Sunday, February 5, 2012

The book "UNCHRISTIAN": Reformulating Christianity for YOUNG PEOPLE!

Here is past video from 2007 by one of the author's David Kinnaman:

This article gets long, please read it, bearing with me, there are a lot of ideas expressed and other things introduced. There are related symbols, groups, and other things, I discovered analyzing this book. One thing I am discovering is this whole MODERN CHURCH WORLD, it's a set-up, sometimes writing things like this can be a nauseating enterprise even realizing the depth of the manipulation. 

I take the Barna stuff with a grain of salt, though I have posted on them, knowing their polls are being used TO INFLUENCE AND IN A SPECIFIC WAY. The main premise of this book which I got from the library, is that "Christianity" has an image problem and that it needs to be changed. It basically is another CALL TO CHANGE THE CHURCH. If anything this is a book, that shows the new movers and shakers for the evangelical branch of the one world religion.

The authors are David Kinnaman who is the president of Barna Group:
David Kinnaman is the President of Barna Group. He is the author of the best-selling book, unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity, and the Barna report, Teens and the Supernatural.

Since joining Barna in 1995, David has designed and analyzed nearly 500 projects for a variety of clients, including Columbia House, Compassion, Easter Seals, Habitat for Humanity, Integrity Media, InterVarsity, NBC-Universal, the Salvation Army, Sony, Thomas Nelson, Time-Life, Prison Fellowship, World Vision, Zondervan and many others.

and Gabe Lyons who runs a group called Fermi
The Fermi Project, based in Atlanta, Georgia, is a loose collective of innovators, entrepreneurs, and faith leaders who pursue endeavors that advance the common good of their fellow world citizens. It was founded by Gabe and Rebekah Lyons in 2003.

Fermi's main influence is exerted in "Q" conferences, which invite world leaders from a variety of areas to share "ideas that create a better world." Conference presenters have included people like authors Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Scot McKnight and Rick Warren, model Jon Passavant, media personality Jeff Johnson and social entrepreneur Majora Carter.

It's present website is here, where they speak of "impacting culture" and ideas for the "common good".

Looking at the list of leaders they have on the back cover of this book, under the paragraph that starts with "unchristian also includes forward looking insights from respected Christian leaders, adding their assessment of problems and their thoughts about how Christians should respond", Chuck Colson, Andy Crouch, Dan Kimball, Brian McLaren, Andy Stanley, John Stott [now deceased], Jim Wallis and of course Rick Warren are among the names. Remember this post will be warning about yet another avenue where they seek the REFORMULATION of Christianity!

Now that we see who they are looking towards for inspiration, which is a list of ecumenists and others, that tells us to be on notice about this book. One thing I have noticed for some time, is how "good things" or even "good messages" are always twisted and turned by these types. For example "home churches" are a good thing, but only the naive, would not realize those have been infiltrated, there are Emergent church networks of cell churches that have already been started to compete. They will do this will plenty of other messages using TRUE CONCERNS out there but TWISTING THEM for their own DEVICES.

Well this book takes concerns focusing on YOUNGER people and their view of Christianity. They cut the age of Busters off at 29 which is absurd enough, Generation X [non-Baby Boomers] now includes people in their mid 40s. That is just one thing they got blatantly wrong even though they admit the generation cut off is 1965.

The book covers six broad themes,[ p. 29], where they speak about how outsiders view Christianity or Christians. These include 1. Hypocritical, 2. Too focused on getting converts, 3. Antihomosexual, 4. Sheltered,  5. Too Political, 6. Judgemental.  The book claims this is why people especially young people, those in the Buster [Generation X], and Mosaic [Generation Y] generations are rejecting Christianity.

I have written about "mean" Christians" and every Dominionist themed article on this blog have the "too political" theme behind them, but remember here, watch out for their solutions.  Where does the Bible say we are to change the gospel to make it more platable to the unbeliever? The whole book is written with that in mind. Everything is about Christians changing their REPUTATIONS to PLEASE the non-believer. 


Lets look at hypocritical. Some of us worry about being hypocrites. Those who are saved and truly following God, question themselves on this all the time.  They are not incorrect in stating that non-believers see Christians as hypocrites, the days when I scoffed and thought the same, are still in my memory banks. They write "Christians say one thing but live something entirely different" wanting to change this to  a new perception of  "Christians are transparent, about their flaws, act first, talk second." On page 45 it states; "Some have this reaction to Christianity, but I want to explore a deeper, more common issue: how the perception of hypocrisy among outsiders has created real barriers to hearing and understanding the message of Christianity. Based on what we have learned in our research, I believe Christians can change their reputations in appropriate ways."

Read the last sentence there again....

"Christians can change their reputations"

Are Christians supposed to be concerned about the reputation in the world when Jesus told us the world would hate us? It is a strange thing. One thing as I read this book, and these folks are so very crafty, many well meaning young Christian people would think "wow, I better change this and that, to "fit in' and not turn all these unbelievers off!"

Isn't that the message they are wanting to sell here? That Christian's job is NOT to OFFEND, when the Bible says otherwise?

