inherent trappings from the faith that all Christians must have in Christ in order to be what James Sire defines as a Biblical Theist rather than a Theistic Existentialist. (The theist derives meaning from God by virtue of experience and the existentialist ascribes meaning to God by virtue of experience.)
.
.
.

Getting Back to Overcoming Botkin Syndrome

After getting a sizeable amount of information posted on the other blog I started about what people have started referring to Botkin Syndrome, I am finally making good on getting back around to putting more information on this site. Some months ago a writer, editor and one who has been esteemed with the lovely title of "Independent Scholar" contacted me and offered some of her articles to me to use on the Overcoming Botkin Syndrome site. I became overcome by events and didn't even publish the info I'd already had prepared that is still sitting in my word processor. (This stuff gets a bit heavy after awhile... I needed a respite.)

WHAT IS"BOTKIN SYNDROME"? The dysfunctional dynamics and long-term effects of the teachings of the Botkin Sisters and Vision Forum (Covert/emotional incest, non-sexual but gender related incest intermingled with the the teachings of patriarchy/patriocentricity)

Well, Adele Hebert, the Independent Scholar (bestowed upon her by author Leonard Swidler for whom she worked as an editor and contributor) again reminded me of her fine work last week, and I was particularly interested in her article entitled "Jesus Was Angry."

This is an intriguing Bible Study that points out afresh very many insightful things about Jesus. I hope to post "Jesus Loves Women" soon. There are many more good essays to follow.

Adele Hebert writes:

Although we were told to love one another and to forgive our enemies, Jesus was often quite angry. Jesus got very frustrated with his disciples Mt 17:17, “Faithless and perverse generation! How much longer must I be with you? How much longer must I put up with you?” Jesus had righteous indignation at the sellers in the temple Jn 2:15,16, “Making a whip out of cord, he drove them all out of the Temple, sheep and cattle as well, scattered the money changers' coins, knocked their tables over and said to the dove sellers, 'Take all this out of here and stop using my Father's house as a market.” Mostly, Jesus was angry at the Pharisees Mk 3:1, “Then he looked angrily round at them, grieved to find them so obstinate, and said to the man, 'Stretch out your hand. '”

Amazingly, Jesus never got angry with the women. There were 5 women who Jesus corrected; they were definitely not rebuked as some commentators / preachers have alleged. Jesus only rebuked the wind, sea, demons, unclean spirits, fever and men.

Jesus was more severe with his male disciples than anyone else: he rebuked Peter, calling him Satan Mt 16:23; he rebuked James and John for wanting to call down fire from heaven to burn up the Samaritan village Lk 9:55; and he rebuked the Eleven male disciples for not believing the women’s testimony Mk 16:14; but Jesus never rebuked women.

Read the full posting HERE.
.
.

Voddie Baucham on Getting One's Ticket Punched, Round Two?

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a program called "College Plus!" that is endorsed, most notably, by Doug Phillips. From reviewing their website, I believe that one can easily ascertain that this program offers non-academic coaching to those who enroll in their program. They also offer a core curriculum in Christian Worldview, and I the books of at least one of the authors they use for this program line my own bookshelves. I supported Gary DeMar's ministry for many years until my husband and I withdrew support because Doug Phillips and Vision Forum products became ever more prominent in American Vision's publications. Though I do not agree with the recent direction that American Vision chose, I still find most of what Gary DeMar has authored to be very fine material.

I stated in that previous blog post that I myself have benefited greatly from distance learning programs in the past. I've also attended several secular schools including a local community college and other state universities over the years since obtaining my undergraduate degree. I stated that I am very happy to see Voddie Baucham's daughter challenging herself through enrollment in this College Plus! program which clearly states that, at this time, they direct their students to enroll in the distance learning program offered Thomas Edison State College (TESC). So when not studying the core curriculum provided by College Plus!, those students who are enrolled are actually studying non-Christian curriculum. And to clarify my understanding of all this, I did contact TESC to confirm my understanding of their program, and they did verify that my understanding was correct. I even mentioned in that previous post that I am a graduate of another college accredited by Middle States, the group that accredits TESC. I would like to state that if I failed to make this clear in my first post, I could not be more happy to see young women in patriocentric circles afforded this training.

I received this pleasant note from Shawn Cohen of College Plus! late this afternoon:

Cindy,

I recently noticed your post about Voddie Baucham, his daughter’s education, and CollegePlus! I’m glad you’ve taken the time to give your thoughts.

It was intriguing that your text seems to present CollegePlus! in a negative light even though you admit that your knowledge of CollegePlus! is limited. I’d like to know if you’d be interested in having some of your questions answered about the program. If so, I’d be more than happy to dialogue with you about the positive effect CollegePlus! has had on close to a thousand students nationwide since its inception in 2004.

