Is Shane Claiborne a Christian-Muslim?

 By Ken Silva

The Emergence Of The Mystic Non-Gospel Of Non-Conversion As Everyone’s God’s People

Consider the following from Tony Campolo, who’s one of those Red Letter Christians along with other apostates like Living Spiritual Teacher and Emerging Church guru Brian McLaren, progressive theologian Tony Jones, the heretical “theologian in residence” at the gathering place of his equally heretical universalist pastor Doug Pagitt—who together comprise the unholy trinity of the sinfully ecumenical Emergent Church. Campolo is mentor for another RLC, Shane Claiborne of the New Monasticism, and as I pointed out in Mysticism’s Gospel Of Goodness And Shane Claiborne Campolo would opine and then query the below in one of his books:

a theology of mysticism provides some hope for common ground between Christianity and Islam. Both religions have within their histories examples of ecstatic union with God, which seem at odds with their own spiritual traditions but have much in common with each other.

I do not know what to make of the Muslim mystics, especially those who have come to be known as the Sufis. What do they experience in their mystical experience? Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism?[1]

Notice the double-speak as first Campolo tells us Islam and Christianity both have “examples of ecstatic union with God”; then he muses, “Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism?” Campolo certainly hopes so; this would help him win friends and influence people within Islam, and would by-pass that nasty exclusive message of Scripture e.g. — Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him (Romans 8:9). Yeah, that’s just gonna get in the way of this whole Muslim-Christian thing; so we’ll ignore it because we feel that faithful Muslims, who’re doing “good” in the area of global social reform, must be following God in the way of Jesus.

Ah, I know, even if they don’t personally happen to know it; yeah, that’ll work, salvation by osmosis. Hey in this case, no siree Buddha, we don’t need that old Gospel of repentance and forgiveness of sins in Jesus’ Name.

If someone looks good to us—in other words—hates the evil empire and does good deeds like us, then they’re in; pretty slick, eh. In fact, in that Claiborne article I mentioned above I brought to your attention that, what I’ve just outlined above, is the mystic non-gospel. I showed you by quoting one of Claiborne’s heroes; that would be the late apostate Mother Teresa, who actually took her name out of her respect for so-called “Christian” mystic Teresa of Avila. From my personal copy of her book, following the words of the universalist Mother Teresa, “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from her organization] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence.” The “witness to the love of God’s presence” is mystic-speak, and not trying “to convert” people is simply more man-centered music in tune with those who have itching ears. She goes on to say:

Whether you are a Hindu, a Moslem or a Christian, how you live your life is the proof that you are fully his or not. We must not condemn or judge or pass words that will hurt people. Maybe a person has never heard of Christianity. We do not know what way God is appearing to that soul and what way God is drawing that soul, and therefore who are we to condemn anybody? It matters to the individual what church he belongs to.

If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation. This is the way God comes into his life.[2]

No doubt people in other religions will love hearing that; but it is dead wrong, and if we truly love God and our fellow man then we will tell them the truth from God’s Word. We’ll do it as lovingly, patiently, and gently, as possible because the Christian has been given the minstry of reconciliation so:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
(2 Corinthians 5:16-21)

But Campolo and Claiborne aren’t interested in that; I think you see why such as these aligned themselves with those who eschew sola Scriptura. Yeah, unfortunately the Bible just keeps getting in the way of their lovefest with Islam so as Campolo says:

We don’t have to give up trying to convert each other. What we have to do is show respect to one another. And to speak to each other with a sense that even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people,… (Online source)

Ok, we say hi to Humpty Dumpty again; right Tony, we can keep “trying to convert”…um, “God’s people” and…ah, “even if people don’t convert, they are God’s people.” I see it now; after lying awake as I sleep in the light tonight, I can then start my evening tomorrow morning by taking a shower with cool, dry, hot water. Gothcha boys. And as I close this, for now, in the article I just quoted above Claiborne confesses:

When a devout Muslim brother asked Tony and I to have this cross-generational dialogue about interreligious cooperation for an interfaith publication, we jumped on it. (Online source, emphasis mine)

My question is: If Shane Claiborne has a devout Muslim “brother,” does this now make Claiborne himself a Christian-Muslim? I mean, apparently he’s in the process of approaching this in the opposite direction from those alleged hybrid Muslim-Christians, who’re practicing Muslims that supposedly “love Jesus.” So could it be that, in Shane Claiborne, we’re witnessing a new breed hybrid of Christian-Muslims practicing Christianity but who also love Muhmmad? Stay tuned…

________________________________________________________________________________
Endnotes:

[1] Tony Campolo, Speaking My Mind: The Radical Evangelical Prophet Tackles the Tough Issues Christians Are Afraid to Face [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2004], 149, 150, emphasis mine.