Rom 9:33    As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Now don't get me wrong here, I do not think Christians should walk around purposefully seeking to offend, antagonize people but many will be offended simply by the Christian gospel. Many will be offended by the truth. You do not want to know how much hate mail or comments even doing this blog that come my way. If I started worrying about offending people, I'd have to shut down tomorrow. Notice the part of the verse, where it says "whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed". This book seemed to say otherwise, that Christians should be ashamed and timid and walk on eggshells on behalf of the non-believers in the world.

They do  have a lot of truths about hypocrisy, even going beyond normal sins of Christians, we all sin, and fall from time to time, detailing how there is no difference between Christians and unbelievers and how many find cohabitation, gambling, sex outside of marriage, using profanity and having abortions to be acceptable [p. 53] In my opinion that would include the huge numbers of false conversions or the very poorly discipled and those who "think" they are Christians. Of course among the younger "Christians" these things are more acceptable across the board [p 54]which brings this book to the odd conclusion that this is sort of the older "Christians" fault.

"It pains me to discuss this research, because it is not flattering to the young people in the churches, yet we have to be realistic about the snapshots of life being protrayed by born-again Busters. Young people-even in the churches are reshaping moral and sexual rules. This gives the Unchristian perception even more potency, because many young believers are living out their Christian faith with enormous moral laxity."
This creates a wicked double jeopardy: older born again believers may be emphasizing lifestyle and avoiding sin as a means of faith maturity, but the behavior and perspectives of young Christians only intensify the perception that Christians are hypocritical."

This is so twisty turny, whose fault is all the moral laxity? And wouldn't that be more the fault of false conversions and those who simply *think* they are Christians but lack regeneration via the Holy Spirit? If the fruits are bad, then perhaps many were never saved at all. Why are moral and sexual rules being so reshaped? God stays the same. Can an actual Christian faith be lived with moral laxity?
I would say not, that is the definition of someone given a persistent pattern of not caring about sin, who has never been born again at all. Notice the subtle condemnation of the older believers who seek after "avoiding sin" as if that is something BAD.

What gets even odder in this book, is they see CULTURE as being the one who can save Christians from horrendous hypocrisy.

"We can be defensive in that we are hypocritical. We can ignore it. Yet what if cultures accusations of hypocrisy are God's way of waking us up to the overwhelming needs of other? What if he is using culture to make us aware of our hollow religiosity and empty answers?"

The world is not going to automatically hand anyone including Christians the truth, most of the time, it will hand over lies. I find myself thinking if someone is a real Christian, there is not going to be endless hypocrisy. We may all be convicted of the times we all do fall. We think of being a bad witness when we may sin, or get angry or not living up to what we preach. But if someone has been regenerated, fruits of the Spirit would be part of the package. While we all can sin, what is the core problem of someone that has the appearance of religiosity and goodness but inside still loves evil? The Bible warns us constantly about so called angels of light and those who put on a Christian veneer to hide what is inside.

2 Timothy 3:5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

We are warned about the hypocrites right in the Bible, we do not need the CULTURE to DEFINE them for us. It is not culture that will EVER bring a Christian to repentance but the Holy Spirit. The culture if anything will advance, more culture wars, celebrity preachers and DEAD ENDS.

How can a Christian win then under these type of standards laid on them by UNBELIEVERS and the WORLD? Look to God's standards, not those. The world's standards will crush many even by themselves.


Now comes the discussion of the desire for more converts [Chapter 4] This seems to be a chapter that says people shouldn't witness anymore and the Christian's desire to win people to Jesus Christ is suspect. They quote non-Christians who speak of being offended by those who seek friendship only to gain numbers of converts and while I can understand that to a point, many of us are witnessing to strangers as well. The truth needs to get out there. Here the gospel is portrayed as offensive, and the message of shame is implicit as the authors share that the perception that "Christians are insincere and concerned only with converting others" and write that should be changed to the perception that "Christians cultivate relationships and environments where others can be deeply transformed by God."

If they never heard the Word of God, and led to conversion how are they going to be transformed by God? I see the point here about Christians seeking sincere relationship, some do get too caught up in the numbers games, we see that at some of those festivals where they brag of the numbers that come forward, also non-believers who do not really feel that a Christian cares for them, that can harm the preaching of the gospel as well. But here, I found myself bothered as well, what was their solution, I felt like I was being sold the "preach the gospel always, use words if necessary" message from St. Francis of Assisi. Here the core focus is to avoid offense again, telling folks not to turn off the unbelievers by being direct or bold or preaching the gospel.

Rom 10:17    So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

As I have written before, I got patted on the head while I was lost in my sins, by many kind types but this did nothing for me. In my case, I almost died young except for the grace of God and would have ended up in hell. I needed the gospel and got it from street preachers and college kids that were perceived as "crazy nuts" by both my urban neighborhood and other college kids. Both groups were seen as big time offenders. Sometimes I feared for the utter safety of my street preacher friend.

So what do I think of the concern about 'converting others"? It should be first on your list, despite the pressures of others to have you forsake it! If you truly believe in Christianity, you are not going to walk around thinking "Oh I may witness to that person if we get a good friendship going", and yes that can be a nice way to do it, but time is of the essence and there are folks around who may be strangers or even just acquaintances who will benefit from your preaching of the gospel, handing out tracts and standing for the Christian faith. Many Christians already give in to pressures not to preach the Word or openly witness because of pressures like this and people who tell them, "oh its mean!", "Oh you will only offend people!", "You need to be CLOSE friends with someone first to preach the gospel to them." With all these caveats and more who would ever hear the gospel? I had a life when I was born again where there was not ONE Christian in my entire life except one newer long distance friend. I swim in a sea of nonbelievers now due to outside circumstances. If I waited to preach the gospel to "only close friends", very few would be hearing it.

