I recently watched four video lectures I have been meaning to get to for a while from Dallas Theological Seminary in which Dr. Albert Mohler spoke on the topic of the rise of the New Atheism. One of the main things I gleaned from these lectures is that since the late Medieval times, there have been three main thrusts of thought in the realm of atheism. 1) It was initially impossible not to believe in theism. 2) After the Enlightenment, it was then possible not to believe. Atheism began to grow in various ways. 3) And now in our current situation, it is, at least with the elites for the moment, impossible to believe, which is one of the reasons some are calling this new movement Enlightenment 2.0. In the West, there has been a gradual decay of belief in God that now brings us to a rather dangerous point in history. If during the period where it was possible not to believe, such awful events occurred like the Holocaust, the starvation of millions of Russians at the hands of Stalin, all resulting from or rooted in atheistic presuppositions during World War I and II, what is possible if a culture adopts the idea that it is impossible to believe in theism and that those, particularly Christians who hold the historic faith, are dangerous to humanity?

Something else I have gathered from these lectures is that ideas can be extremely dangerous. That is an understatement and nothing new. History is full of examples where this is the case. However, in these times of relative peace we Christians find ourselves in, we should take a step back now and ponder over the costs of 1) following Christ, 2) holding to historic Christianity at all as a belief system and worldview, but also 3) acting upon those convictions to the glory of Christ, whether it is holiness in our lives, evangelism, prayer, public gatherings, voicing convictions within the public square, etc. We should pray and push into our relationship with Him that He might embolden and strengthen us to stand in the face of these challenges coming upon us. We have experienced a long period of little persecution in America. But there seems to be coming a time when belief in God and even belief in the God of the Bible are going to be intolerable. This is the case all over the world in various places. At the moment, the four horsemen of the New Atheism, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett are the main evangelists of these ideas that simply cannot tolerate theism, and in particular, the God of the Bible. Yet their books are selling not just in the hundreds, not just in the thousands or hundreds of thousands, but in the millions. People are highly interested.

At the same time that there is great concern, I want to avoid being an alarmist. At the moment, we are in relative safety from such things. In addition, we should not fear whatever man can bring against us, even when confronted with death. Our true, ultimate, assured hope lies in the resurrection of Christ, who will also bring us with Him to live forever by His side. But as can be repeatedly evidenced in the history of humanity, there is such a thing as the trickle down effect with bad ideas. It first starts out with a few vocal antagonists who make a strong case in favor of their beliefs. These ideas begin to influence the academic world and elites in the culture at large. In adopting these ideas, those elites then begin to proselytize those further down on the educational scale, such as students in both secondary schools and in the collegiate world. These students then quickly grow up and move out into the culture with a worldview construct that consists of these ideas (if not intentionally, then presuppositionally). The ideas then make it into pop-culture where they are adopted as underlying beliefs. That is a frightening prospect, and we don’t have to look far back into the history of the 20th century to see how quickly a culture can adopt very dangerous ideas.

Hypothetically speaking, what would happen in our society if the ideas being evangelized by these four horsemen, that theists are a moral hazard to society, that raising our children in the Christian faith is the equivalent of child abuse, began to gain a foothold? We already see some of this in universities now where the metaphysical idea that creation came from a Creator is simply stupid. It is dismissed. In many science classes in particular, Darwinian evolution reigns the day. In probably most ethics classes at universities, moral and ethical relativism has gained such a foothold that if any external, outside, objective authority is consulted for the basis upon which moral/ethical decisions are made, you are excluded from the conversation or at the least belittled. This isn’t in every class out there, but it’s there and seems to be growing in intensity. Creationism is simply not even a conceivable mode of thought or starting point. Again, we believers must consider the cost of following Christ. It is not an easy, wide road, nor has it been for probably a majority of Christians. Easy-believism simply won’t be an accessible idea if these things came to fruition. This is good for the purification of the church, but I fear many confessed Christians are not prepared in the least to face these challenges, should they arise, and will thus fall away from the faith.

