During the early 1800’s as America passed from the blessings of the Second Great Awakening, a movement called Liberalism emerged out of the European Enlightenment birthing the “modern” era of Western Civilization. Born within the theological world of Protestantism in Germany, Liberalism began to pervade all of Western society’s Christianity. This openly antichrist, anti-God movement from within Christianity denounced the literality of the Scriptures and basically rejected all the cardinal doctrines of the historic Christian Faith. Not only were all the miracles of the Bible defamed as myths, but also the historicity of Jesus was strongly condemned.

Once the literality of Scripture was destroyed in the public Christian view, the Liberals needed a hermeneutical principle to interpret these so-called mythical Scriptures. This principle was called Modernism. These handmaidens of apostasy—Liberalism and Modernism—birthed a new Christianity that essentially was based on the social aspect of man, denying any spiritual perspective. Accompanying this view was a new mentality concerning Christianity: modern Christianity must be interpreted from the contemporary perspective or from the ever-changing present philosophy of each age.

A Present Philosophy

Toward the end of the 1800s, a philosophy previously associated with Georg Hegel’s Dialecticism was finally systematized in the writings of Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard’s Existentialism was a philosophy that rejected absolutes, making life and truth a mass of floating islands with no accountability. He placed his Existentialism in philosophy’s so-called “upper story” of knowledge. The upper-story belief could be anything an individual wanted to believe; it did not require validation or verification with the lower story’s established absolutes. Existentialism essentially denounced the linear logic of Western Civilization, which was based upon clear, contrasting terms such as light and darkness, truth and error, and God and the Devil.

Dialecticism had endeavored to bring these antithetical terms and beliefs together into a synthesized new concept of truth. This philosophical environment had led to a flourishing of pragmatic semantics in Western thought. Now, Existentialism took logic beyond the stretched boundaries of Dialecticism and created a world of thought where absolutes were conspicuously absent. Man’s world could merely be what he willed or believed it to be. He did not have to prove it through absolutes; he simply needed to make a “leap of faith” into his imaginative world.

When Liberalism began to dominate the theological world of Europe and America in the latter part of the 1800s, it systematically attempted to destroy any hope the belief of God and the Scriptures had given to mankind. Thus, man was plunged into humanistic despair. This especially became true after World War I when leading institutions of thought had hoped that the twentieth century would be a century of peace and “Christianity.” Even the magazine The Christian Century was born in this positivistic view. But such hope was shattered by the first concept of a “world” war.

The theologian Karl Barth arose within these troubled hours of Church History. He was a student of the Liberal patriarch Adolph von Harnack and knew if the message of the Bible were done away with, there would be no hope for man. Through his readings of several men including Kierkegaard, Barth wondered if there was another way to interpret the Scriptures other than from the literality position. While he fully agreed with the Liberals in denouncing a literal interpretation of the Bible, he chose to embrace Existentialism as his new method of interpreting the Bible.

With the new hermeneutical key of Existentialism for approaching the Scriptures, Neo-Orthodoxy was born. Rudolph Bultmann’s “form criticism” used Existentialism as a methodological interpretation for the Scriptures. With it he attempted to find the kerygma (the kernel or core) of what the Bible was actually saying. Along with Emil Brunner and others, these Neo-Orthodox theologians denied the existence of the historical Christ, as well as the true existence of God. They believed that perhaps one could “existentially” believe that Christ and God did exist, thus fabricating a personal existentially-created “upper story” view of Christianity. Whether it was true or not in the absolute sense, they believed one should at least take a leap into the dark believing at least something to be existentially true for one’s life. This is the reason Paul Tillich could call himself a “Christian Atheist.” In the “lower story” of reason he was an atheist, but in the “upper story” of existentialism he was a Christian.

From Modernism to Postmodernism

Existentialism’s interpretation of life brought a realm of thought into existence that was contrary to linear logic, reason, and even to the Enlightenment Period, that child of the Age of Reason. It was a realm of thinking that was “post” modern; Existentialism had opened a new frontier of thought that would do away with the past, even the past “modern” thought. Existentialism has no boundaries or limits in its view of logic; it is so elastic and fluid that it would permit whatever path or realm of imagination one would desire to travel. It lives for the present “moment” or the “now.” The past roots or the future consequences are never considered. It provides accommodation for whatever one wants to believe without the need of proving it with absolutes. Other philosophies have their limitations and boundaries, but Existentialism denies even the absolutes of its own boundaries.

By the 1940s, another theology destructively erupted out of existential Neo-Orthodoxy. It was proclaimed as Radical Theology, commonly called Theothanatology—the “God is dead” movement. This theology came as the result of the writings of Neo-Orthodoxy, whose men were realistically atheists but existentially theists. Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton were two prominent authors of this new theology. This theology attacked the very root of theology—God Himself.