The Emergent view here is promoted that direct witnessing is "bad" and I saw definitely some of the influences of the "social justice" gospel. Even here they have a few truths sprinkled throughout, they talk about some of the "easy believism and the numbers game. One quote reads [p76] ..."lightweight exposure to Christianity where a decision for Christ is protrayed as simple and costless will fail to produce lasting faith in young people"

Well the Christian gospel is simple and Jesus Christ paid the cost, but here I am concerned too, that this is another twisted message, selling a gospel of works, but failing to point out the dangers of false conversions and false preaching. They are correct when they write: "our research indicates we have let discipleship languish in far too many young lives".  I would be in agreement with that, but the main problem is who is truly born again and/or converted and in the false churches today, there is so little biblical truth.

But what is someone like myself supposed to think when they say things like "we promote the idea to outsiders that being a Christ follower is primarily about the mere demand to convert". If someone is unconverted, nothing is going to happen anyhow that is of God. If you do not get the foundation there, you are wasting your time. Merely exposing someone [page 62] to good works, and being "nice" to them is not what the gospel is about, you actually have to preach it to them. The appeals for Christianity to "reverse it's current image", "become dynamic", speaks of "helping them get transformed"--human beings can't do that, that is the Holy Spirits job--all come together under the claims that Christianity is "too decision oriented". In thinking about the messages here, I go back to warning about my main theme, they want to change the churches and question even absolute truth itself. Why demand decisions in a place that desires you are open to endless options?

The book is full of ecumenical Catholic teachings, with guest writer Chuck Colson telling us positively on page 86, that Catholics go beyond 'the good news' and "when the local church is doing what the church is called to do--preaching the gospel, administering the sacraments [!] and exercising discipline--inevitably the surrounding cultures will be affected." Well there is the Dominionist message in a nutshell from Colson himself.

The authors back this up on page 87, telling us "Christianity is not just a relationship with Jesus" and "That's not why he came....[snip] Jesus came as a radical to turn the whole world upside down.". Ugh there is that word Radical again.

Andy Stanley [son of Charles Stanley by the way] continues the you need to be friends with someone first to share the gospel message:

"if we were able to rewrite the script for the reputation of Christianity, I think we would put emphasis on developing relationships with nonbelievers, serving them, loving them, and making them feel accepted. Only then would we earn the right to share the gospel."

Think about that one and what message is being given in this chapter. It seems to be just laying burdens on preaching the gospel in order to stop it. This is more of a subtle message to impede the gospel, that one must be "friends" with non believers and seek their acceptance to even open one's mouth. 


Next comes up the "antihomosexual" theme.  The perception they bring up is "Christians show contempt for gays and lesbians." which should be changed to the new perception of "Christians show compassion and love to all people, regardless of lifestyle."

This chapter is right about somethings in that it brings up those who are arrogant, cruel, and make jokes about homosexuals. It brings up the "god hates fags" protesters and others who are abusive and violent. With homosexuality, I do think myself a lot of the culture warriors have gone overboard focusing on this one sin above all others. It is interesting to me how evangelicals will line up to vote for a serial adulterer who served the divorce papers to a wife in a severe medical crisis, but then go on endlessly about gay marriage.

But here, this chapter seemed not to be a call just to treat homosexuals "right" even if they are sinners in need of a Savior same as we were once, but to help water down attitudes towards homosexuality. They are right to point out that all sexual sin leads to the same place and that it seems homosexuals are singled out above other sinners. I agree with the author that more rule of law is not the answer and that there are differences among homosexuals regarding politics and their view of Christianity [page 97] Things with homosexuality can be complex, with many homosexuals, abuse seems to be part of their history, and some even have brought up theories regarding psycho-social development, but I believe there is is a point where every homosexual person does sinfully choose that lifestyle.

They are correct that younger generations are more open to homosexuality. This definitely has happened via media and other outlets that have focused on advancing sexual immorality of all kinds. They do admit that sexual immorality has become more rampant and acceptance of cohabitation and more is on the rise among young people. They have a few good questions about what is the best way to witness to homosexuals, in showing them love and facing the fixating on homosexuality above other versions of sexual immorality. I have no quibble with those issues. But as I read the chapter I found myself thinking, "Oh they are seeking a watering down here." Even if they a couple times, said homosexuality was a sin to Christians, I felt the whole chapter was written to bring someone to question that.

They wrote "In the 1980s, the AIDs epidemic hit the gay community. Otherwise healthy men were dying and none knew why. The only link seemed to be their sexuality. The church had the opportunity to again speak grace and instead spewed venom." [p. 110]

With the gays, it is a complex issue, and we should treat them with love, but we see a world that is advancing homosexuality at every turn and not telling them the truth. They tell them they are born that way, that they can't help it, that is their only option. Sadly there are many who want the church to join the world too in those messages. In this chapter they at least stuck to the premise that homosexuality is a sin, but here too, some truths are hard to hear.