In these lectures, Albert Mohler presents the historical, theological and cultural implications of the New Atheism and how as believers we should respond to these ideas and stand strong in the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Indeed, we who desire to live godly, albeit imperfect lives for the name of Christ, proclaim the Gospel to those in our communities, and make known the riches of the glories of Christ, will be persecuted. Only in the power of Christ can we stand. If we attempt to fight this battle in our flesh, surely we will fail and run away. We are utterly reliant upon His strength to endure such challenges. May we rest in His grace alone to provide all that we need and all this for His glory.

Lecture 1 – The New Atheism and the Endgame of Secularism

Lecture 2 – The New Atheism and the Assault on Theism

Lecture 3 – The New Atheism and the Defense of Theism

Lecture 4 – The New Atheism and the Future of Christianity

——————————————————————-

“We add, that it (faith) is sure and firm, the better to express strength and constancy of persuasion. For as faith is not contented with a dubious and fickle opinion, so neither is it contented with an obscure and ill-defined conception. The certainty which it requires must be full and decisive, as is usual in regard to matters ascertained and proved. So deeply rooted in our hearts is unbelief, so prone are we to it, that while all confess with the lips that God is faithful, no man ever believes it without an arduous struggle. Especially when brought to the test, we by our wavering betray the vice which lurked within. Nor is it without cause that the Holy Spirit bears such distinguished testimony to the authority of God, in order that it may cure the disease of which I have spoken, and induce us to give full credit to the divine promises: “The words of the Lord” (says David, Ps. 12: 6) “are pure words, as silver tried in a furnace of earth purified seven times:” “The word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him,” (Ps. 18: 30.) And Solomon declares the same thing almost in the same words, “Every word of God is pure,” (Prov. 30: 5.)

But further quotation is superfluous, as the 119th Psalm is almost wholly occupied with this subject. Certainly, whenever God thus recommends his word, he indirectly rebukes our unbelief, the purport of all that is said being to eradicate perverse doubt from our hearts. There are very many also who form such an idea of the divine mercy as yields them very little comfort. For they are harassed by miserable anxiety while they doubt whether God will be merciful to them. They think, indeed, that they are most fully persuaded of the divine mercy, but they confine it within too narrow limits. The idea they entertain is, that this mercy is great and abundant, is shed upon many, is offered and ready to be bestowed upon all; but that it is uncertain whether it will reach to them individually, or rather whether they can reach to it. Thus their knowledge stopping short leaves them only mid-way; not so much confirming and tranquilizing the mind as harassing it with doubt and disquietude. Very different is that feeling of full assurance (“pleroforia”) which the Scriptures uniformly attribute to faith – an assurance which leaves no doubt that the goodness of God is clearly offered to us. This assurance we cannot have without truly perceiving its sweetness, and experiencing it in ourselves. Hence from faith the Apostle deduces confidence, and from confidence boldness. His words are, “In whom (Christ) we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him,” (Eph. 3: 12:) thus undoubtedly showing that our faith is not true unless it enables us to appear calmly in the presence of God. Such boldness springs only from confidence in the divine favor and salvation. So true is this, that the term faith is often used as equivalent to confidence.”

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.15.13

Colbert “vs.” Ehrman (2006)

Colbert “vs.” Ehrman (2009)

Ahh, pure intellectual integrity. Haha, Paul bashing? (Paul Young of course) Right. You decide. Instead of working through the difficulty of beliefs (or rather denials) that can lead people to hell when accepted, it seems some are content to just shut you out of the conversation altogether instead of seriously and honestly engaging any kind of debate because of what the book has done for them, at least emotionally speaking. Since when did the individual become the standard-bearer and authority on what’s truth or not? They just don’t want to talk about any criticism of it, even if it’s a legitimately serious issue concerned with none other than the very Gospel itself by which one is saved.

I believe this quote above so very much captures the heart of what I don’t like about what this book is doing to so many. It is a tear-jerker of a story and I’ll be honest, I’m an emotional guy and reading through the guy losing his daughter in such a brutal manner with little closure in the story made me weep, especially in light of being a parent now. I do not negate what the story does for one’s emotions and how it is a rather enthralling, fictional tale (though I really don’t like reading fiction most of the time anyway).