Theothanatology has had a variety of interpretations. Three common ones are (1) that God never existed, (2) that God died when Christ died on the cross, or (3) that all present-day terminology concerning God must die. The latter belief calls for man to first obliterate any historic view of God and then out of the ashes create a new imagery of God, a new deity with its own set of descriptions and theological thought. In 1963, about two decades following the rise of Theothanatology, the Anglican bishop John A.T. Robinson published Honest to God. This work publicly announced that we need a Christ-less Christianity, that secular man needed a secular theology. Such a belief leaned directly into the postmodern era of the church. Welcoming this teaching were the myriads of liberals permeating seminaries and pulpits around the world. Both the world and the church were coming to another threshold of thought; the modern was passing away and a postmodern era was raising its mysterious head.

The President of these United States has become a classic example whose leadership presses for a “post” modern society. He forces America to spend money that it does not have in order to accommodate that which has no meaning. He lives for the “now” with no allegiance to the past and no accountability to the future. He is the man that has brought us into a postmodern era. His form of logic is neither the old liberalism nor the old modernism. He has brought us into a new era of thought, of politics, and even a new era of religious thinking. He has entered into precincts that no man has tried before in order to bring about a postmodern perspective. He seeks a postmodern society that must control the very essence of our birth, living, and dying; it must control all education in America. As a nation we can never return to any resemblance of the past treasured thoughts of living. We are called upon by this Administration to simply believe without reason, proof, or consciousness of consequence. This is the saddest aspect of postmodernism—there is no map and no plan, for where postmodernism is taking us is an unknown destination. The individual or the collective state makes a leap into the dark embracing only a fabricated, false hope.

The gurus of such existential thinking are quickly rising in global influence. One such man of influence is Eckhart Tolle, who found his benefactress quickly in Oprah Winfrey; she has become a member of his New Age following. Coming out from a mental and emotional breakdown and a self-inflicted insanity, Tolle created his own version of Existentialism. He calls us first “to leave our analytical mind,” believing it has created a false self, and then connect to the indestructible essence of our Being, which to him is god or our personal divinity. It is neither the past nor the future that should concern us, only the present moment. This is postmodern thinking.

The Postmodern, Emerging Church

One of the prominent evangelical leaders of our time, Brian McLaren, gives a classic example of postmodern belief:

You see if we have a new world, we will need a new church. We won’t need a new religion per se, but a new framework for our theology. Not a new spirit, but a new spirituality. Not a new Christ, but a new Christian. Not a new denomination, but a new kind of church in every denomination.

This is a plea from the contemporary indicating that even the “modern” has lost its influence and effectiveness for the Church. In the light of the changes that have come to the secular world, the Church must now move into another era. Liberalism truly broke the ties with biblical Christianity and set the Church free as a floating island to eventually chart its own course for the future. As the “modern” thought is fast leaving the world—both secularly and religiously—we have entered into the transition that is to lead to this “new church,” this “framework of theology,” this “new spirituality,” and this “new kind of church in every denomination.”

Although the grid for the presupposition of this postmodern church was prophetically built fifty to sixty years ago, its rise to visibility has been in the past quarter of a century. The “mega” churches have stepped forward with their impressive clout, their massive attendance, their overwhelming financial resources, and their secularist know-how to bring the church into the corporate business mentality. All of this is part of the postmodern church. The mega church is part of the “emerging” new view of the concept of the church. It believes that because the modern church still has some roots or cords tied to antiquity, it will not survive the aggressive changes now arising in society. The gurus of the postmodern era are announcing that the church must be ready to make the changes. To them it is a survival theology for the future existence of Christianity. And yet to survive, all terminology of religions must die. We need to release ourselves from all the former terms, concepts, traditions and every aspect of the former view of the church, even down to the architecture and furniture. A new concept of the Church must “emerge” by way of a full surrender to every change needed. A full and complete makeover of the church, including its purpose and nature, will be needed for the future emerging society.

It is now clearly evident that the modern church will not be the end product of Liberalism and Modernism; the modern church is but a transitional path to prepare the way for the postmodern era of the Church. If the institutional church must be assimilated into all the religions of the world and accommodating to the governments of the world, then it must get ready for drastic and radical changes. A blank mind about God will be imperative to remold and reshape humanity for the coming new religion. How will this emerge with seven billion people on the planet controlled by thousands of religions? If there are enough men strategically located globally in all of these religions and sympathetic toward this cause, it can be done.

Since World War II, a postmodern era has emerged from a modern world. In religion this was evident in the birth of Neo-Evangelicalism (1948), Neo-Pentecostalism, and the World Council of Churches (1948). By 1967, the Charismatic movement was underway; within just a few years its postmodern, existential influence had spread into Roman Catholicism and all the major Protestant denominations. This Charismatic movement became a religious glue to support the transition of the church deep into the postmodern era of the global church.

Transitional Movements

Just as America can never return to its former days, the visible, public church will never return to the true Christ. The reason is twofold: the antiquity of truth is dimming in memory, and the “neo” Christian movements now control and redefine the “old.” This must be understood. Whatever movements within today’s Evangelical spectrum that appear to sound honorable and biblical on the surface are largely controlled by Neo-Christianity.