[2] Kathryn Spink, Mother Teresa, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations and Prayers [New York: HarperCollins, 1983], 81, 82, emphasis mine.

(HT: Apprising Ministries)

Heaven, Hell, and Emergent Heresy

By Eric Barger

When one does a careful evaluation of the teachings of Emergent leaders, such as Doug Pagitt, Rob Bell, and Brian McLaren, it becomes apparent that they do not believe that Heaven, as described in the Bible, actually exists. Even clearer is their denunciation against the notion of a literal Hell. Their focus is only on the "here-and-now" existence of this life and experiencing the "journey" and "conversations" it presents.

Pagitt, for example, bristles at the notion that Heaven and Hell are actual places. According to Pagitt, God interacts with all people the same way. When asked what happens to the "good Muslim" when he dies, Pagitt told commentator Todd Friel,

"God's going to judge the life and repair and restore and heal the life of everybody in the same way."

Pagitt then stated that God will interact with Christians in the same way that He will with Muslims after they die. He is very clearly stating that every orthodox idea of Christianity has been mistaken and that in the end God reconciles ALL people, regardless of what they believe or even if they believe. This is the heart and soul of so-called "reconciling" universalism. (See: YouTube clip)

Emergent godfather, Brian McLaren, made his feelings on Hell and the Cross known to "Bleeding Purple Podcast" interviewer, Leif Hansen, in this well-traveled statement: 

"The Cross is almost a distraction and false advertising for God." (Source)

McLaren also told Beliefnet Online interviewer Sherry Huang, 

"For many Christians, their faith is primarily about what happens to people after they die. That distracts them from seeking justice and living in a compassionate way while we're still alive in this life. We need to go back and take another look at Jesus' teachings about hell. For so many people, the conventional teaching about hell makes God seem vicious. That's not something we should let stand."
(Source)

Rob Bell muses his redefinition of Hell, saying, 

"When people use the word hell, what do they mean? They mean a place, an event, a situation absent of how God desires things to be. Famine, debt, oppression, loneliness, despair, death, slaughter - they are all hell on earth."
(Velvet Elvis, p.148)

In an interview discussing their 2009 book, Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile, Bell and co-author Don Golden say that the Church in America is in exile today. Bell and Golden say that by participating in our culture (they call America an "empire") and by supporting our government/military system and by using oil, we are "oppressors" and create suffering for others. They conveniently ignore the fact that America, in particular the Christians in her, have done more to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ than any other nation in history - hands down! But in emergent/leftist thought, anything smelling like capitalism must be shunned (except for enjoying the many benefits life in the USA offers). This is nothing less than 1960's, counter-culture, hippie liberalism now being referred to as "Evangelical Christianity!"

One might wonder how a nice evangelical kid from Wheaton ended up as perhaps the most popular leader in the heretical Emergent Church. Bell and his wife, Kristen, say that their Christian world became constricting - in Kristen's words, "black and white...." And how did the Bells find their way out of the black-and-white world where they had been so successful and so dissatisfied? "Our lifeboat," Kristen says, "was A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren."

If you wish the same fate that has befallen the Bells, all one has to do is abandon the teachings of God's inerrant Word and adopt what McLaren, Pagitt (and now Rob Bell) are selling.

How much documentation will we have to produce and how many more reasons will be needed for postmoderns with any scrap of biblical understanding to come to their senses and realize that Emergent Christianity isn't really Christianity at all? Instead, it is cultic, deceptive and eternally damning.

(HT: BPT)

Emergence Christianity - Denial of Hell

By Justin Edwards

Before we delve deeper into the intricacies of the Emergent Church, which has now morphed into Emergence Christianity, I want to share a glimpse of their destructive, heretical doctrines - the rejection of hell as a literal, physical place. While this topic will be dealt with in more detail in the weeks to come, Doug Pagitt explicitly denies hell, and heaven for that matter, as physical places. Moreover, you will find yourself beating your head against a wall sharing frustration with Todd Friel as you hear Doug use the evasive tactics so popular with these apostates. The interview is in 2 parts, and you can also find the whole transcript in the link below.

And this is just scratching the surface...

Todd: Yea, do you think, do you think there's an eternal damnation for people who are not Christians?

Doug: Yeah, well, I think that there's.. I think there's all kinds of … I mean that, that, damnation would sort of be that.. that there's parts of the uh, life in Creation that seem to be counter to what God is doing and those are the things that are eliminated and removed and done away with. And so I think that's what damnation is, and so there's people who want to live out that kind of uhm, wanna have that good judgment – the judgment of God in their life. I mean you know Judge… Judgment in a biblical fashion meaning that God remakes… that God remakes the world.

