Alisa Childers Archives - Page 4 of 5

3 Reasons Why Christians Should Be Evidential Investigators Instead of Experience Junkies

Two men.

Both grew up in Christian homes in suburban America. Both have famous Evangelical fathers. Both made personal decisions for Christ and became actively involved and well-known in ministry. One walked away from his faith and became a secular humanist. The other has become one of the top apologists and defenders of the Christian faith.

Who are these two men? The first is Bart Campolo, son of evangelist and author Tony Campolo, and the other is Sean McDowell, son of evangelist and author Josh McDowell. Why did their fairly similar paths lead them to such radically different destinations?

Recently, the two came together to have a discussion on Premier Christian Radio entitled, “Why Bart Lost His Faith, Why Sean Kept His.” It was a fascinating discussion, and the thing that most struck me was the reason they each gave for having become a Christian in the first place. Campolo described how he converted to Christianity after finding a youth group he connected with and attending one of their retreats:

There’s hundreds of kids there. It’s Saturday night, there’s candlelight and firelight and everybody’s singing “Our God is an Awesome God,” and “We Love You Lord.” And in the midst of that kind of environment I had what I guess you would call a transcendent moment…I felt something. It felt like there was something happening in that room that was bigger than the group. I felt like I was connecting to something. And in that moment ….that was God.

I heard something. It was real to me. People that don’t believe in transcendent experiences—I always think like, “You haven’t been to the right concert… You haven’t used the right drugs. You haven’t fallen in love with the right partner.”

These experiences are real, and I think whatever narrative you’re in when you have one, it confirms that narrative. If I would have had that same transcendent moment with my friends in a mosque in Afghanistan, it would have confirmed Islam to me. But I was in the Christian world, so from that point on, Jesus was real to me.

In Campolo’s own words, he became a Christian because of a transcendent experience….a feeling that resonated deeply in his heart.

Later in the conversation, McDowell gave his reason for becoming a Christian. Having believed in Christianity as far back as he can remember, he experienced some serious doubts about his faith when he was a college student. When he shared his doubts with his father, his dad encouraged him to not believe something simply because it’s what he was told. He urged him to investigate the evidence for the truthfulness of Christianity for himself, and to reject anything that was untrue.

After doing some significant evidence investigation, McDowell arrived at the conclusion that Christianity is true….and this is the reason he is a Christian. His faith was not built upon a “transcendent moment,” but on a painful search for objective reality.
Campolo’s Christianity was confirmed by experience, while McDowell’s was confirmed by evidence. Here are 3 reasons why Christians should be evidential investigators, instead of experience junkies:

1. You can be talked out of an experience.

Like Campolo, actor Brad Pitt was raised in a Christian home by Evangelical Christian ministers. In an interview with GQ magazine, he remembered experiencing some of the same feelings at rock concerts that he felt in Christian worship services:

I remember going to a few concerts, even though we were told rock shows are the Devil, basically. Our parents let us go, they weren’t neo about it. But I realized that the reverie and the joy and exuberance, even the aggression, I was feeling at the rock show was the same thing at the revival. One is Jimmy Swaggart and one is Jerry Lee Lewis, you know? One’s God and one’s Devil. But it’s the same thing. It felt like we were being manipulated. What was clear to me was “You don’t know what you’re talking about—”

Pitt wondered if the whole thing was a manipulative sham, which led him to ask some serious questions at a very young age.

If a feeling or experience is what a person’s faith is built upon, it can be easy to re-interpret that experience or explain it away—especially when confronted with the arguments of a smart skeptic, or the crushing reality of suffering and evil.

2. Your heart and feelings lie.

The prophet Jeremiah described the human heart as “deceitful above all things and desperately sick.” Proverbs 3:5-7 tells us not to “lean on our own understanding.” Jesus described the human heart as being filled with thoughts like murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. Proverbs 28:26 tells us that whoever trusts his own mind is a fool.

In other words, do not, under any circumstances, follow your heart.

This, of course, stands in stark contrast to the themes we are constantly encountering in entertainment and on social media. However, when it comes to spiritual beliefs, trusting our hearts and following our feelings can lead to all sorts of aberrant theology, sinful choices, and a distortion of true Christian faith.

3. You can fall back on evidence in times of doubt or suffering.

One of the greatest apologists and evangelists in recent times is a man named Nabeel Qureshi. Qureshi grew up in a Muslim home, and after years of testing the claims of Christianity and the claims of Islam, he left Islam and became a Christian. He paid a dear price for his obedience to Christ, leaving his devout Muslim family heartbroken and relationships strained.

At the peak of a respected, growing, and fruitful ministry, Qureshi received news that he had stage 4 stomach cancer….at the age of 33, and with a new baby in tow. He believed God was going to heal him—that there would be miraculous intervention and an amazing testimony to tell about the healing power of God. A little over a year after receiving his diagnosis……he died.