The next chapter covers the premise that Christians are sheltered. Here they compare the perception that "Christians are boring, unintelligent, old-fashioned and out of touch with reality" wanting to change this to "Christians are engaged, informed and offer sophisticated responses to the issues people face". I felt like one could sum up this chapter in one line to be, 'Christians need to be more hip and able to please at the dinner party".

The authors claim that Christians are caught in a "Christian bubble". Here they describe Christians as "out of tune" and "ignoring real life". [p. 122-123] With comments like "Christianity insulates people from thinking", there are "doubts that Christianity boosts intellect, "stifles curiosity" and is "aloof and insulated". The picture painted is pretty negative. For all their talk of avoiding harmful stereotypes, the one about Christians being uneducated and unintelligent is advanced here. They continue saying that the Mosaic and Buster generations are the antithesis of "sheltered." : "Sheltered faith is unappealing in that young adults resist simplistic answers. Mosaics and Busters relish mystery, uncertainty and ambiguity."

Remember what I have written about the trend to change the Christian's sticking to absolute truth? "Mystery, uncertainty and ambiguity" are the codewords for the Emergent movement. If anything to me this is a negative influence and shows generations influenced by many wicked things in modern life. They admit the challenges younger people face, changes in sexual more's, family structure, divorce, stress, substance abuse, higher suicide rates, and loneliness.

What is strange here is why they lambast the "bubble faith" of Christians, they do not seem to even recognize, the symptoms of the bubble popping. While sheltering movements in Dominionism take things to the extreme and there is wickedness in keeping people ignorant on purpose and not prepared for this world, why the message to 'engage with the world" as the world goes into moral freefall?
Speaking of people being sheltered, this entire book with it's change the world ethos, to me is hopelessly naive' and stuck in insipid visions of a global utopia.

They admit that the 60s brought social and sexual upheavals, and its true "Buster and Mosaics need help" but at the same time the demands to 'engage with the world" and become of the world are there. The stereotype that Christians are sheltered comes from the now jaded non-believers. Sadly being jaded has become seen as asset in this society, where "innocence" is seen as being foolish. If anything those who have been part of the wicked world and been saved later as adults, this does not apply? Do these folks  not know some of the older Christians saw plenty of the world before being born again this would include war veterans who saw combat, to folks working in dangerous areas, to others who have seen plenty of violence and the evil this world has to offer such as a past social worker working with youthful gang members and prostitutes?  How about those lost in false religions or lifestyles that are not of God? This idea that every older Christian grew up in a Christian family safe in an middle class American suburb is absurd. Some of us have seen plenty of what the "world" has to offer from street crime to violence to more.

They go on to discuss Christians as living in an enclave, and present a picture of most Christians being part of a Christian sub-culture that is unattached from the rest of the world. "One thing that prevents us from engaging the world is the fact that our connection with outsiders dissipates as we enter the Christian enclave." I am not so sure I see Christians entering a Christian enclave, perhaps those attached to the modern church world, many of us "scattered sheep", do not have the safety of a Christian enclave nor does our life offer that. That said, there is a nugget of truth, that in some churches, there are some Christians who only deal with other Christians or church members. Some of the chapter does have other truths here as well, when dealing with non-Christians you can approach them creatively in getting the gospel to them, you should help others as led by God and be prepared.

But sadly here too Dominionism reigns:

Here the chapter proceeds and states "it is our duty to remedy a broken world". With the save the world theme implicit within all the chapters.. This is the Dominionist clause as this other sentences dictates
[p. 132]"It is incumbent on us to develop our hearts and minds so that we can fulfill our destiny as agents of spiritual, moral and cultural transformation."
Here I find myself pondering this message and how so many will think this is something great, but it's not you see this is more false Utopianism, more Christian Triumphalism in a nutshell. I do not expect to change the world. I have a hard enough time dealing with myself and my own sin. That is the Holy Spirit's job anyhow.

The world is going to pot, believe it. Soon, WWII is probably going to look like a cakewalk considering what is coming.  I'll preach God's Word and have hope for individuals to repent and come to Jesus and be transformed in Him via the Holy Spirit. Think about the pride implicit in telling people you can be the "agents of social change", and realize it is of this world and not from God. Does the Bible tell us to transform 'the world" or does it tell us SOMETHING ELSE?

Gal 1:4    Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

I have said a sentence time to time that has shocked a few of my friends: "I have no hope in this world." So I'll say it to the Christians reading this book, "Have no hope in this world, you will be sorely disappointed". The Christian should look at this knowing this world is not our home. A few times they refer to "isolationists", maybe that is the word they use for those who believe the way I do. Where are they leading people when they tell them things like:

"Christianity begins to shift it's sheltered reputation when Christ followers are engaged, informed and on the leading edge offering a sophisticated response to the issues people face?"
Who wants more sophistication? The world is already full of "sophisticated" self-appointed experts issue their edicts on high. That is one thing I ponder as these types call for Christians to "take over the world". We must bring the gospel to people, but think of the pride of those who think their sophisticated responses are going to solve all the world's problems? The pride is extreme. To me it denotes out of touch types, who have not been in the trenches but love to brag about going to them.

With the subcultures they bring up for Christians to reach out to, Loners, Academics, Self Injurers, the Fatherless, I agree Christians should reach out to others. Even on this blog I have written about the family integrated churches and other groups that disenfranchise those who are not part of a family. Christians should reach out to the poor and outcast but sadly the focus is not on the salvation of these people in this book, but more of the social gospel.