Todd: OK, Doug, hold on Doug… Doug hold on a second. I have no idea what you just said. Here's what I think Hell is: eternal damnation, God sends lawbreakers to a place where there's weeping, there's gnashing of teeth, a lake of sulpher, the worm never dies, eternal conscious torment. Agree or disagree?

Doug: Disagree.

For the whole transcript go here:

Transcript of Todd Friel and Doug Pagitt on Way of the Master Radio

Sola Sisters: Universalism: The Gospel Message of Emergent and New Age Spirituality

From the Sola Sisters blog:

Universalism: The Gospel Message of Emergent and New Age Spirituality

One of the greatest misconceptions in this country today is that the New Age Movement of the 80s and 90s is (1) a thing of the past and (2) has nothing whatsoever in common with Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth on either count. Let me explain.

Most Americans today have sort of an eye-rolling, amused response to the phrase "New Age." Perhaps their minds are conjuring up an image of Shirley MacLaine on the beach, talking to the sky, a spiritual eccentric who became the punch line of many jokes for her interest in reincarnation and channeling. Perhaps they think that, like Shirley MacLaine, the New Age has passed gently into history, much like the rubix cube and Duran Duran. Well, the truth is that the New Age is still very much with us today. It never really went away, it just went mainstream. New Age practices or beliefs that were once considered borderline occultic or kooky are now widely accepted and embraced, including yoga, mantra meditation, muscle testing, acupuncture, reiki, sustainable living and going green. Don't believe it? Just pick up any newspaper or popular magazine today (Reader's Digest, Ladies' Home Journal, Parade) and you will most likely read at least one, usually multiple articles, on the benefits of these practices. Heck, even my husband's Golf World had a lengthy article in the February 2010 issue on how golf courses around the country are trying to "go green."

So just how did this New Age worldview get so powerful so fast? The short answer is that although it's actually been around for a very long time, it got its greatest push into the mainstream through America's most beloved talk show host, Oprah Winfrey. For some reason, people think that this New Age Spirituality direction that Oprah has taken is a new thing. It is not. I know this because I was on the same path that she was for a very long time, and at about the same time. Along with Oprah, I became completely immersed in New Age beliefs and practices, about 20 year ago, and yet at the same time used Christian terminology for all that I was doing. But the catch was this: all the Christian terminology I used had been redefined to fit the theology of my New Age belief system. And this is exactly how Oprah has made the New Age worldview palatable to the average Americans who were watching: she was using the same terminology that many Americans were. We were still, at least at that time, a "Christian" nation, and by that I mean, the majority of Americans made some kind of Christian profession and had at least some knowledge of the Christian faith. So although Oprah was going in a distinctly occultic, eastern direction spiritually, she was using words like "Holy Spirit," "God," "Jesus," "atonement," and "salvation." And because Oprah was using terminology that everyone was familiar with, everybody's guard went down....and that's how the deception flooded in. Not to get too creepy about it, but this is exactly how many cults "reprogram" their new recruits. Same terminology, redefined terms.

One example of these redefined terms is a teaching from A Course In Miracles on the "atonement." For those not familiar with A Course In Miracles (ACIM), it is a book that was originally published in 1976. The teachings of this book were channeled by a demonic entity to a woman named Helen Schucman who transcribed them. New Age author Marianne Williamson brought the teachings of ACIM into the mainstream after being enthusiastically endorsed on the Oprah Winfrey Show in the early 90s by writing her own book about ACIM and helping to explain its principles in laymans' terms, sort of "A Course In Miracles for Dummies" (its real title: "A Return To Love").

But back to the "teachings" of A Course In Miracles. We know that it was a demon that channeled this book because the demon plainly revealed himself that way. Nah - just kidding on that one. The demon actually called himself "Jesus" when he delivered this occultic book to Helen Schucman. And how do we know that this demon wasn't the "Jesus" he claimed to be? Well, we go by Scripture that warns us not to let anyone come to us and preach "another Jesus" other than the one that Paul preached, and warns not to receive "a different gospel" from the one delivered by Jesus and the apostles. ACIM's foundational principle, which is its view of the atonement, preaches a "different gospel" and "another Jesus." The ACIM view of "atonement" (paraphrased) is this:

There is no separation between human beings and God, and the belief that we are separated has been the cause of most of the world's problems. People grow spiritually by awakening to the view that they are already united with God. When this happens, we achieve "At-one-ment," meaning, we grasp our unity with God and because of this new understanding, we take a huge spiritual leap forward and begin living in more loving, Godly ways. This will eventually bring about a spiritual transformation on a global scale as more and more people awaken to this belief - and ALL people will eventually awaken to this belief.