Qureshi documented his cancer journey on youtube, and in one of the early videos, he expressed being a bit rattled by this grim news. However, he went back through his theology and the evidence for his belief in Christ. On his deathbed, looking worn and like a shadow of his former self, he glorified God by doing the exact same thing. He expressed his wonder and disappointment that he hadn’t been healed, but he testified to the existence of God and the truthfulness of Christianity based on what he knew was true.

Qureshi was faithful to the end—despite his suffering and despite any doubts that crept into his mind in his last days. This was because he had a firm understanding of truth to which he submitted his feelings. His faith was not dismantled by doubt, suffering, or even excruciating pain.

At the end of the day, Christianity isn’t always going to feel good. Just ask the apostle Paul who was kidnapped, beaten, whipped, imprisoned, ridiculed, shipwrecked, and stoned—all before he was finally beheaded. Christianity isn’t always going to feel like it’s “working.”

Becoming an evidential investigator rather than an experience junkie led former atheist J. Warner Wallace to an unshakeable conclusion:

I’m not a Christian because it “works” for me. I had a life prior to Christianity that seemed to be working just fine, and my life as a Christian hasn’t always been easy.

I’m a Christian because it is true. I’m a Christian because I want to live in a way that reflects the truth. I’m a Christian because my high regard for the truth leaves me no alternative.

In times of deep doubt or great suffering, it’s wonderful to know that Christianity is true— whether we feel it or not!

Did Jesus Really Rise From the Dead? A Historian, an Atheist, a Skeptic, a Theologian, and an Ex-Con Weigh In

CrossExamined

By Alisa Childers

It’s that time of year again—the time when Christians come together to celebrate the pinnacle of our faith, the resurrection of Jesus. It’s also the time when news outlets like Time, the Discovery Channel, and Newsweek unleash their skepticism about Christianity, the Bible, and the resurrection. It can be confusing to wade through the various historical evidences, personal beliefs, and opinions floating around in scholarship and the blogosphere. Here are quotes from several sources who all have unique qualifications and an interesting take on the evidence:

1. The Historian

Gary Habermas is an American historian, and the Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy at Liberty University. He is considered to be one of the foremost scholars on the resurrection of Jesus. While researching the resurrection, he combed through the works of both secular and Christian scholars. He wrote:

I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975. I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German, and French. Some of the results of this study are certainly intriguing. For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus. A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.[1]

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them risen from the dead.[2]

2. The Atheist

Gerd Ludemann is a German New Testament scholar, historian, and atheist. He was once a professing Christian, but walked away from his faith when he became convinced that very little of what is contained in the New Testament is historically reliable. Even so, he wrote:

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.[3]

3. The Skeptic

Bart Ehrman is the Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is one of the most respected scholars in the field of New Testament studies—and he is agnostic. About the resurrection of Jesus, he wrote:

Historians, of course, have no difficulty speaking about the belief in the resurrection of Jesus, since this is a matter of public record. It is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution. We know some of these believers by name; one of them, the Apostle Paul, claims quite plainly to have seen Jesus alive after his death. Thus, for the historian, Christianity begins after the death of Jesus, not with the resurrection itself, but with the belief in the resurrection.[4]

In a recent blog post he wrote:

The most important thing to stress is that there are two historical realities that simply cannot be denied. The followers of Jesus did claim that Jesus came back to life. If they had not claimed that, we would not have Christianity. So they did claim it. Moreover, they did claim that they knew he rose precisely because some of them saw him alive again afterward. No one can doubt that.[5]

4. The Theologian

The type of historical evidence above caused leading New Testament scholar, historian, and theologian N.T. Wright to conclude:

As a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.[6]

5. The Ex-con

Charles Colson, who once served as Special Counsel to President Richard Nixon, famously went to prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal in the early 70’s. He became a Christian in 1973, largely due to the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. One detail regarding Watergate was similar to the resurrection: in both cases, 12 men claimed something that would affect world history. In the case of Watergate, it only took two weeks for them to crack under pressure:

The real cover-up, the lie, could only be held together for two weeks, and then everybody else jumped ship in order to save themselves. Now, the fact is that all that those around the President were facing was embarrassment, maybe prison. Nobody’s life was at stake.

But what about the disciples? Twelve powerless men, peasants really, were facing not just embarrassment or political disgrace, but beatings, stonings, execution. Every single one of the disciples insisted, to their dying breaths, that they had physically seen Jesus bodily raised from the dead. Don’t you think that one of those apostles would have cracked before being beheaded or stoned? That one of them would have made a deal with the authorities? None did.

Jesus is Lord: That’s the thrilling message of Easter. And it’s an historic fact, one convincingly established by the evidence—and one you can bet your life upon. Go ahead researchers—dig up all the old graves you want. You won’t change a thing. He has risen.[7]

Even the atheists and skeptics confirm that Jesus’ disciples claimed and believed that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. History tells us that they were willing to suffer and die for that belief. It’s reasonable to confidently agree with what the church has affirmed over the centuries—”Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!”[8]

References:

[1] Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 2004) p. 60 (Emphasis mine)

[2] Ibid., p. 49

[3] Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995) p. 80

[4] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 2004) p. 234 (Emphasis mine)

[5] Bart Ehrman, “Questions on the Resurrection and My Personal Spiritual Experiences: Readers’ Mailbag” www.ehrmanblog.org, March 24, 2017, accessed April 6, 2017

[6] N.T. Wright, “The New Unimproved Jesus,” Christianity Today (September 13, 1993), p. 26 (Cited by William Lane Craig, “The Resurrection of Jesus” www.reasonablefaith.org, accessed April 6, 2017)

[7] Charles Colson, “An Unholy Hoax?” www.epm.org, March 29, 2002, accessed April 6, 2017.