Guest writer Margaret Feinberg writes "Then wake up to the cold reality you're part of the plan..[snip] have a role in preserving the earth, protecting the poor, defending the exploited."

I'm not part of any plan except God's will. The social works gospel continues. One thing, this book would make anyone exhausted in reading the save the world edicts that are part of it.

Louie Giglio as well as a guest writer comes on and describes his "Do Something Now Campaign"  This campaign was part of Passion 2012 which took place recently. I know of churches that have run around as part of this campaign going around doing community work. Usually not for personal people, but city charities and groups like United Way. Check out the rest too:


On the second video notice the usual UN global campaigns that are being pushed, where "rich Americans" [odd how these churches deny the economic collapse in America] are to share their wealth with the world. Now for anyone who is new to this blog, I have gone into depth, not because I do not care about the poor but I realize how they use some of these things to collect money the poor never see. This blog article goes more into depth and explains the foundation of the deceit. Please read if you have not yet, to understand this article fully:

"Liberation Theology: Exploiting the Poor For Power and The Globalist UN Driven "Church"

"Crazy Love: Frances Chan: The Same Messages as David Platt"

So when preachers like this use tear-jerker videos about the world's poverty, I want you to ponder this, the UN globalist system is making their lives even worse and more oppressed. Keep in mind the corporate controllers who profit off slave labor in factories and elsewhere, are the ones who prop up the World Bank, the WTO and the UN with entire cultures and villages decimated to enrich the globalists.  It's not just Americans being ripped off by unrepentant bankers who serve the interests of the global elites and the Vatican, but many many third world nations. In fact the nations where we are going to war NOW, are ones that were "outside the system."

Sometimes it is hard to write about these things, all of us feel bad about what the poor suffer but knowing how they are used for money clean outs and exploitations and to promote false Christianity, it is sickening. Also remember this is to promote the "unite the world" messages.

Remember how I have told you, that you can find the occult and satanic markers in this stuff? Well doing research for this article, I found some. That last video above, has some really weird stuff in it..."Divine One"? Sigh...that looks like a smear of blood on top and someone mimicking a crucifixion pose.

Not good....

Here you see of course in the Unchristian book, the works based, social gospel promoted.


I of course would agree YES, 44 articles warning about politically driven Dominionism definitely would say so, but here we must used caution for the mixed messages here as well. They write the perception which definitely has some truth for fallen away Christianity: "Christians are primarily motivated by political agendas and promote right-wing politics", desiring to change this to the new perception of "Christians are characterized by respecting people, thinking biblically and finding solutions to complex problems."

Here they talk about young people who are rightly concerned about the mix of politics and religion and the elevation of politicians within the Christian world. Their research studies have found many upset by the over-political nature of many Christians and churches. Obviously these are sentiments I have shared. But you see they keep the message that Christians SHOULD remain involved in politics:

"But first you should realize that my goal is not to suggest that Christians should neglect or ignore politics. The political arena is a crucial setting for influencing culture and an important domain for expressing a Christian worldview." [p. 155]

"To address the deep challenges are facing people in our nation and around the world, Gabe and I have come to the conclusion that being politically engaged is more important than ever. As I discussed in chapter 6, Christians should be known as engaged, informed and on the leading edge, offering a sophisticated response to issues. Being engaged with politics is a way of doing that."

See my article: Politics and The Christian: Deceit of This World" 

They bring up more of the issues of the generations that younger people are more pragmatic, want to do "what works", are less idealistic, and hold much less "traditional political and social views" and less likely to be automatically Republican or support a "Christianized" country. [aka theocracy].

A lot makes sense here about young people seeing the contradictions and hypocrisy in the so called "Religious Right", but then what does this offer but more of the "right and left" deception? The authors stress that Christians should not isolate themselves or remain uninvolved with politics [p168] With voices like Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren here, what truth is really being told, except maybe a shove to the left or a convergence of right and left? [when both are false?]

Brian McLaren writes:

"But even so, a diagnosis of the evaporation of Christian commitment in the West and a prescription about how to respond must go deeper then complaining about the mistakes of the Religious Right.  [snip] As for prescriptions, yes we need more Bible, and what it says about justice, compassion, the future, power, poverty, money, war, sex and the kingdom of God. Yes we need more maturity--but we also need a better and more holistic maturity, a maturity willing to face the historic and social realities of our so called-Christian past: a past that includes anti-Semitism, racism, chauvanism, holocaust, colonialism, apartheid, slavery, attempted genocide of native peoples and much else that is ugly and calls not for excuses and minimization but for forthright repentance. p173,

Here you see the basic leftist doctrines, actually more balkinization and actually more separation and hatred between people,  stressing racial and other differences ignoring Acts 17:26.  Instead of healing, they rip the scabs constantly off old wounds.  Descendants cannot repent for sins they did not commit.This is typical American style "liberation theology" which is yet another dead-end.

In the UU, I sat there listening to this same sort of stuff about how "big bad Westerners" had to repent of everything wrong done to the third world and other chosen "oppressed groups" and yes while evils were committed in our history , evil is not just an American enterprise but comes to ALL GROUPS.