But as emotional of a story it may be, that is no reason to excuse serious calls to check a writers’ Gospel doctrine as to what he is positing as truth, truth he was originally communicating to none other than his own children whom I’m sure he loves more than anything in the world. And if he is teaching them serious error and potentially leading them astray with false truth, what about the rest of those who have been so spellbound by this narrative?

As a side note, notice how this person I’m quoting holds up positivity as if it is some cardinal doctrine that if violated by anyone, especially in relation to The Shack, you are completely ignored and shut out of conversation. The other cardinal doctrine is this persons’ experience. It is supreme. If it goes against the persons’ experience, then the argument has no right to intrude and critique. So goes postmodern theology and dogma.

And this all just gets back to my point again from an earlier post, that when people say the book is just fiction, I have to stop them and ask them, is it really fictional or Young’s portrayal of what he believes to be absolutely true concerning God within a fictional narrative? The reason I ask is because it seems many are accepting Young’s underlying assumptions and presuppositions about God and how He works as truth itself. Does God need to forgive our sins? Has God clearly revealed Himself sufficiently in His own Word, or do we need to give some other, extra-Biblical portrayal to make Him more “palatable” to the sinner? These are questions Young answers in the book overtly and subtly.

As many arguments as I could make to such an individual with Scripture and reason, it is clear they just won’t even listen because they’ve decided that what is said in the book is divine, authoritative truth for them. Oh the bankruptcy of relativism. It is an impoverished system of thought to say the least that is gutting our culture morally, spiritually and emotionally. It is now entering the church at an alarming rate and it is books like this that are opening the door.

Emotional responses aside to the story itself (not critiquing that at all), if it is an unbiblical portrayal of God and His work to save us in Christ, is that really and truly a good thing? Is that true spiritual progress in terms the Bible prescribes? If people become more religious and emotionally struck as a result, is that necessarily conversion by the Gospel work of Christ, or is it merely becoming religious and “dead in trespasses and sins?” I’m not talking in any way about the story’s plot line being good or not and loving the story in itself and/or identifying with it to some degree. I’m asking, is an unbiblical picture of God a positive thing? What do you think?

“My mom always told us god comes in many forms … i read it, she read it, my sister and brother in law have read it, now my brother is reading it i could not put this book down.”

So clearly this book affirms what this person was already taught: God can appear in all different forms, implicitly affirming the postmodern dogma that says, “Who are you to say you have the only way? There are thousands of ways to God.”

“I read this book and it is outstanding. I am only 13 and I have had my own views on our Lord. This book has changed my understanding about the Trinity, and i think it has been a good book to read. It was great and it is very strong. It really gets to you, too.”

Hear that again: “… changed my understanding about the Trinity.”

“I always thought maybe I had a strange idea of how i thought God is. Until I read this book. i couldn’t put it down. It showed me i’m not the only one that sees God as a friend,or papa, not someone to fear. This book brought me closer to God and I can’t wait to read it again.”

As this person says, “I always thought maybe I had a strange idea of how i thought God is.” All men conceive of God how they want by nature. Yet is this not the very essence of idolatry, with us being the starting point for our conception of God? And the Bible then comes in to reveal to us who He actually is? Yet The Shack is coming in extra-Biblically to make God more understandable than Scripture has made Him? I can’t buy that. As to the other statement, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.” (Proverbs 1:7)

“I finished the book in one day! Awesome. It brought healing to me. I think this is a book to change lifes. It takes the legalism out and makes the trinity understandable. I am so moved by this book! I will be reading it again with a highlighter and page markers.”

Again, it made the Trinity “understandable.” What is more understandable in this particular book than what Scripture has already revealed? I’m missing something.

“I finished this book last week and can’t stop thinking about it. I am ready to re-read and have been talking about it to all my friends. I have even passed it on to a few of my closest friends in hopes that they are as touched and moved by it as I am!! Definitely one of the best books I have read in a long and truly enjoyed a different view on God. It touched my heart more than I would have ever thought it would!!”

A different view of God. Other than which view? The Scriptural one?

“All I can say is EVERYONE needs to read this book. It has changed my life and I am learning so much about our God’s wonderful love and grace. I never realized so many things about life, love and where I need to fit in with Him.”