[8] John 11:25-26

The 5 Most Illogical People You Will Meet on the Internet

Atheism, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

It has happened to many of us. We post an encouraging Bible verse like Psalm 145:9 on Facebook: “The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made.” By noon an atheist from somewhere in social media land has found the post and leaves a lovely comment:

Really? Your god is good? He’s so good and compassionate that he decided to literally drown the whole world in a flood? So good he’s okay with slavery? That god? Yeah—he sounds awesome.

The person who leaves comments like these probably isn’t looking for a real conversation, but they are a great example of the abundance of bad logic waiting to be discovered in the dark corners of cyberspace. Here are the 5 most illogical people you will meet on the internet, and how to spot their fallacies:

1. The Straw Man

How easy do you think it would be to knock down a pretend man made entirely of straw? It would be a lot easier than knocking down a real man—that’s for sure. This happens in the world of social media disagreement All. The. Time. The “Straw Man” is a fallacy in which someone oversimplifies or misrepresents the view of their opponent (builds a straw man), and then argues against that false view (knocks the straw man down). Straw men can often be found in discussions about abortion:

You: “I think there is good scientific evidence that life begins at conception.”
Straw man: “So what you’re saying is that women should lose their rights and this country should be sent back to the ‘50s? That’s ridiculous.”

You made a claim about scientific evidence—not women’s rights. The straw man has misrepresented your argument and created one that is much easier to refute.

2. The Red Herring

The “Red Herring” fallacy is committed when someone brings up an irrelevant point that diverts attention from the original point being made. Changing the subject doesn’t actually win an argument, but it can make people forget what they were disagreeing about in the first place.

You: “I believe the Bible teaches that Jesus claimed to be God.”
Red Herring: “The Bible is just a human book—no different from any other book.”

The red herring has diverted attention away from what the Bible teaches to the credibility of the Bible as a book. It’s a worthy discussion, but it’s a different discussion—don’t take the bait.

3. The Character Assassinator

This fallacy is called “Ad-Hominem,” and attacks the character of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the person’s actual argument.

You: “I believe it’s in the best interest of children for marriage to be between one man and one woman.”
Character Assassinator: “You only believe this because you’re a bigot.”

The character assassinator has shifted the focus from your claim to their perception of the motive behind it—thus avoiding the actual argument. The straw man, red herring, and character assassinator can all be handled in a similar way—by gently bringing them back to your original point.

4. The Self-Defeater

The self-defeater is a person who makes a statement that refutes itself. You can spot a self-defeating statement by taking the claim that is being made and applying that claim to the statement itself.

You: “I believe Christianity is true.”
Self-defeater: “There is no such thing as truth”

If you can spot this self-defeating statement, one simple question will bring the fallacy to the surface: “Is that true?”

5. The Gish Galloper

The “Gish Gallop” is a fallacy in which someone introduces so many (often individually weak) arguments in one space, that you could never possibly answer them all. This tends to happen more often in live-debate settings, but there are internet gish gallopers as well!

You: “I believe Jesus was resurrected from the dead.”
Gish galloper: “We can’t trust anything the Bible says because the Gospels were written hundreds of years after the apostles were alive, and they all tell different stories. In fact, the Old Testament flood and creation stories were simply copies of myths from the surrounding culture, and frankly, resurrection can’t happen because science has proven that miracles are not possible. The story of Jesus is just a re-telling of other myths about dying and rising gods in agrarian Mediterranean societies. Paul wasn’t really an apostle so we can’t trust what he said, and Jesus probably never even existed anyway.”

Notice that the gish galloper has introduced several possibly related but unsupported statements which no person with a life or a real job would be able to sit down and answer in one sitting—it would take all day! There are a few different ways to handle a gish galloper but the simplest would be to stay within the scope of your original claim. You didn’t make any claims about the Bible, flood or creation narratives, or Paul’s status as an apostle. You DID make a claim about a miracle, so that’s a good place to start.

Conclusion:

It’s easy for any of us to fall into some of these traps, so be looking for these 5 illogical people as you interact on social media—and be careful to not be one yourself!

5 Ways Progressive Christianity and New Age Spirituality Are Kind of the Same Thing

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Think about the phrase “New Age.” What comes to mind? Old documentaries of hippies at Woodstock experimenting with LSD and yoga? Shirley MacLaine holding a cluster of crystals on the cover of Time Magazine back in the ‘80s? Deepak Chopra teaching Oprah how to move things with her mind in the ‘90s? As old or out of touch as these images may seem, New Age beliefs are hotter than ever and have permeated our culture—but with a slick new image. The psychic hotline of the ‘80s has been replaced by winsome hipster gurus who have traded robes for skinny jeans—often translating Eastern religious ideas into Christianese.