One clear example is Focus on the Family. While claiming to place emphasis upon the family, it drew the family into the concepts of the Neo-Christianity. Biblical separation was not part of its heart and fabric. No matter the apparent surface benefits, Neo Christianity controlled its presentations and publications of the old traditional values.

The Bill Gothard ministries also came to the evangelical scene with a call to address the conflicts of youth and home; and yes, it truly was a need longing to be addressed. However, Mr. Gothard was a graduate of Wheaton College, a bastion of Neo-Evangelicalism. From his ministry’s beginning there has been an absence of biblical separation. Today his expanding ministry has mushroomed in its associations with Charismatics and Southern Baptists. Its leanings are ecumenical in heart and spirit.

The threads of the “old” found within the “new“ are often the enticements to the heart of the seeker. Nevertheless, as time unfolds, the “old” becomes dim and more and more the “neo” takes over the old. Then when the visually appealing cry to return to the “old” arises in contrast to the postmodern “new,” one finds only an empty shell of the “old” present, its heart absent. This is why non-separation is a controlling factor of any organization or movement that sounds good now. Such movements dangerously promote and cultivate “neutrality” toward apostasy. Although the mind is drawn to good and honorable things, it is simultaneously drawn away from the needed truth of separation from the apostasy. Among the many I have met who came by way of the influence of Bill Gothard, invariably they were soft and neutral on the apostasy within the Church. Yes, although it is an “old” hope for the family, it is controlled by the Neo-Christianity. A “delusion” is not the absence of truth—it is the addition of error.

Another movement that arose some years ago calling for a restoration of Christian family culture is Vision Forum. It too is a movement controlled by the Neo-Christianity. This movement’s call for morals, family, and patriotism is certainly a refreshing one in our day and time; nevertheless, Neo-Christianity controls the package of the “old” they provide for the family. Today it is a thoroughgoing Neo-Evangelical movement with all the characteristics of contemporary music to cater to the world; its associations denounce biblical separation. I even have concerns for its unusual view of father-daughter relationships. The bonding technique of having daughters shave the faces of their fathers during their Father and Daughter retreats seems strange. The call of the father to “lead, woo, and win” his daughter’s admiration also tends to minimize the needed mother-daughter relationship. Is it at all possible to eventually hear of the sin of family incest arising as a result of certain abnormalities and improprieties influenced by Vision Forum emphasis?

We also are concerned about American Vision’s promotion of the work of Douglas Wilson. American Vision claims to be a ministry trying to “restore America to its biblical foundation.” Nevertheless, it promotes the May 2007 debate between Douglas Wilson and the atheist Christopher Hitchens. These fruitless debates have ultimately produced a bond between friend and foe with Wilson and Hitchens ending up at a bar laughing, joking, and drinking. This is not pure, biblical Christianity. Biblical Christianity abhors the world, its music, its associations, and its ecumenicity. This is a false Christ that, with some appeal and appearance of the “old,” is controlled by the “new.”

We are now facing an evangelical generation that is contributing to the genocide of true Christianity. It is true that these movements mentioned have by no means caught up with Obama’s postmodernism; however, such movements are greatly assisting the assimilation of evangelicals into the mainstream transition to postmodernism. Amidst the ever-increasing numbers who follow such movements, there will be a conspicuous absence of a strong stand against the contemporary apostasy pervading Christianity today. These movements breed within their followers neutrality towards the apostasy. The sheer power of the flesh moves the movement; the sheer power of money maintains the appearance that it is blessed of God. The form of godliness is certainly present, but because of its dialectic principle to merge the flesh and a so-called Spirit, the power of Heaven is not present. While we in our naivety will only see the good such movements portray, we tend to be willfully blind to the darkness that accompanies their methodology and ecumenicity.

Conclusion

In both politics and religion, global society is in the transition now beyond liberalism. We are beyond the radicals; we are emerging into a new thought, a postmodern era. Linear logic is gone, absolutes are gone; when what will not work is being accepted, we may say even pragmatism is departing. The institutional church is now clamoring for a new church to emerge out of the rubble that is not like the church before. It is the era of acrylic pulpits, lounge chairs and couches, church cappuccino cafes, Hollywood entertainment, psychological pep-talk preaching, and casual worship attire. Christ is mentioned now and then, but there is no biblical theology in this emerging church. There is no doctrine; it is all based on this postmodernity to prepare religious humanity for the End-time globalism. Even the word church is disappearing; it is a term identified too much with Jesus, too much with the Lord. In its place are terms such as worship center, deliverance center, and family center.

Our next issue addresses the inward view of the Emerging Church’s fabric and destiny. We are truly coming to the end of the Church as it is biblically known. May God have mercy upon us in these days of the greatest delusion and deception the Church, whether liberal or conservative, has ever confronted.