Drinking Kool-Aide in the New Jonestown

I saw where Tony Jones recently bragged on his weblog about changing his title to Ecclesiologist. Why not? He’s a poor theologian.

While reading “The New Kierkegaardians Christians”, I am reminded of Jim Jones. He was a church leader too. Jim Jones was a sweaty, lecherous, megalomaniac who led his flock to their deaths in a sweaty place called Jonestown. They killed themselves drinking Kool-Aide which Pastor Jones served to them. It was a case of murder by bad theology.

Whenever someone talks about Kool-Aide in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a reference to Jonestown. And by the way, the Kool-Aide in Jonestown was poisoned. The poison was the lethal part.

Is Tony’s theology poisoned? I think it is.

Having arrived at Chapter 4 – “The Theology Stupid”, I wonder about the people who choose to swallow this drivel. Why don’t they see the flaw in Tony’s theology when he says; “And finally, the world, to which the gospel would be preached was not the planet Earth. The only world known to Jesus was the Roman Empire…” (pg. 98)? Either Tony Jones thinks God is very limited in His knowledge, or he doesn’t think Jesus was God.

Seeing what Mr. Jones says about postmodernism as the ingredient to liberate theology, I have to wonder if Emergers will swallow anything and everything with a “new” label slapped on it.  How can they not perceive his subterfuge when he ties “foundationalism” to biblical faith and declares both wrong (pg. 19 & 103)?  According to Tony, there isn’t an “indubitable foundation” in the Bible, or for knowing God (pg. 19). Tony Jones replaces the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) with existentialism when he speaks about “conceiving” of  being a follower Christ (pg. 103). Tony says his Kierkegaardian theology begets a new way of life!

I‘ve highlighted many such flaws and poisonous contradictions in my copy of the book. I could go on and on, but reading this book is tiresome! Tony and I are worlds apart in what we believe. 

Tony says that theology is defined as "words about God" (pg. 47). How is it that Tony’s three pillars of Emergent theology; it should be local, conversational, and temporary -- are considered by anyone as being consistent with the Holy Bible? Is God not omnipresent, all-knowing, and eternal? Tony Jones doesn’t seem to think so, and his Emergent brethren seem to agree. According to Emergent theology, their words about God don’t have to agree with the Word of God.

How is it that such a man as Tony Jones can be considered fit to define what a church should be?

Watch out for the poison in the theological Kool-aide Mr. Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

The Emergent Confusion

I constantly find myself astonished at the heresies being proclaimed by so-called Christians. I'm beginning to think we could study a different popular heresy every day for the next year and not run out of them. The Emergent Church is the Al-Queda of Christianity. It's an infestation that seems to have the marks of an Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ cult.

A brother by the name of Phil Perkins has been blogging on the Emergent church for some time. I must admit that I had heard the term 'emergent church' many months ago. I didn't pay enough attention then to even find out what the term meant. I first heard of it from a very liberal fellow who claims to be Christian. He is a rather undiscriminating critic of Christianity in general, so I took it as undeserved epithet.

But I ran smack up against an Emergent web site tonight while looking at tools for Bible blogging. I could not believe what they were saying about making God's dreams come true. How arrogant can they be? Gee, aren't you glad that somebody has figured out that God is too puny to make his own dreams come true?

Notice that these people fancy themselves as 'kingdom builders'. Osama and Mahmoud are kingdom builders too. They don't like the current order of things either. Emergers have the notion that they are going to evangelize the world through good works while purposely down-playing the Gospel. Their gospel is a social message. They claim that the Church has alienated the rest of the world by proclaiming the message of sin, righteousness, and judgement. Emergers hope to restore Christianity to its 'authentic' form.

I found that Emergent web site through a blog about a new bible translation, The Books of the Bible. It seems to be a version tailored for Emergers. The following bullet points are very interesting;

• chapter and verse numbers are removed from the text (a chapter-and-verse range is at the bottom of each page)
• individual books are presented with the literary divisions that their authors have indicated
• footnotes, section headings and other supplementary materials have been removed from the text (translators’ notes are available at the back of each book)
• the books of the Bible have been placed in an order that provides more help in understanding, based on literary genre, historical circumstance and theological tradition
• single books that later translations or tradition divided
  into two or more books are made whole again
  (example: Luke-Acts)
• single-column setting that clearly and naturally presents the
  literary forms of the Bible’s books

Ah how refreshing! Yes, nominal Christians aren't reading their Bibles, so we have a few tricks to fool them into thinking it's just another book. Who knew that footnotes, verse numbers, and chapters were hindering Christians all along? This will fix everything that is wrong with the church!

It's late and I need to call it a day. There are so many things wrong with this movement that I can't hope to scratch the surface tonight.

God must have a sense of humor.