That’s great, but which definition of love and grace? The author himself denies substitutionary atonement. That presents a huge problem for his own understanding of God’s love toward sinners, in that when you ask the question, “How has God loved us?” the Bible answers, “God put [Christ] forward as a propitiation to be received by faith.” (Romans 3:21-26) Young apparently denies this. BIG problem.

“I just finished the book. WOW! I have asked my wife to read it. It made the Trinity easier to understand. I will read it again. To my friends…please read this book.”

Again, the Trinity is now easier to understand because of this book. Hmm. Fictional or truthful portrayal, I ask?

“This is an amazing book. Thats all I can say about…it changes your views on alot of things and puts things into everyday terms. It helps you understand why “HE” is the way “HE” is and works the way he does. I was truley encaptured by this book.”

So it helps you understand the attributes of God, but from an unbiblical and distorted picture. Not sure I get that.

“Finished the book yesterday…..amazing! Putting the trinity in a humanistic light makes it more tangible….easier to wrap your brain around. I WILL read it again. I couldn’t put it down.”

Note: if the Trinity can be made “easier to wrap your brain around,” we should be very leery of the teaching itself.

“My young children were concerned watching me read this book because I couldn’t stop crying, but it was wonderful. I shared the images of the Trinity with them and they were fascinated, even telling their cousin about it. Pretty neat!”

So parents are teaching their children these portrayals of God as truth? Excellent.

“I am disappointed that some pastors are against this book. It is not meant to be be a theology text [Really?]. It is an allegory, a vision. C.S. Lewis was that kind of writer.”

All portrayals of God are theological. Question is, are they truthful to Scripture? There is no way to escape the use of theology in reality, just as it is impossible not to use language when you talk to someone. Based on these quotes, clearly this is a book in which people see it as theological truth, not just fiction.

Wanted to add some more:

“Great Book! Makes reawaken and rearrange beliefs you had about God,Jesus, and The Holy Spirit.”

“I was raised Christian, and coverted to Islam after college. I love this book. In a world so confused with material possesions and gaining control over things that are always out of reach, I recommend this book to all. The pillars of life will never change, only the perception.”

More affirmations of presupposed postmodern dogma lying at the foundation of their beliefs. Only the perception changes? Rearrange beliefs? I don’t think so. Either God has or hasn’t revealed Himself to us clearly and truthfully. In addition, if this last person is still insistent in holding onto their Islamic faith, then what has the book truly accomplished? Even Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet from God. Just not the Son of God, God in the flesh, who suffered, died and rose from the grave for sinners. You see why these things matter and how if we’re not clear, we’re doing no service to anyone?

I just don’t know how much clearer all of this could be that books like this DO change people’s theology. It’s the same thing with the Da Vinci Code. “Oh but it’s just fiction!” Yet within the fictional story are propositional truth claims that are either right or wrong, truth or flat-out lies. As James White has said over and over again, “Theology matters.” Yes it does. This is a fantastic case-study of why.

“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.’” – Galatians 3:13

I came across this passage in reading Deuteronomy today (and thought about its fulfillment in Galatians 3:13) and it got me to thinking in light of the saddening and disheartening revelation concerning The Shack author William P. Young’s denial of substitutionary atonement: Did Jesus commit any crime punishable by death at all? No, we all say together, He was sinless. Yet He willingly gave Himself over to a criminals death based upon this passage in Deuteronomy, right? Right. So if He was sinless, why was He condemned to this awful punishment? It must be that it was for someone other than Himself, for there is no other explanation, other than those that fall infinitely short of a satisfactorily Biblical answer. For whose crime was He willingly entering into and suffering then? The undeniable answer of the Bible is He suffered for sinners who admit their guilt and believe in the only name of the Son of God, resting in His work alone on their behalf to save them. Romans 3:21-26 is the best place to see this great news.

He suffered our penalty in our place and as a result, brought about our reconciliation, for what else was the main point and effect of the cross? A mere display of selflessness by God that we should imitate? Surely it was that, but yet so much more! Was it an example to model? Surely, yet so much more! Was it a triumph in the face of evil? Absolutely, and yet again, so much more! The cross was primarily an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation. What exactly is this penalty that we all deserve that Christ bore? It is the curse of God, that is the wrath of God against all our godlessness and wickedness of we who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. This is you and I.