Many Christians aren’t even aware of how New Age beliefs have infiltrated Christendom through the Progressive Church. I’ve written about Progressive Christianity here, and talked about it here, here, and here. It wasn’t until I recently did a study of New Age Spirituality that I realized how much Progressive Christianity has in common with it.

Here are 5 ways Progressive Christianity and the New Age Spirituality are kind of the same thing:

1. The redefinition or abandonment of the concept of sin

New Agers believe all people are inherently divine….that there is no such thing called “sin,” but only the failure to remember our divinity. In her master class on the Oprah and Friends network in 2008, New Age leader Marianne Williamson led countless Americans through the book, A Course in Miracles. Participants were encouraged to affirm “There is no sin,”[1] and were taught, “The Atonement is the final lesson [a person] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation.”[2] And all of this information supposedly came from Jesus Himself.[3]

Several years ago I heard a Progressive pastor teach on Genesis 3, the famous passage in which Eve was tricked by the serpent into eating the forbidden fruit. Rather than reading the account as historical fact, he was unpacking the moral “truth” we could all learn from this creation story. He made the point that when this first couple took that fateful bite, it was their shame, not their sin, that separated them from God. In other words, they failed to recognize their belovedness…their inherent goodness and worth. If they were “separated” from God, it was they who were distant….not God. Progressive writer Brian McLaren describes it this way: “They lose their fearlessness in relation to God.”[4]

Notice the similarity of language. Without original sin we are all good, and we are only distant from God in our own minds when we forget that.

2. The denial of absolute truth

New Age thought is marked by its relativism: a rejection of objective morality and absolute truth. If something feels true to you, it’s true. If it feels right to you, it’s right. If something feels real to you, it’s reality. In other words, your own thoughts and feelings are your authority for what is true and real.

One distinctive feature of Progressive Christianity is its denial of biblical authority. But of course, no one operates without an authority—if you remove one authority, you will replace it with another. Typically, Progressive Christians shift the authority for what they believe is true from the Bible to themselves—by becoming their own moral compass which will inevitably ebb and flow with culture.

3. An acceptance of Jesus, but a denial of His blood atonement

New Age thought leaders almost always couch their teachings in Christian language. Jesus is an example of someone who attained enlightenment by connecting with the divine—an example any of us can follow. His death wasn’t a saving act…the “saving” comes from within ourselves when we realize we have the same capabilities as Jesus already within us. This is often referred to as “Christ consciousness.” This is why many New Agers see no contradiction in reciting the Lord’s prayer while believing in karma and the healing power of crystals. Of course, this is an outright denial of His atoning death and resurrection.

Many (not all) Progressive Christians also deny the blood atonement of Jesus. Last year, popular Christian musician Michael Gungor took to Twitter to rant about the idea of God requiring a blood sacrifice for sin, calling it “horrific.” In his controversial book, Love Wins, Rob Bell refers to this idea as something Christians simply picked up from surrounding cultures and used to explain the death of Jesus. In a 2016 lecture explaining the Eucharist (Communion for us Protestants), Bell joked about the ridiculousness of atonement theory, summing it up as: “God is less grumpy because of Jesus.” This gave the audience a good laugh, as Bell went on to explain that the real reason we pass the bread and wine is to “heighten our senses to our bonds with our brothers and sisters in our shared humanity.”

Many Progressive Christian leaders have popularized the phrase “cosmic child abuse,” a term first coined by Steve Chalke to protest the idea that a loving God would require a blood sacrifice for the sin of mankind.

4. It’s all about “me”

New Age thought revolves around the “Self.” Self-empowerment and realization of our innate divinity are central to its teachings and practices. According to New Age blogger Kalee Brown, when Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” in John 14:6, “The ‘me’ Jesus referred to isn’t himself, but rather the Self within you” (emphasis mine). A Course in Miracles also asks the participant to affirm: “My salvation comes from me.”[5] And hey….if we are all divine, why shouldn’t it be about us?
The typical Progressive Christian will probably not agree that it’s all about them—in fact, they tend to be very focused on social justice. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m talking about a theological shift. Progressive favorite Richard Rohr even goes so far as to write that each of us and sometimes “creation” is the “fourth member of the blessed Trinity,” implying that the fullness of God isn’t complete until we become a part of it.[6]

Generally speaking, the concept of sin is abandoned or redefined, truth becomes relativized, and a mere martyr’s cross gives us a more palatable Jesus who is a great teacher, moral example, and doting BFF—but not the all-powerful warrior King who will one day return in a blood-dipped robe to judge the living and the dead. (Revelation 19:13; 2 Timothy 4:1)

5. Universalism

Former New Ager and now Christian believer Steven Bancarz noted that New Age proponents affirm the idea that all roads lead to God. He wrote:

The New Age movement holds tightly to religious pluralism and universalism, which is the view that all religions are inspired by a common Source and they all point to the same truth that we will one day reach, regardless of what path we choose to get there.