Well, for orthodox Christians, our view of the atonement is also foundational - and it is vastly different from this New Age view that we simply have to "awaken" to the divinity we already have. The ACIM view of atonement is both a "different gospel" and "another Jesus" in that it presents a different way to salvation rather than the biblical teaching on how we are saved: only those who repent of their sins and place their faith in Jesus, understanding that his sacrificial death on the Cross was on their behalf, will be saved. There is no eventual universal salvation, and neither do we start out with a little "God spark" inside (the inner divinity) that we just have to awaken to: we are born dead in our sins (Eph 2:1). We need a Savior. But ACIM's redefined view of sin reduces this central tenet of Christianity to something akin to spiritual amnesia - in other words, sin gets redefined as "forgotten" divinity, an "awakening" to the belief that we are actually already in union with God. But if this is true, then anyone can approach God by simply "awakening" - muslem, buddhist, hindu, whatever. So at its core, ACIM's view of salvation is one without the Cross. No penal substitutionary atonement, no sacrificial death on behalf of God's people, and everyone eventually gets to God. This is as blasphemous as it gets, and as wickedly deceptive too, given that it is delivered by something claiming to be "Jesus."

Before God saved me, like Oprah I also embraced the teachings of A Course In Miracles, believing that my view of God had been "expanded" out of its narrow little box of orthodox Christianity. It felt more tolerant, more loving to hold to these beliefs. But these beliefs are no longer in one little fringey segment of our culture like they were in the 80s and 90s - remember, the New Age has gone mainstream. This view of God is becoming increasingly more widespread, especially in our culture which has begun to prize "tolerance" so greatly. But, not only are these beliefs held by those who embrace the New Age Spirituality, they are also held by the Emergent Church movement, which, like the New Age, uses plenty of Christian terminology, and positions itself as a more tolerant, loving version of Christianity with its big tent inclusivism and God-loves-you-just-the-way-you-are heresy. The truth is that God loves his own children, yes, but we must approach him in the way He has ordained, and that is through the blood of Jesus. We don't approach God through mystical mantra meditation - which, curiously enough, seems to be the connecting point between Emergent and New Age Spirituality. Both New Age and Emergent heavily promote the practice of mantra meditation, only it's called different names from within each movement. Within the Emergent Church movement, these practices are given "Christianized" names so that they will be more palatable. I mean, what could possibly be wrong with something called the Jesus Prayer, right?

The fact remains that we do not approach God in this way, because here's the rub: as I stated before, if anyone could approach God by use of a mystical practice (a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim, etc.) without repenting and confessing Christ, then there would be no point to the Cross, which as far as orthodox Christianity goes, is the hinge that swings the whole door. No, we approach the throne of God through Christ alone, as Scripture plainly tells us: "There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12, my emphasis)

So who are the "players" in Emergent and New Age Spirituality bringing about this merging of these two movements? Well, my money's on Ken Wilber for one, a straight up New Ager who is so admired by prominent Emergent Church leader Rob Bell that Bell tells us to "set aside three months" to read Ken Wilber's book, A Theory of Everything.

John Shelby Spong, an Episcopal Bishop who identifies himself as a "progressive Christian," will probably also be a player from the New Age side. Doug Pagitt, a well known Emergent Church leader, recently interviewed John Shelby Spong, who, though he identifies himself as a Christian, is far, far afield of the orthodox views of Christianity. When speaking of the virgin birth and Jesus' resurrection, he actually sounds much more like a New Ager than a Christian when he says:

"The best way to lose all is to cling with desperation to that which cannot possibly be sustained literally. Literalistic Christians will learn that a God or a faith system that has to be defended daily is finally no God or faith system at all. They will learn that any god who can be killed ought to be killed."

Yikes! I'm thinking the scholarly "Bishop" Spong must have somehow skipped Corinthians in the course of his biblical studies:

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve......But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor 15:3-5, 12-14)

I say this about Bishop Spong somewhat tongue in cheek, because I quite understand that Spong does not hold to the view that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. How tragic for him, because this means that he is a pagan, not a Christian, and is therefore reduced to feeling around in the dark like all the other lost people, trying to figure out who God is and how to get to him. (Here's a tip: it's why God gave us the Bible, so that we would know....)

Stay tuned on this issue, as an upcoming interfaith conference called Sacred Awakenings features Marianne Williamson (mentioned above as the New Ager who brought A Course In Miracles into the mainstream) and John Shelby Spong, both espousing more of the all-paths-lead-to-God view of Universalism. Since this also seems to be the view held by Rob Bell, Doug Pagitt and other emergent leaders, one has to wonder: how long before New Age Spirituality and Emergent officially merge together?