On the cross, Jesus suffered the place of sinners the eternal hell we deserve and credited us with His perfect life’s record. That is the main effect. This work has been called the Great Exchange for exactly this reason. Jesus bore the penalty that I was owed, the curse of God on the cross, in which He cries out to the Father, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34) He who deserved the highest honor was forsaken by the Father for us so that we could be brought near to God. Our reconciliation was made possible by Jesus’ suffering our just punishment from the Father. Paul makes this so clear: “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” – Romans 3:23-26

This is simply undeniable in the Scriptures and astounding! Taste and see what great grace is contained in the work of the cross for your soul, both for eternal life and right now in becoming like Him by His power, that our God should suffer our condemnation instead of us and credit us with His perfect work! What a wonder! The Son was stricken, smitten and afflicted by the Father that we should be brought near to God and experience and participate in His glory forever, the very thing for which we were made! And how sad it is that Young would deny this truth. May we all pray he sees this. Isaiah 53 is the clearest picture of this atoning sacrifice of which Christ would be its fulfillment.

Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
⁵ But he was wounded for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his stripes we are healed.
⁶ All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

⁷He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
⁸By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
⁹And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.

¹⁰Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. ¹¹Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
¹² Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

- Isaiah 53:4-12

The cross of Christ is not merely a display of God’s love toward sinners; it is a Work of His love with an actual effect: the salvation of sinners from what justice demanded, all the while maintaining God’s justice. So many songs we sing together in worship to the Lord clearly display this truth of penal substitutionary atonement. It is an unmistakable truth in the Scriptures. And when we get together, we can’t help but sing this truth, for we know this is our joy together in the Gospel as a community of believers. We have been healed by His wounds and can have eternal life because of His sacrificial, substitutionary death on the cross. This atonement is not something separate from forgiveness, it is that through which forgiveness is made possible.

Related:

Stricken, Smitten and Afflicted – Thomas Kelly, 1804

And Can It Be That I Should Gain? – Charles Wesley, 1738

Amazing Love How Can It Be? (You are my King) – Newsboys

Pierced for Our Trangressions – Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution

The Curse Motif of the Atonement – R.C. Sproul (MP3)

No, this is not an actual picture from the show

I used to love this show growing up. It was very influential in my early developmental years. I loved all the characters and the songs and it used to be a defining time during the weekdays when I knew my dad was coming home from work. Needless to say, I have very fond memories of Sesame Street.

I flipped it on in the morning recently to watch with my son, figuring it would be a great nostalgic moment and fun for my little man, seeing him enjoy something I used to watch. I haven’t come across it in years and didn’t think about the possibility of it changing (why I assumed this, I don’t know). To my surprise, the intro theme song has been “remixed” in the form of a pop-hop (hip-hop) song. Very disappointing. I’m all for some good hip-hop, don’t get me wrong. But leave this song alone. The original Sesame Street song has been gutted and re-contextualized. Though not conclusive, this sure is indicative of the relatively superfluous modus operandi our culture has assumed nowadays. This is saddening, and just shows how much things have changed over my short 29 years.

What makes me even more disappointed with the show is the relentless cameo’s of radical leftist (far-left) Hollywood-ites. To be sure, the show has always had a slightly liberal bent (something I became aware of later in life, obviously not knowing the difference when I was a kid). Honestly that didn’t even really bother me though thinking toward the future with my children and their viewing of the show.

However, in watching the show unfold before me with my son, some things really raised my level of concern. The show seems now to be pushing an agenda beyond mere political leftist activism. It has these far-left celebrities on not just to push leftist politics, but a secular worldview, a system of belief and thinking upon our children that is antithetical to a Christian worldview. It is done in a positive manner though, much in the same way other forms of secularist propaganda appear in the positive or “neutral” sense (though nothing is ever neutral). So it looks good on its face, if you don’t think through the implications. Something having the appearance of good can be the very face of deceit itself though.