Many Progressive Christian authors affirm some form of universalism—implicitly, by denying the concept of a literal hell, or explicitly, by declaring that all people will be reconciled to God, regardless of their beliefs or religious practices.

The concept of universal reconciliation (that Jesus will reconcile all sinners to Himself,) was smuggled into the mainstream consciousness of the Evangelical church through the wildly popular 2007 book, The Shack. Years later, its author, William Paul Young, confirmed his intention in his book, Lies We Believe About God. He wrote, “Are you suggesting that everyone is saved? That you believe in universal salvation? That is exactly what I am saying!”[7]

None of this is new. Throughout church history these ideas have emerged again and again. They are old pagan dogmas recycled as new and edgy ideas, dressed up in modern garb and given a Christian make-over. Trevin Wax put it perfectly on Twitter:

One of the insufferable aspects of heretics and heresies is how boring, predictable, and recycled they are. Orthodoxy is thrilling in its holding together of paradox and mystery. Heresies are narrow because they’re tailored to their times.

Progressive Christians may think they are being cutting-edge and relevant by stepping outside the bounds of orthodoxy, but in reality, they are simply falling for the ideology that has kick-started every false religion since the fall of man: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

It is no less damning if the “creature” is….yourself.

References:

[1] Schucman, Dr. Helen (2007-12-25). A Course in Miracles Foundation for Inner Peace. Kindle Edition. Lesson #259

[2] Ibid., Kindle Locations 21635-21636

[3] A Course in Miracles is a collection of spiritual revelations recorded by Columbia University Professor Helen Schucman. She dictated messages from an entity she called “the Voice,” that she later identified as “Jesus Christ.”

[4] McLaren, Brian (2011-2-1) A New Kind of Christianity, Harper One; Reprint edition p. 50

[5] Schucman, Dr. Helen (2007-12-25). A Course in Miracles Foundation for Inner Peace. Kindle Edition. Lesson 70

[6] Rohr, Richard. The Divine Dance: The Trinity and Your Transformation (Kindle Location 1255). Whitaker House. Kindle Edition.

[7] Young, William Paul (2017) Lies We Believe About God, Atria Books p. 118

Progressive Christianity: Coming to a Church Near You

Podcast

A self-described “progressive” Christian church in Nashville, TN made headlines last week with a meme claiming the Bible is not the word of God, not infallible, and not inerrant. Years ago, this was an evangelical church in the heart of the Bible belt, but over time, the slow and subtle shift toward liberalism and postmodernism came to a head when they declared themselves a “progressive” church.

Alisa addresses questions including:

What is the progressive view of the Bible?
How does this view contradict the historic Christian view of the Bible?
What are some ways progressives try and pass their views as “Christian?”
How do progressives change the definitions of commonly understood words and phrases?
What is Jesus’ view of Scripture and how does it contradict the progressive view?
What does a typical progressive doctrinal statement look like?
How can we spot these ideas in our own churches?

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

February 26, 2021/by Frank Turek

Here’s Why Christians Should Avoid the Teachings of Richard Rohr

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Tracy grew up in the church, but when her identification as queer contradicted her Evangelical upbringing, she decided she no longer fit within that tradition. Through the teachings of Richard Rohr, she found a spiritual home with the practice of contemplative spirituality. Tracy’s experience mirrors that of many millennial ex-Evangelicals who have discovered a spiritual mentor and teacher in the Franciscan priest, author, and founder of the Center for Action and Contemplation (CAC), Richard Rohr.

The CAC website describes Rohr as “a globally recognized ecumenical teacher bearing witness to the universal awakening within Christian mysticism and the Perennial Tradition.” Rohr’s teachings are gaining influence, especially among millennials who grew up in the Evangelical church. He is particularly influential in the progressive Christian movement and is referred to as a spiritual father, hero, and mentor by well-known progressive voices. He is endorsed by progressive leaders like Rob Bell, Jen Hatmaker, William Paul Young, Michael Gungor, and Brian McLaren, to name just a few. As Rohr gains popularity, it becomes increasingly more important for church leaders to be aware of his teachings and their widespread influence. In this article, I’ll take a look at Rohr’s view of the Bible, the cross, and the gospel.

Richard Rohr’s view of the Bible

Historically, Christians have believed that the Bible is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. Following Jesus’ own example, Christians have affirmed over the centuries that the Scriptures are internally coherent, without error, and infallible. However, Rohr holds a much different view of the Bible:

The Jewish Scriptures, which are full of anecdotes of destiny, failure, sin and grace, offer almost no self-evident philosophical or theological conclusions that are always true. . . . We even have four, often conflicting versions of the life of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There is no one clear theology of God, Jesus, or history presented, despite our attempt to pretend there is.

Rohr interprets the Scriptures using what he calls the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” He writes:

…The text moves inexorably toward inclusivity, mercy, unconditional love, and forgiveness. I call it the “Jesus Hermeneutic.” Just interpret Scripture the way Jesus did! He ignores, denies, or openly opposes his own Scriptures whenever they are imperialistic, punitive, exclusionary, or tribal.