I look forward to hearing from you, Cindy. Have a great weekend!

I would like to take this opportunity to clarify online with Mr. Cohen and everyone who may have read my previous post and failed to identify my germane point about the inconsistent messages communicated by the patriocentrists. Challenging the quality of the College Plus! program was not my intention at all, and I believe that I was actually complementary. I intended to draw attention to the contradictions in previous statements made by both Voddie Baucham and Doug Phillips concerning then necessity of college attendance (or lack thereof) for women as well as their support of a secular government established and supported school.


1. My only issue with the College Plus! information online: The website is clear about the fact that the core curriculum is presented from a Christian Worldview. It does not specifically point out that the coursework outside of this core curriculum would be secular, that is, unless a state college in New Jersey teaches their programs from a Christian Worldview. That is not a misstatement of fact, but it does capitalize upon the core curriculum component as Christian.

I don't think that this experience poses a threatening situation for someone well-versed in and prepared to defend their worldview, as I've found my classes in secular and even religious schools to be excellent opportunities to talk about and defend my Christian faith and the Gospel of Jesus Christ with valor. One learns to sharpen skills under such conditions. What I do find is that given the importance of the necessity for Christian curriculum in the homeschool setting, I think it is interesting and perhaps a bit deceptive that the site does not also specifically point out that the remaining coursework is secular. But that’s not to say that the core curriculum through College Plus! would not prepare those students sufficiently to counter the problems in the worldview perspective of the coursework, either.

I would also like to point out that there are Christian colleges that offer distance learning undergraduate programs, but they are cost prohibitive. For instance, in addition to distance learning programs offered by Liberty University, the Baker’s Guide website lists 172 additional ones (some of which may or may not include Liberty, as I did not examine the entire list). The programs offered through TESC or any other such distance learning programs now offered by all sorts of state schools charge dramatically lower tuition because they are subsidized by the states that sponsor them, and the distance learning market has become quite competitive.


2. Those within patriocentric circles generally reject any type of government subsidy and have even criticized organizations with not-for-profit status, even though I understand that Vision Forum Ministries holds this status. I know personally that Doug Phillips talked publicly about the virtues of rejecting not-for-profit status from several people who attended his seminars and his church. For this reason, I find it interesting that Doug Phillips recommends a program with what I assume is his full knowledge of the fact that the college degrees are granted by a state-subsidized school. This does offer the advantage of keeping costs low, but this is accomplished through a college established by the State of New Jersey.

Per the TECU Website:

Thomas Edison State College was established by the State of New Jersey and chartered by the New Jersey Board of Higher Education in 1972. The College was founded for the purpose of providing diverse and alternative methods of achieving a collegiate education of the highest quality for mature adults.

3. As noted in the previous post, both Doug Phillips and Voddie Baucham stated that Miss Baucham would not need to "have her ticket punched" at a university, but I've received several emails from people who know the Bauchams who are confused, claiming that this young woman is indeed enrolled in the program. Personally, as I have stated, I think this is wonderful for her. I meant to point out the discrepancy between Voddie Baucham's bold statements on the "Return of the Daughters" video, advocating against the necessity for and desirability for college itself for his daughter in particular and the fact that his daughter is now attending college (albeit through a distance learning program). The video does not advocate distance learning programs but argues against all college as a requirement established by the secular world that those in the church need not observe for their daughters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So to reiterate, my criticisms involving the College Plus! program had very little to do with College Plus! itself but rather concerned the inconsistencies in the public statements of both Doug Phillips and Voddie Baucham concerning their strong convictions about secular education as inadequate (yet they advocate a secular program with only a portion of Christian Worldview material) and that Phillips has rejected government financial assistance of various types in many public speaking venues, particularly for educational programs (yet has advocated enrollment in a state school). But I am most curious about the fact that both Phillips and Baucham stated quite strongly that Miss Baucham did not need a college education to “have her ticket punched” in order to be meet the expectations of the secular society and because her abilities met a PhD standard (yet Miss Baucham has reportedly chosen to enroll in a college program, a choice that I actually wholeheartedly applaud).

I’m thrilled that so many students have been able to earn a college degree through such a credible program without accumulating a great deal of debt. Had such a program been available for my field of study, considering that I was 16 when I graduated from high school, I would have welcomed this type of option. I do not see how this reflects poorly on the College Plus! program itself. I believe that I've actually been highly complementary of the program, otherwise I certainly would never have mentioned that TESC and my own alma mater were accredited by the same organization. I invite the reader here who might have believed that I was actually insulting the program to reexamine the original post.
.
.