Some major over-riding themes on the show now appear to be the impending global doom of the climate due to man’s activities (it’s subtle but pervasive), the innate goodness of humanity (defying the Christian doctrine of total depravity), and some form of secular moralistic do-gooderism (that your good works are what justify your existence before yourself and others, i.e. self-righteousness). The preaching of the innate goodness of man has always been a theme on the show. But I guess you could say it sounds like the drum beat has gotten a lot louder.

Now, I of course want my son to learn to treat others as he would have them treat himself. This is the essence of loving your neighbor as yourself. However, Secularism and Christianity come from two completely different foundations. One is based in self-righteousness, the other in grace (unearned, undeserved favor); one in selfishness, the other selflessness; one rooted in God and His Son (in the Gospel), the other rooted in ourselves and the assumed goodness of humanity. On its face, the acting out of the “golden rule” coming from these two different foundations may look the same. Yet the end effect produced gives way to two entirely different people; one resting in the promises of grace and acting out of that context, the other working to give themselves meaning by what they do and perform where none can be found.

So what you say? What does this have to do with me, a Christian? And more importantly, what should I do with the show? Well, I’m simply saying I’m disappointed in how the show has turned into a secular propaganda outlet that educates our children in how they should think about and act in the world in which they live, instead of merely teaching them their A-B-C’s and 1-2-3′s. It seems to have now become a mouth piece for non-believing secularists to educate our children in the way of their worldview. (It’s amazing how evangelistic secularists are, all the while hating Christian evangelism. Ironic. Sesame Street is a perfect case-study now for that reality.)

Believers must be careful about what their children are taking in and learning. Just one more reason why the television cannot and should not be an educator or babysitter. Obviously the show is great for teaching the rudiments of language and math, as it always has been. But since the secularist rhetoric has been turned up a notch, Gospel-believing parents must be leery and make sure their children aren’t being fed nonsense from the world. I’m not saying kids can’t watch the show at all (in fact they should for teaching them to engage the world, not run from it). We just need to be careful about the subtle messages being communicated, especially if you typically allow your child to be educated by these shows on a routine basis. Secularism seems to be gaining ground in our culture, even (and in some respects, especially) in the area of children’s education. And it is our job as believing parents to protect our children from secularism as well as educate them in the Christian understanding of reality.

In a rant against doctrine itself (that is, propositional truth claims-such as, Jesus is Lord, He died in our place, He literally rose from the dead-something our culture abhors), Newman said, “Oh Dogma! Oh Dogma! How dost thy trample under foot love, truth, conscience, justice!” He couldn’t stand the justice of God as explained by Scripture (probably unlovingly by evangelicals, I grant that … though that doesn’t negate the truthfulness of the doctrines), substitutionary atonement, original sin, which inevitably renders the historic Gospel of Christ null and void. For the good news of the Gospel assumes there is a “bad news” backdrop that makes the good news, well, really good.

Now to be sure, there are a lot of things we evangelicals can glean from looking at those who have abandoned the faith in the past. If the doctrine of Paul, for instance, is not united with Paul’s expression of love toward those he encountered, this itself can eclipse the Gospel. We should be aware of the fact that sometimes people won’t hear a thing Christians have to say, be it ever so truthful, if they are jerks toward them or do not engage them in a loving and meaningful way, caring about them as people. Many evangelicals have done a disservice to Christ in various ways in their witnessing by chastising those who disbelieve. This is abhorrent and truly a tragedy.

But with that said, can we conclude then that those who have abandoned the Gospel did so because of evangelicalism or evangelicals primarily? Maybe for some, surely, but I would say certainly not for most. Let us examine though this question McKnight proposes:

“Why is there so little room for questions and explorations among the orthodox? Among evangelicals?”

My answer? (For what it’s worth): I believe that to grow in your faith, you should be asking questions and you should be prodding to know what is the truth, not just prodding and exploring for its own sake. I believe that in questioning with the goal of knowing, you will grow in your faith and belief in those very truths as you dive deep into Scriptural study. But these should not be questions of doubt and skepticism as they were for Newman it seems, so as to try and disprove the “old/conventional way of thinking,” as many emerging/emergent types are bent on doing nowadays, so much as questions of inquiry to know for certain what the Scriptures say on any number of issues for all time, to all cultures, including Western cultures.