 It reminds me of the UUs who cried tears over what was happening in Bali and made a religion of recycling, but ignored the homeless right across the railroad tracks or even the poor right within in their own church.  Of course here you see instead of Religious Right edicts, the edicts of the Religious Left, and both are wrong. 

The authors get the corruption of the RIGHT correct, but the corruption is endemic to politics as a whole. Of course I do not expect Barna directed authors to warn us about the new world order or about the Hegelian Dialectic when they are helping to direct people to NWO solutions, answers and teachers.

One of the guest authors is Mark Rogers, on page 178 who talks about his own past in politics, the outrage against religious right people who do not want to fight global AIDS [ever wonder why that disease gets more attention then even more dangerous and widespread malaria?] He talks about new younger evangelicals being lost and the focus on "first things'" principles leading people astray. He admits politics are not everything but calls for "new and saltier" forms of "cultural engagement". I noticed under his article was his name, and the description, 'former staff director, Senate Republican Conference and it showed that he was the president of The Clapham Group. [p. 178]

I decided to go look The Clapham group up....there is the familiar oak TREE too. The branches look kind of like claws.

Notice something there? Bill and Melinda Gates and The One Campaign are sponsors. The "One Campaign" has total connections to the United Nations and it's Millennium Goals. NEA "National Association of Evangelicals, The Poverty Forum, oddly The Jonas Brothers and other groups are listed as well.  These 'CHANGES' to the Christian church that are desired are part of the elite's program and they are working on young people steadily.

Now thing about what place the globalists want to take everyone political and realize both left and right are being used and its in the churches.


This is one that has been lobbed at at any Christian who has stood for biblical truth usually followed by an exhortation misusing the verse from Luke 6:37, "Thou shalt not judge". 

Here on they outline the perceptions they want to change that "Christians are prideful and quick to find faults in others" wanting to change this to "Christians show grace by finding good in others and seeing their potential to be Christ followers."

They speak some truth when they say "Christians are trying, consciously or not to justify feelings of moral and spiritual superiority." Here the surveys say that 87% of young people consider Christians to be judgmental. The authors write how the younger generations do question motives more quickly. But sadly here too the theme of absolute truth is derided.

"Second the new generations is increasingly resistant to simplistic black-and-white views of the world. We do not have to like this element of generational coding, but it is a feature of the way they process life-nothing is simple. They esteem context, ambiguity and tension. Often judgmental attitudes come across as overly simplified old-fashioned and out of step with their diverse world. With young people, how we communicate is as important as what we communicate."

That last sentence is disturbing because I mentioned that in this article: "The Scripts Used to Silence and Mislead Christians" where to discredit a message they make it all about the messenger or HOW it is given. The above tells us what the decades of moral relativism and situational ethics has done to young people. I do not think this is a good trend like the authors do.  The quote above even covers #2 and #4 in my scripts article. 

They are right about the "do it yourself" morality gaining momentum and admit that people still have to answer to a Holy Judge and the differences between talking to people rather then condemning them in a way that would turn them off from the gospel. They say "Christians [57 percent in the survey] are quick to find fault with others" and say "churches are not seen as loving places". One question with validity is "Are we trying to please God or polishing our holy credentials in front of fellow insiders?"

They are right that judging people by appearances is wrong such as rejecting someone for tattoos or piercings or the way they dress or when people have the wrong motivations and are not loving or play favorites. They are correct that stereotypes can be a problem and about the outsiders that need reaching out to and that Christians should love the misfits or the disenfranchised as well. They state that "Jesus gives a clear example of pursuing people", though I do not agree with their conjecture that He "accepted people at face value" because Jesus while He loved people confronted them with their sin. 

But while reading this I felt uncomfortable, I could tell it was just an enhancer of the "haters" script I wrote about on the scripts article. Some of this advice is good but where does the "do not judge" message lead? Isn't this is just another way to tell the 'terrible' Christians that they are just haters who need to be quiet? Think about this, are we living in puritanical times or in an era of moral laxity?

One of the most quoted guest authors chimes in, Margaret Feinberg on page 200

"One of our weaknesses is that we're far more concerned with being right than being righteous. We become like the Pharisees whenever we focus on issues rather then people. Judgmentalism creeps in whenever we deal with issues as if they were black and white, rather than flesh and blood humans in need of redemption. Do you want to remove the unhealthy judgmentalism you have in regard to the poor? Make sure you have poor people who you love and welcome in your life. Do you want to remove the unhealthy judgmentalism you have in regard to homosexuals? Make sure you have gays and lesibans whom you love and welcome in your life. Do you want to remove the unhealthy judgementalism you have in regards to our government? Make sure you have people involved in politics {even if it's just on the local level} whom you love and welcome in your life."

I found this part kind of absurd and patronizing.  What if you are one of the poor or have been one of them and are reading this book? As if poor people in America are rarer then the Dodo bird?  Some of you probably can tell, that the world of these 'church changers" to me is an elitist set-apart world that does not even represent most of us. How many people unless they live in a cave, do not know any homosexuals or people involved in politics? One line about judging the government, something committed citizens should be doing in the cause of freedom, would be funny if it wasn't so sad and just another way to tell people to stop thinking and blindly accept what is happening.

Margaret Feinberg is quoted a lot, so I went to go look up who she is:

She seems to be a full blown Emergent. This book is kind of disturbing especially the part bringing the bees in:

She has written two other books, one called The Organic God and one called The Sacred Echo.