I have been considering something I read in Chapter 2 of Dowling's heretic gospel. Dowling claimed to have received his false gospel from the Akashic Records. That non-existent "book" is supposed to be in Sanskrit. But when Dowling mimics the Gospel of Luke, he stupidly calls Jesus by the Greek name "Jesus".

I would think that someone translating from Sanskrit to English would not lean on Greek for words to express the original language. Obviously, I don't know Sanskrit, and I don't know any Greek apart from my Bible and Concordance. But I know enough to ask these questions. Isn't there a word in Sanskrit for savior? Why not use that in stead of a Greek word?

Perhaps it is to fool stupid people who don't want to receive the the true Gospel anyway?

Well, the reason I think it's strangely funny is that the fake "book of life", the Akashic Record, is supposed to be in Sanskrit. This book that Dowling's fake gospel claims to have come from does not exist! There are no manuscripts of it. It is supposed to be a book that you read out of thin air through ESP. That alone is quite funny, but the kicker is that it is supposed to be in Sanskrit!

Sanskrit means 'self-made', or 'made up' if you please. How's that for a punch line?

A person would have to be pretty stupid to take that made-up hogwash over the Holy Bible. Even many of the Gospel-mocking liberals recognize that we have ancient manuscripts of the Bible.

Somebody is going to ask, Do you really think that God would laugh at someone being fooled? Why not? He says that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). Jesus said that we can't do anything without Him (John 15:5). Everybody gets to choose, and if they insist on choosing foolishly, He won't stop them. Friend, you prove God right when you reject Jesus Christ and then want to complain that he allowed you to do it. By doing that you prove yourself to by your own problem. He says you're a problem for yourself. Why don't you listen to Him?

'Self-made'. Get it?

The only trouble is that in proving God right you prove yourself to be wrong. I'll agree, that isn't so good. That's a bitter pill to swallow!

PS: There is a concept of salvation, in the general sense, in Hinduism. Sanskrit words exist to describe it. It's nothing like the concept of salvation in Christianity or Judaism, but it's there nevertheless. So there is good reason to believe that Dowling could have provided a name for Jesus (Savior) from Sanskrit.  It's funny how the simplest things tend to betray a lie for what it is. That is certainly the case for Dowling's phony Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Greatest Impact of Heresy? (Whence hath it tares?)

I'm caught up in an ever-expanding search to identify heretics and heresy in recent times. I am beginning to see that heresy and hypocrisy in the Church have a two-pronged effect. It causes distress and doubt within the Body of Christ. And it obscures the person of Christ by "scrambling" the message.

These heretics, like Levi Dowling, blend a lot of leaven with a little bit of God's Word. Some of this trash will be quite palatable to the average church member. It will seem like scripture to the average so-called Christian who rarely steps foot in a Gospel-preaching church. It will become the "bible" for those looking easy feel-good religion. Others will just decide all religion is foolishness, because paganism seems to permeate it all.

I was just reading a bit about Rosicrucianism and a connection was implied between that heresy and Lutherinism. And for a moment I wonder if Christianity hasn't been utterly corrupted? -- I don't believe it has, because we have a wonderful Shepherd. He told us about the tares growing with the wheat (Matthew 13), so we'd know that He knows about them, and we don't have to lose faith over this kind of nonsense. -- But I can see that heresy is meant to cause confusion within and without.

Well Christian brother or sister, it's up to you to be sure of those things which you have received in Christ. The Holy Spirit is given to you for that purpose. He'll take the things of Christ and show them unto you. He's the author of the Word, and you have Him to help you understand it. He'll also convict the world of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment. Read the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Accept no substitutes!

Yikes! Many birds in the mustard tree.

I was writing articles for this web log when I began to uncover a string of heresies and heretics. I decided to start another blog to organize thumbnail sketches of what I was finding, a catalog of heresy if you will. My quest began with Levi H. Dowling and his "Aquarian Gospel". I found Dowling's heresy through Jim E. Bakers "The Source" cult. I stumbled onto "The Source" cult when browsing through videos to rent at Amazon.

One of my latest encounters along this line involves L. Frank Baum. He wrote the The Wonderful Wizard of Oz about 3 years after he joined the super-cult of Theosophy. How many children of my generation (an increasingly godless group) grew up watching The Wizard of Oz year after year on television. I also think back to my own rejection of the Catholic faith of my early childhood, and my investigations in to the occult and mystery religions. I've begun to wonder what real and specific connections between the growth of apostasy in the last century and the rise of influential heretics are going to turn up?

I just discovered that Alfred Kinsey had ties to Theosophy. I already knew, through the work of Judith Reisman, that he was a hideous sexual pervert. I had also stumbled on to Alice Bailey, and her ties to the United Nations, three years ago. It's interesting to start seeing connections between them and their fowl works.

It's also rather overwhelming to consider.