Contrary to what Rohr teaches, Jesus never ignored, denied, or openly opposed the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact, as I argue in this paper, Richard Rohr’s “Jesus Hermeneutic” not only fails to offer any legitimate Scriptural support, but taken as a whole, the biblical data gives us an entirely opposite view of how Jesus handled the Scriptures. The truth is Jesus never once declared or implied that the Scriptures were anything but fully truthful and to be obeyed. Jesus affirmed the Old Testament to be the inspired, authoritative, historically reliable, inerrant, infallible, imperishable Word of God—and that it was all about himself.

Richard Rohr’s view of the cross

Historically, Christians have believed Jesus died on the cross for our sins, taking our deserved punishment upon himself. This is not only affirmed in Scripture, and taught by Jesus himself, but it goes back to the earliest creed in Christianity, which pre-dates the New Testament by about twenty years. However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who would require the blood sacrifice of his son is “problem-oriented.” Of the atonement, Rohr writes:

I believe that Jesus’ death on the cross is a revelation of the infinite and participatory love of God, not some bloody payment required by God’s offended justice to rectify the problem of sin. Such a story line is way too small and problem-oriented.

According to Rohr, Jesus didn’t need to die on the cross. It’s your “false self” that needs to die, not someone else. He refers to substitutionary atonement as a “strange idea” that leads to a “transactional” theology. Contrary to Rohr, Scripture teaches substitutionary atonement, Jesus affirmed it, along with early Christians.

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Historically, the Christian gospel is the proclamation of the good news of salvation. This has been understood through the lens of God’s redemptive acts throughout history. It began with the creation of the universe and mankind. After sin was introduced into the world by the rebellion of Adam and Eve, God provided a means of redemption and reconciliation through the atoning work of Jesus on the cross. Those who accept this provision of salvation will be given eternal life with God. But for those who reject this gift of grace, the Bible describes their eternal punishment separated from God’s love and goodness.

However, according to Rohr, the idea of a God who “doles out punishment” is unhealthy, cheap, and toxic. He does believe Jesus died, was buried, and was resurrected. However, he separates Jesus and Christ into two separate entities, with Jesus being nothing more than a “model and exemplar” of the human and divine united in one human body. And in Rohr’s view, Christ is a cosmic reality that is found “whenever the material and the divine co-exist—which is always and everywhere.” He implicitly denies the deity of Jesus. He writes: “We spent a great deal of time worshiping the messenger and trying to get other people to do the same… [Jesus] did ask us several times to follow him, and never once to worship him.” This “Cosmic Christ” is a New Age idea that Rohr is promoting as “Christian.”

Rohr also believes all religions share the same core truth and are all paths to truth (perennialism). He openly affirms panentheism, a view of the nature of God that teaches God is in all, all is in God, but God also transcends the world. This carries troubling implications for his view of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. He said: “The Universe is the body of God…yes, it’s the second person of the Trinity in material form.”

He denies original sin, the atonement, the exclusivity of Christianity, and he has an unorthodox understanding of heaven and hell, and the literal second coming of Christ. Rohr’s views stand in stark contrast to the historic Christian view of the gospel.

Through his books and his highly popular teachings on the Enneagram, Richard Rohr is rapidly gaining influence in the Christian church. But church leaders would do well to be aware of what Rohr actually teaches about the Bible, the cross, and the gospel. Faithful Christians should avoid his teachings at all costs.

5 Signs Your Church Might be Heading Toward Progressive Christianity

Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

Several years ago, my husband and I began attending a local Evangelical, non-denominational church, and we loved it. We cherished the sense of community we found among the loving and authentic people we met there, and the intelligent, “outside the box” pastor who led our flock with thought-provoking and insightful sermons. Sadly, the church started going off the rails theologically, and after about a year and a half, we made the difficult decision to leave. Today that church is a self-titled “Progressive Christian Community.”

Back then I had never heard of “Progressive Christianity,” and even now it is difficult to pin down what actually qualifies someone as a Progressive Christian, due to the diversity of beliefs that fall under that designation. However, there are signs—certain phrases and ideas—that seem to be consistent in Progressive circles. Here are 5 danger signs to watch for in your church:

1. There is a lowered view of the Bible

One of the main differences between Progressive Christianity and Historic Christianity is its view of the Bible. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over the biblical mandate.

Comments you might hear:

The Bible is a human book…
I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue…
The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places…
The Bible “contains” the word of God…

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts

In Progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings, and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive word, what a person feels to be true becomes the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

Comments you might hear:

That Bible verse doesn’t resonate with me…
I thought homosexuality was a sin until I met and befriended some gay people…
I just can’t believe Jesus would send good people to hell…

3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for re-interpretation

Progressive author John Pavlovitz wrote, “There are no sacred cows [in Progressive Christianity]….Tradition, dogma, and doctrine are all fair game, because all pass through the hands of flawed humanity.” Progressive Christians are often open to re-defining and re-interpreting the Bible on hot-button moral issues like homosexuality and abortion, and also cardinal doctrines such as the virgin conception and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. The only sacred cow is “no sacred cows.”