She writes in The Sacred Echo [from the review]:

"The sacred echo is an invitation to spiritual awakening. Margaret writes, 'I want a relationship with God where prayer is as natural as breathing. If God is the one in whom we are to live and move and have our being, then I want my every inhale infused with his presence, my every exhale an extension of his love.' If that's your desire too, let Sacred Echo be your guide to a deeper, more rewarding relationship with the God of the universe."

There we can see the New Age influences, Emergent teachings and the centering prayer pseudo-pantheism right for ourselves.

Is that judgmental for me to say? I think not. We need to be careful of those who want to shut down all thinking and truth under the guise of "do not judge". Do not let them guilt you because they bring false theology with their do not judge messages. One can sin in self righteousness, but one must avoid the traps of the "do not judge" crowd! This is the most neglected verse in the Bible after all....

1Cr 6:2    Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?


The book sums up its many premises on page 206.

"In this final chapter I'd like to discuss a straightforward but challenging idea: to shift our reputation, Christ followers must learn to respond to people in the way Jesus did. In other words, to reverse the problem of unChristian faith, we have to see people, addressing their needs and their criticism as Jesus did. We have to be defined by our service and sacrifice, by lives that exude humility and grace. If young outsiders say they can't see Jesus in our lives, we have to solve our "hidden Jesus" problem."

This sounds good on the face of it but has many deceptions woven into it. First of all is the social justice, "works" gospel, [very Catholic by the way] where definition comes by what one "does" [the service and sacrifice], except now the trend is to adapt the false social gospel and twist it further to serve global agendas set up by the elite. The second thing, is the worrisome desire to define Christianity by the views and desires of the unsaved who do not have the Holy Spirit to spiritually "see". What kind of Christianity molds itself to fit that but a false one?

What saddens me is the young people and others, who will see the call to service and the calls to be more like "Jesus" in this book and who will be deceived.

Who here hasn't desired to reach the lost or even remembered their own days of wandering in darkness? When the authors write things like:
"I believe part of the reasons Christians are known as unChristian is because the church has lost its ability and willingness to love and accept people who are not part of the insider club."

Such a sentence is meant to pull on your heartstrings, but be careful where it leads. The authors are promoting the ecumenical "gospel", how else to gather the one world religion together except in promoting global  service and that people should all come together? The praise for Chuck Colson's book "How Now Shall We Live?" says it all on page 223. He quotes Colson's Dominionist exhortations to "build a society to the glory of God" from this book. He positively protrays Mother Teresa and shows her quote: "Find Your Own Calcutta".

The book concludes quoting many notable religious leaders under a section called New Perspectives. I can only quote snippets here, but I think you'll get the idea. Among them are the now deceased John Stott who tells us, "My hope is that, in the future evangelical leaders will ensure their social agenda includes such vital but controversial topics as halting climate change, eradicating poverty, abolishing amories of mass destruction, responding adequately to the AIDS pandemic and asserting the human rights of women and children in all cultures." Dave Gibbons tells us that the "future of Christian love" should include "responding immediately to any global crisis" and "prioritizing the other."  Gary Haugen tells us "Thirty years from now, Christians won't be known for what they say or what they hope to be; they will be known for one thing--the way they live."

Dan Kimball adds "I absolutely know we need Christian community, but we have swung the pendulum so far into Christian "community" that we now live in more of an isolated world. Our time is filled with Christian activities and busyness in the church, taking us away from building normal and healthy relationships in the world." Margaret Feinberg adds "Those Christians are the ones who helped win the war on AIDS around the world."

Leroy Barber adds more Dominionist flavor with "My hope is that when I am seventy-two, I will have seen the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our God." Jim Wallis states "The church's mission will expand to protecting the environment, confronting global and domestic poverty and addressing the ethics of war and peace." Chuck Colson praises Catholic Chesterton and writes "I believe that when we work together to educate Christians on the ideas of world view, common grace and the Christian's responsibility for human rights and human dignity, the world will see an entirely different picture painted."

Jeff Johnson says "If followers of Christianity follow Christ for the next thirty years, Christianity will be compromised of faith-filled believers who are focused on the manifestations of God's power in every aspect of their lives with the purpose of having dominion on earth until Christ returns." Kevin Kelly sees the trends among the young leading to "exhibit a softening towards pluralism in reaction to the hard religious politics of thier parents generation", and sees a "delve into mysticism-depending on the path of future technology" Jonalyn Fincher thinks our "souls will be bigger". Mike Foster sees the future thusly: "One Day the world will ask, "Where are all those Christian freaks at? I pray our answer will be, "We're over here helping in the ravaged slums of Africa and happily drilling wells in Haitain villages. And guys, we're going to be here for a while.  Kevin Palau believes "Followers of Christ will be on the cutting edge in taking on the most pressing challenges facing humanity-from Aids and poverty to global debt relife and human trafficking. We'll be known as "world Christians".

and Rick Warren gives his input stating

"My passion is to help the next generation of church leaders guide their congregations in taking on the world's biggest problems {"the global giants"}: spiritual emptiness, egocentric leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic disease and rampant illiteracy" Brian McLaren calls for
"the rich nations to work for the common good."