Explorations? Now I would encourage exploration of what people are saying, in so far as it doesn’t lead you into any number of heresies that have been dealt with since the church’s inception 2000 years ago. Exploration into ideas that find little to no grounding in Scripture should be avoided at all costs. Legalism, Arianism, Modalism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism … denials (even subtle denials) of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, denials of the Trinity, denials of the nature of man and salvation; each of these are heresies Satan has raised up from within the church to try and destroy her from the inside-out. And God raised up faithful men from within the church who defended the truth of God, with Scripture.

If you are led by your theological imagination away from the path of orthodoxy laid behind us for 2000 years, perhaps you should consider that “your ideas” may be wrong. Just a thought. It’s not that those from church history are infallible voices, but rather, that they have dealt as honestly with Scripture as they knew how against the attacks of heretics from within the church and the Lord Himself has preserved orthodox truth over time, that we all may not stray from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

And here lies a fundamental issue emerging/emergent types do not consider: that the Scriptures do indeed have those answers and that they are rock solid truths from the mouth of God Himself, truths that have been defended for centuries, also known as: doctrine (again, something our culture hates, which is the very notion accepted by these very same teachers). But many times those answers are hard to hear, believe and accept, even for believers, because we’re still sinful and have to have our minds reformed (no pun intended) by the Spirit. Redefining doctrines in light of a modern philosophical system (postmodernism), doctrines that have been preserved throughout the history of the church since its inception though is not an acceptable answer to our questioning, even when we don’t understand the Scriptural answers or find them hard to believe. The problem is not with the answers, but us. We’re the sinners, not the starting point of truth, as our culture assumes.

We should avoid, at all costs, the acceptance of a secular, anti-Christian point of view that embraces skepticism as a linchpin for how you understand the Scriptures. To embrace skepticism is to embrace a form of thinking that at its heart is rooted in unbelief in what the Scriptures have clearly set forth; and in particular, unbelief in the Gospel. This unbelief results in condemnation for those who accept this hardened form of secular skepticism we find so pervasive within our culture toward the Christian faith. Maybe instead we should doubt our doubts? (Keller)

Now to be clear, it is very possible and likely that evangelicals in Newman’s life were partly responsible for his demise, in so far as their witness was concerned. They should have engaged him more and lovingly answered his questions with Scripture. Surely we can critique the “Christian culture” in which he lived and see that many of those people may not have been Christians at all, but were simply adhering to a cultural norm themselves without actually prodding their own faith to see if these things are indeed true. Maybe those believers should have been more patient with him. We can appreciate this and let it soak in that we need to be engaging people where they are and be loving, kind and patient toward them in their searching for answers. We should all be very aware that our actions and attitudes toward outsiders of the faith are a part of witnessing itself.

But I have to ask: who is ultimately to blame for Newman’s unbelief? Newman. He rejected the Gospel. He rejected the truth claims of Scripture, despite what believers did or didn’t do. He rejected that God is just and that the personal implication of this truth was that he would be judged for his own sin at the end of time. Newman will stand alone, as all of us will, before the throne of God on the last day. Will the blood of Christ cover you or not? That is the real issue. And the benefits of this atonement, the absorbing of your deserved wrath in Christ on the cross, is apprehended through faith alone in Christ alone, that He has achieved our salvation for us when we couldn’t lift a finger toward it. Do you believe this or not? There is no in between ground. You are either for Him or against Him. But you are never actually riding the fence, for there is no such person in existence.

The emerging/emergent/missional/post____/(fill in the next emerging title) church, by accepting a worldly philosophical system as the grid through which they view Scripture itself, more and more historic doctrines are questioned. Sooner or later, over time, though maybe not even realizing it, the Gospel is lost and you are then left with a Christless Christianity that amounts to pure moralism. That is the story of much of Protestantism over the 19th and 20th centuries in mainline denominations. I honestly pray this does not happen with my generation as well, although it appears to be happening even faster than it did for former generations.