Recently Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio
and A Little Leaven
has paraded his new friendship with Emergent Church Movement (ECM) leader Dan Kimball on Facebook complete with multiple photos. Kimball is supposed to be more conservative than some other ECM leaders. Because Rosebrough was considered by many to be sound doctrinally as he has exposed some error in the ECM, Word of Faith movement, etc. it came as a surprise that not only did he befriend Kimball, but sees nothing heretical in Kimball at all. This is the same issue of Piper/Driscoll and Piper/Warren. And it stinks to high Heaven.
Has Kimball become more moderate in his views? Has he repented of his leading thousands astray in the unholy Emergent movement?
Promoting the ECM Catalyst
conference for 2011 under the heading "Some of the Events I am Part Of", Kimball also was at this year's conference in which he applauded his fellow Emergent leaders. In addition he mentions the other Emergent conferences he's involved with along with applauding even more Emergent leaders:
I had the joy of speaking at Catalyst West Coast
last year and will be speaking at it again this year. I'll be speaking at a "Lab
" which is the first day of the event. You have to register for the Lab day in addition to the main event. Catalyst is having an Origins* tract and myself, Scot McKnight
(I have done research on McKnight) and Margaret Feinberg will be leading Origins labs
. Chris Tomlin is leading worship music.
Last year was the first Catalyst event I ever went to and I was really amazed at the incredible way they put on the event. This year the list of speakers includes Andy Stanley, Donald Miller, Mark Driscoll, Erwin McManus, Dallas Willard, Louie Giglio
and a bunch others you can read on the Catalyst West Coast web site.
There are so many exciting events coming up this year.... and it is hard to simply highlight one. A couple others are in July I will be part of MissionShift Conference
and also on the "Framers" team
with Tim Keller, Ed Stetzer, Alan Hirsch, Linda B. and others
. The Framers team will be working on a "Missional Manifesto
" document which is going to help give some definition to what is "missional". So I am thrilled to be part of that as I believe it is something that is needed and will be helpful in the missional conversation.
In July we also will be putting on our first formal Origins
event. It will be Saturday, July 24. it will be in Los Angeles - we will be announcing details soon. Erwin, myself, Dave Gibbons, Scot McKnight
, Amena Brown, Margaret Feinberg
and several others and some unique speakers we will be announcing soon will be part of this. It will likely be more for west coasters since it is a one-day event. Next summer in 2011 we will put on a several day festival event in Pasadena.
Current on Kimball's website he has this on the right sidebar regarding Origins:
"Origins: New Network/CommunitySign up on this link for new network/community Erwin McManus,
Dave Gibbons, Scot McKnight
, Rick McKinley and some others (see link) are in the beginning process of forming a new community/network based around a passion for evangelism, Scripture and innovation for mission. Go to the above link to sign up for updates as it is formed."Origins is chalk full of Emergents
"gathering" (aka "church") is an Emergent church headed up by Emergent leader Erwin McManus, and is one of the three "core churches" of Origins. Another Mosaic leader is also part of the "Origins Team",
Then there is the post of 3 days with NT Wright.... Catalyst West Coast.... Beauty from Ashes
It is a "Consultation with Bishop NT Wright
" (what they call it) with about 20 people. NT Wright is the featured speaker for Wheaton's annual theology event happening later that week. But they formed this pre-event before that big one. NT Wright will be presenting some things about Jesus, Paul and evangelism - and then we have discussion about it, some roundtable discussions and panels.
I am thrilled to be there at this and it is a very unique and diverse mix of 20 people who are going to be there. Myself, Alan Hirsch, Mike Frost, Phyllis Tickle, Shane Claiborne, Rick McKinley, Darrell Guder, Dave Ferguson
.... Should be some very fascinating discussions.
I am staying over Thursday night and going to hang out in Chicago with Alan Hirsch and Rick McKinley, so that should be quite fun as well whatever we end up doing.
Again, notice the Emergent leaders he lists and he finds this "thrilling". NT Wright is a promoter of the "New Perspective on Paul" which is heresy
and has issues with the doctrine of Imputation.
The other day Kimball (who Rosebrough and others claim is not like his Emergent brothers in arms), posted this
"The reason I invited Deb to speak was from a night I was over Alan and Deb Hirsch's home in LA for dinner last summer. As we were hanging out, we ended up talking about the need for moderate voices in the homosexuality/church discussion. By moderate I mean people who may hold the historical view of sexuality and what we believe God's original intent and design for sexuality is as revealed in the Scriptures. But while holding these views, they do not speak with rhetoric of fear, anger, non-compassion, unintelligence about Scripture or without love. Alan and Deb's theological viewpoint is the same as mine and our church's leadership which would be the church's historical view. But it is important to note, that this is not just a doctrine or theology we are talking about with this. This is lives we are talking about. Hopes, dreams, real people - not merely a doctrinal puzzle to solve or theological discussion
The issue of homosexuality is never to be debated. Scripture is very clear on this:
1Ti 1:10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality
, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine
Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire
, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error
Rom 1:28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived:
neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 11 And such WERE some of you. BUT you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God
This issue was not new during Paul's life or that of Jesus' or of Abraham's. How did Paul deal with sexual immorality? 1Cor. 5 is very clear on how he dealt with the Corinithian church. He was angry at their "tolerance" and told them to throw out the professing brother, from the church. Immediate action was to be taken. Later we see that the man did repent and was granted back into the fellowship in 2Cor. But the immediate issue is about the leaven among the people.