Comments you might hear:

The resurrection of Jesus doesn’t have to be factual to speak truth…
The church’s historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework…
The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be re-interpreted…

4. Historic terms are re-defined

There are some Progressive Christians who say they affirm doctrines like biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and authority, but they have to do linguistic gymnastics to make those words mean what they want them to mean. I remember asking a Pastor, “Do you believe the Bible is divinely inspired?” He answered confidently, “Yes, of course!” However, I mistakenly assumed that when using the word “inspired,” we both meant the same thing. He clarified months later what he meant—that the Bible is inspired in the same way and on the same level as many other Christian books, songs, and sermons. This, of course, is not how Christians have historically understood the doctrine of divine inspiration.

Another word that tends to get a Progressive make-over is the word “love.” When plucked out of its biblical context, it becomes a catch-all term for everything non-confrontative, pleasant, and affirming.

Comments you might hear:

God wouldn’t punish sinners—He is love…
Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we’ve misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history…
It’s not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it’s our job to just love them…

5. The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

There is no doubt that the Bible commands us to take care of the unfortunate and defend those who are oppressed. This is a very real and profoundly important part of what it means to live out our Christian faith. However, the core message of Christianity—the gospel—is that Jesus died for our sins, was buried and resurrected, and thereby reconciled us to God. This is the message that will truly bring freedom to the oppressed.

Many Progressive Christians today find the concept of God willing His Son to die on the cross to be embarrassing or even appalling. Sometimes referred to as “cosmic child abuse,” the idea of blood atonement is de-emphasized or denied altogether, with social justice and good works enthroned in its place.

Comments you might hear:

Sin doesn’t separate us from God—we are made in His image and He called us good…
God didn’t actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms…
We don’t really need to preach the gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed and provision to the needy…

Conclusion:

Identifying the signs is not always obvious—sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity, leaving it disarmed of its saving power.

We shouldn’t be surprised to find some of these ideas infiltrating our churches. Jesus warned us, “Watch out for false prophets” who “come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). So if you spot any of these 5 danger signs in your place of worship, it might be time to pray about finding fellowship in a more biblically faithful church community.

When Was the New Testament Considered Scripture? 5 Facts That Point to an Early Canon

4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian Apologetics

By Alisa Childers

One of the most common misconceptions about the New Testament canon (the list of books the church recognizes as authoritative) is that early Christians didn’t have any Scripture until hundreds of years after the life of Christ and the Apostles. The church then examined all the books they had and “picked” the ones they thought should go in the canon. However, this is not how it happened.

Most of the earliest Christians were Jews, so they had the Old Testament Scriptures, but concerning the 27 books of the New Testament, there wasn’t an official canon until three or four hundred years later. That doesn’t mean they didn’t have New Testament Scripture. In fact, the word “canon” does not need to be confined to a formal and final list, but rather reflects “the entire process by which the formation of the church’s sacred writings took place.”[1] Here are 5 facts that point to an early canon:

Fact #1: Early Christians differentiated between canonical and non-canonical books.

Christians divided books into four categories:

Recognized books: Certain books like the four Gospels, Acts, and the letters of Paul were regarded as canonical by early Christians and were not disputed. In the 4th century, church historian Eusebius noted that this core canon had existed in Christianity for some time.[2]
Disputed books: Other books such as James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, were disputed by some, yet accepted by many. These books weren’t officially canonized until later.[3]
Rejected books: Some books were acknowledged to be helpful for spiritual growth, but were not regarded as having the same authority as Scripture. Among these books were the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of Paul, and the Epistle of Barnabas, to name a few.[4]

Heretical books: A few books were never considered for canonical status and were rejected as outright heresy, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, and the Acts of Andrew and John.[5]

Fact #2: Certain New Testament writings were cited as Scripture not long after they were penned.

The earliest mention of a New Testament book being referred to as Scripture comes from the New Testament itself. That’s as early as it gets! In 1 Timothy 5:18, the Apostle Paul writes:
For the Scripture says: Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain, and, the worker is worthy of his wages.

The first part of Paul’s quotation comes from Deuteronomy 25:4, but the second part comes from the New Testament—Luke 10:7 to be exact. In other words, Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel and calls it “Scripture.”

Another example comes from 2 Peter 3:15-16, where Peter mentions “all of Paul’s letters,” and warns believers to not be deceived by people who twist them “as they do the other Scriptures.” He obviously believed Paul’s epistles were on equal footing with the Old Testament, and expected this to be uncontroversial among his readers.

When the original Apostles were still alive, they discipled younger converts. One such convert, Polycarp, was believed to be a personal disciple of the Apostle John.[6] In the early second century, he wrote a letter to the church at Philippi, referencing the book of Ephesians as “Scripture.”[7]

Fact #3: Church Fathers began to compile lists of New Testament books long before any councils met to finalize the canon.

22 of the 27 books of the New Testament were listed in what is called the Muratorian Fragment, dated from about 180 AD. This list includes everything but Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, and possibly 3 John, indicating that the bulk of the New Testament canon was established at an extraordinarily early date.