So you see here is where they want to take the Christian church. There is a reason in the quotes above you should feel like you are reading a Millennium Development Goals sheet from the United Nations.

The main message of this book to me? [and yes I found it difficult to read] was 'BE OF THIS WORLD and MAKE THIS WORLD A NEW PLACE'....[the whole DOMINIONIST LINE]This isn't the Christian faith but another one entirely based on works defined by the global elites.

1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Pray for our young people. They will need it. 


mijadedios said...

sounds like the book is saying "Christians are Evil" and those "doers of works" are going to be our salvation since we suck so badly. I've been thinking about this theme a lot lately; Everything is Evil. Having been one who has 'exposed' (or just stupid enough to open my mouth and try to warn my fellow Christian) like your last cartoon in this post, I have experienced the proverbial "Lol-look at you you're evil too" attack from my fellow brethren! And I agree, and I think they are too. So now that we all agree that we are all abased and useless and worthless and that no one seeks righteousness-no not one, now can we move on to our Saving Grace in our Father by His Son, through the power of the Holy Spirit? I pray that I don't have to profess my faith but that others would accuse me of it. How great a day that will be when I am hated for His namesake and not for just being a jerk.

Bible Believer said...

This book was VERY depressing to read. A few times, I felt like crying reading it knowing the false gospel they were trying to sell people. Sometimes I have to read or look at very unpleasant stuff to warn about it. To me it was nothing but an rehash of WORKS BASED Roman Catholicism but with the one world "SAVE THE EARTH" twist given to it all. You are right that the basic message is that "Christians are Evil" and that "works" [saving the planet and following the UN Millennnium mandates will be our only salvation]. One thing I kept thinking was all the writers wrote, like we all get to live forever on planet earth, and we all reap the it's "riches". It was kind of creepy. Yes I have heard the "you're evil" too stuff. When people say that to me, I say "Yeah you are right, and that is why I needed a Savior". I agree about praying of being accused of being a Christian and those days that will come of being hated for His namesake. This book, as I was reading it, it was like none of them ever heard of the gospel of grace and IT WAS ALL WORKS BASED nonsense. My last line too, about them LOVING the WORLD. The whole book is about NOTHING but LOVING THIS WORLD AND THIS LIFE.

Lisa Ruby said...

Bible Believer, you have really hit the nail on the head. Did you see this article?

This article actually describes false Christianity. It is basically sending the message that if the churches don't want to bow down to the demands of those who love the darkness and hate the light, well, they need to change.

Real churches exist to edify the saints and equip them to serve God, not coddle those who love the world and despise Biblical Christianity!

Anonymous said...

This is all related to "Communitarianism":

Living Outside The Dialectic: Niki Raapana talks to herself about communitarianism -

"Q. Can you break this down into more bite size pieces?

A. We can try. Communitarianism can be broken down into four main sub sections.

1. philosophy
2. religion
3. political ideology
4. law

1. Philosophically, communitarianism is the final synthesis in the Hegelian dialectic. Communitarians insist that humanity cannot advance to its final evolutionary stage of perfection without the help of their expert planning, guidance and administrators, who are obviously much more enlightened than the rest of us common born sinners.

2. The religious basis for communitarianism rests in the oldest dialectic still in existence, the Talmud. Dr. Amitai Etzioni of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University in DC is the American guru. He's a former Israeli commando who studied the Talmud and the Kaballa, and according to him, this makes him the international "expert" on how to build more livable communities.

In his 30 plus published books and hundreds of articles, Etzioni laid out standard Hegelian justifications for military and community development interventions. His solution to staged Hegelian clashes between nations is to end all nations. Etzioni assures us that individual rights and liberties can only continue to exist if they are balanced against the common good. The least discussed fact about the new legal system is that all former laws must be made agreeable to the superior unwritten Talmud. Zionist led Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of Islamic law in formerly Christian nations are part of a perfectly crafted Hegelian ploy to ensure a brutal, endless conflict continues to grow between the two primary religious barriers to communitarian global governance."

BANG. There it is.

Anonymous said...

I know I am late to the party. Thankfully I had never heard of this book until recently. Thank you for taking on the difficult job of wading through it and condensing the many things wrong with it.

In addition to malaria not ranking as one of the social ills needing attention, does abortion merit a mention by these emergent leaders? Does the slaughter of tiny, innocent human lives on a massive scale cause them any alarm? I understand that many of these people are political supporters of those who think this holocaust is acceptable. How do they reconcile that with their "brand" of Christianity?

Bible Believer said...

I am wondering about a system of NEO-FEUDALISM being instituted. I guess some would call it COMMUNITARIANISM Anon. I don't do the blame the JEWS game. The luciferians [some call themselves Jews and are not] are running the show. The Talmud is just one luciferian false religion book among many, they all share in same false messages.

Bible Believer said...

Yes I found the focus on malaria strange, but usually malaria gets out voted by AIDS, which is spread by sexual contact and drugs though, there are a few innocents who get it, hemophiliacs, those who are assaulted, etc. AIDS is usually the disease they focus on when there are many more life-threatening diseases out there. {river blindness, ebola, etc}

They usually do ignore abortion. Yes that is a good question....

It's all about selling globalist programs, I guess some "problems" sell better then others. With half the population clamoring for "reproductive rights"[the right to kill their unborn babies] they pick what is politically correct.