Kimball said, " As we were hanging out, we ended up talking about the need for moderate voices in the homosexuality/church discussion
. By moderate I mean people who may hold the historical view of sexuality and what we believe God's original intent and design for sexuality is as revealed in the Scriptures
. But while holding these views, they do not speak with rhetoric of fear, anger, non-compassion, unintelligence about Scripture or without love.
Ok look at how this is presented. Scripture is never "moderate" on the issue of homosexuality nor homosexuals
. "Moderate" connotes a more "balanced" view as if the view of rejecting whole heartedly homosexuality from every aspect is somehow unbalanced
. Its a subtle, but nonetheless attack on those who hold boldly to the authority of Scripture. Whenever people say they hold to biblical doctrine, and follow that by "but", that's where you need to zero in
. And really, we have to question what they mean when they claim their view is "biblical" anyway
. But for arguement's sake let's say their profession is in line with the biblical view. There shouldn't be "but" followed by that. What this is, is a way to tone down the harsh dealings against sin
Kimball is also making an assumption that Christians are NOT dealing with homosexuality without "intellegence about Scripture" or "without love". How they define love will be very different from that of Scripture. Of this I'm sure. And what about fear? Liberals think that anger = fear, and I guarantee that's EXACTLY what's going on here. Rather, we should fear to offend our thrice holy God; we should fear for the souls of men and women in bondage to such deviant behavior of sin and unbelief. We should be angry against those who claim to be Christians and yet are homosexuals. No one can be both, according to Scripture. We should be angry against those who bring shame to HIS name by their unnatural lifestyles. We should be angry that people dare call Jesus "Lord" but refuse to submit to HIM. You see what I mean?
Another thing to note: Kimball says , "Alan and Deb's theological viewpoint is the same as mine and our church's leadership which would be the church's historical view. " Do they have homosexuals sitting in their pews? Are they disciplining the homosexuals if there are? Leadership vs. the rest of the congregation---one group holds to a "biblical view" (and what does he mean by that exactly?) while its ok if the members are in that sin or have a different view? See, there's the Post-modern loophole. And frankly, its all unconvincing. I'll go even a step further. If you REALLY have a biblical view of homosexuality, you will not be debating it or minimizing it (aka humanizing it, tolerating it), but you will strongly preach against it and then your actions as pastor will be strongly against it also (ie, church discipline).
The actions or non-actions
bear out if one really is being biblical.
In further research I found this regarding Kimball by Lighthouse Trails Research
(the book by Kimball which LTR deals with in the article, is heavily promoted at his own website even as I write this.)
Sexuality in the New Reformation :
...One example of this new reformation mindset on sexuality can be found in Dan Kimball’s book, They Like Jesus but Not the Church
. Kimball devotes an entire chapter (called “The Church is Homophobic”) to homosexuality and says that Christians need to reinterpret what we thought the Bible says about homosexuality
Because this is such a huge issue in our culture, and because all of the tension and discussion on this issue is over what the Bible says about it, we can no longer just regurgitate what we have been taught about homosexuality.… We cannot do that any longer … We must approach the Bible with humility, prayer, and sensitivity, taking into consideration the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words and looking into the historical contexts in which passages were written.… we can no longer with integrity merely quote a few isolated verses and say “case closed.”1
Quite honestly, and some people might get mad at me for saying this, I sometimes wish this [homosexuality] weren’t a sin issue, because I have met gay people
who are the most kind, loving, solid, and supportive people I have ever met. As I talk to them and hear their stories and get to know them, I come to understand that their sexual orientation isn’t something they can just turn off. Homosexual attraction is not something people simply choose to have, as is quite often erroneously taught from many pulpits
Kimball does not stand alone within the ranks of the emerging church in his permissive, accepting view of homosexuality.....
Notes:1. Dan Kimball, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, op. cit., p. 137.
2. Ibid., p. 138.
First of all, as noted, Scripture indeed does say its a choice by those who refuse to submit to God and worship Him alone. Secondly there's no such thing as being born a homosexual. This
idea is the notion that is "quite often erroneously taught" by the liberals. Go here
to find out why there's no such thing as a homosexual gene.
Cloaking liberalism in Christianese doesn't work for those of us who know the Truth well and our power of discernment from the Lord Jesus Christ has been sharpened by constant use of the Sword of the Spirit by the Holy Spirit in our lives as we diligently study the Word and believe it. There is NO doubt that Kimball is indeed trying to get homosexuality accepted by Christians. Incrimentalism is the tool being used. But it still smells to high Heaven.
Clamouring for "Fair and balanced" (aka "moderate") views usually means a little leaven is ok. Not in God's eternal and perfect Book.