The first complete list of the New Testament canon is often attributed to Athanasius, around AD 367, but Dr. Michael Kruger argues that all 27 books were affirmed by church father Origen more than a hundred years before that. This means that most likely by the 3rd century, the complete canon was recognized and in place.

Fact #4: Early Christian manuscripts were intended for public reading.

Manuscripts of the Greco-Roman world were made to be appreciated as works of art and not necessarily to be read in public. However, early Christian manuscripts were unique in that they were made for functionality, not beauty. Compared with their cultural counterparts, they had fewer lines per page, an exceptionally large number of reader’s aids, and spaces between sections—all of which suggests they were meant for public reading.
In the early church, and even going back to the Old Testament synagogues, almost all the writings that were read in public worship services were Biblical books. (For example, 2nd-century Christian apologist Justin Martyr tells us that in church gatherings, portions of the Old Testament and the Gospels would be read, followed by a sermon.[8] This indicates that the scribes who copied the manuscripts believed them to be Scripture and intended them to be used as such.[9]

Fact #5: Early Christians primarily used a codex rather than a scroll.

Centuries before it was broadly employed in Greco-Roman culture, early Christians mainly used a codex (similar to a modern book, bound at the spine) rather than a scroll, which was the primary form of a written document in the ancient world. The switch to the codex was sudden, early, and widespread among Christians. This may indicate the church’s need to combine several books into one volume, which only a codex was able to do. Many scholars believe this supports the idea that a canon was beginning to be established as early as the end of the 1st century.[10]
What did the councils actually do?

The councils that eventually convened to established the canon did just that—they finalized the list of books that were already considered canonical and settled a handful of disputes surrounding the remaining texts. However, the evidence suggests that early Christians had a functioning New Testament core canon long before that.

References

[1] Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (SCM, 1984) p. 25

[2] Eusebius, Church History, 3.25.1-2

[3] Ibid., 3:25.3

[4] Ibid., 3.25.4

[5] Ibid., 3.25.6

[6] Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, 32.2; Iranaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3

[7] Polycarp, Epistle to the Phillipians, 12.1

[8] Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin, LXVII

[9] Michael J. Kruger, “The Origin and Authority of the New Testament Canon,” Reformed Theological Seminary, 4 August 2016, Lecture #20 (Kruger also notes in his article Were Early Christian Scribes Untrained Amateurs? that this fact is well supported by a number of modern scholars.)

[10] Andreas J. Kostenberger & Michael J. Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy (Crossway, 2010) p. 194-195

Is Progressive Christianity really “Good News”?

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

The emergent (and dangerous) phenomenon of “Progressive Christianity” is coming to a church near you. Our guest host Alisa Childers is not only an expert in the topic, but she has experienced it first hand. We’re going to list a few symptoms of a progressive church here, but you will have to listen to this episode to learn more. Here are the symptoms:

∙ A lowered view of the Bible
∙ Feelings are emphasized over facts
∙ Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretationHistoric terms are redefined
∙ The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

Uh oh! If this sounds familiar, you really need to listen to this podcast with Alisa Childers. Don’t miss it and make sure to share it with a friend that may need to hear this!

If you want to send us a question for the show, please email us at Hello@CrossExamined.org.

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

May 6, 2019/by Guest

Problems with Progressive Christianity

Podcast

Podcast: Play in new window

From Christian recording artist to daring defender of the faith, Alisa Childers shares her experience with the “Progressive Christianity” movement. She shares with Frank why she wants to raise awareness about this dangerous and toxic view of Christianity. In this podcast they discuss:

What is “Progressive Christianity”?

What are the signs your church might be heading toward progressive Christianity?

What kind of reactions does Alisa get after writing against this movement?

And much more, don’t miss it!

September 24, 2018/by Guest

Tag Archive for: Alisa Childers

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​1. The Historian

​2. The Atheist

3. The Skeptic

​4. The Theologian

​5. The Ex-con

​​​​​References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

2. The Red Herring

​3. The Character Assassinator

​4. The Self-Defeater

Conclusion:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

References:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

​Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. There is a lowered view of the Bible

Comments you might hear:

2. Feelings are emphasized over facts

Comments you might hear:

3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for re-interpretation

Comments you might hear:

​4. Historic terms are re-defined

Comments you might hear:

​5. The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice

Comments you might hear:

Conclusion:

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Fact #1: Early Christians differentiated between canonical and non-canonical books.

Fact #2: Certain New Testament writings were cited as Scripture not long after they were penned.

Fact #3: Church Fathers began to compile lists of New Testament books long before any councils met to finalize the canon.

Fact #4: Early Christian manuscripts were intended for public reading.

Fact #5: Early Christians primarily used a codex rather than a scroll.

References

Recommended resources related to the topic:

1. The Historian

2. The Atheist

4. The Theologian

5. The Ex-con

References:

3. The Character Assassinator

4. The Self-Defeater

Richard Rohr’s view of the gospel

4. Historic terms are re-defined

5. The heart of the gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social justice