Progressive Christianity: What is it?

Progressive Christianity is being used as a title for a social movement. The meaning of the word isn't important. The substance is in the movement. It's been going on for ages. C.S. Lewis talked about it his 1943 novel "That Hideous Strength" where the crazy cleric in the inner circle of the NICE is a "christian"progressive. Several decades ago Gregory Boyd redefined theology proper (Doctrine of GOD) in a manner which put him outside of Biblical Theism[1]. The theology he was promoting didn't reflect what Historical Christianity inherited from classical Judaism. Progressive Christianity isn't a myth. The term has a referent which is very real. Young Christians are discovering this as if it were something new. It isn't new at all. Alica Childers interviews lots of people who are more knowledgeable than she is and asks them leading questions about the topic. For exammple, she talked to W. L. Craig about the atonement. Her interviews are theology 101 for young people who don't know anything. Don't expect to find a serious expolation of the subjects under discussion. The intended audience couldn't digest that so it isn't provided.

[1] I had lunch in early '90s with a man who was teaching greek for the seminary I graduated from and we talked about Gregory Boyd's project. I was shocked to discover that someone teaching for that school was embracing "Gregory Boyd" and his project. The man had studied Hebrew Exegesis for his degree. But he would have been required to take the core curriculum on Systematic Theology. He had no excuse for not understanding what Gregory Boyd was saying in early '90s.

We are now a long way from the early the '90s. The current reincarnation of Progressive Christianity is now mainstream "evangelical" thought. I haven't run into anything by John Frame on this topic.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Active member
Progressive Christianity is being used as a title for a social movement. The meaning of the word isn't important. The substance is in the movement. It's been going on for ages. C.S. Lewis talked about it his 1943 novel "That Hideous Strength" where the crazy cleric in the inner circle of the NICE is a "christian"progressive. Several decades ago Gregory Boyd redefined theology proper (Doctrine of GOD) in a manner which put him outside of Biblical Theism[1]. The theology he was promoting didn't reflect what Historical Christianity inherited from classical Judaism. Progressive Christianity isn't a myth. The term has referent which is very real. Young Christians are discovering this as if it were something new. It isn't new at all. Alica Childers interviews lots of people who are more knowledgeable than she is and asks them leading questions about the topic. She talked to W. L. Craig about the atonement.

[1] I had lunch in early '90s with a man who was teaching greek for the seminary I graduated from and we talked about Gregory Boyd's project. I was shocked to discover that someone work for that seminary was embracing "Gregory Boyd" and his project. The man had studied Hebrew Exegesis for his degree. But he would have been required to take the core curriculum on Systematic Theology. He had no excuse for not understand what Gregory Boyd was saying in early '90s.

We are now a long way from the early '90s. Progressive Christianity is now mainstream "evangelical" thought.
Certainly if I want to explain what you are talking about, the meaning of the term "Progressive Christianity" is important. Sometimes I see it just meaning normal basic Biblical Christian theology + Social Justice. Other times like you are using it, it seems to mean a revisiting and rejection of some basic core Christian theology.

It's one thing for Childers to complain about (A) Progressive Christians giving critiques of Calvinist Penal Substitution theory, and it's another thing for her to complain that (B) Progressive Christians reject any theory of atonement, as in Isaiah 53.

My impression it that what is actually happening is that Progressive Christians include Christians like myself who accept critiques of Calvinist ideas of Penal Substitution theory. The term "Penal Substitution Atonement" is specific to Calvinist formulations, and I saw on Childer's website that she was defending "Penal" Substitution.

If you want to look for critiques of "Penal" Substitution Atonement that aren't rejecting classic Christian ideas of substitutionary atonement per se, consider:

Theopedia's article on Penal Substitutionary Atonement (https://www.theopedia.com/penal-substitutionary-atonement)
Other Evangelical theologians go a step further, while still affirming Penal Substitution, they have come to view the Christus Victor view of the Atonement as more central because it goes beyond dealing only with man's sin and speaking of God's victory over the whole cosmos. One example of this is Gregory Boyd in his book "God at War"^[5]^. Scot McKnight for example writes,

"What I want to say is not that this theory is wrong... I want to say is that the atonement is so much more than this. And, if it is so much more than this, then it follows that using “penal substitution” as our guiding term is inadequate and misleads others. At the least, it does not provide enough information to explain what one really believes occurs in the Atonement"^

Nick's Catholic Blog, "Penal Substitution is the key to understanding Protestant Evangelicalism."


So the article in Theopedia is not even saying that Boyd rejects Penal Substitution per se. In fact, it says that he embraces it. But it says that he is seeing Christus Victor as more central.

In terms of substance, I sympathize with Boyd. Atonement theology is only one of several correct ways to understand the process of salvation, both Biblically and in terms of the early Church writings. "Penal" substitution in its Calvinist explanations has a certain negative harsh cold side to it, and critiques of it can be made against over-emphasizing it. Christianity is a positive faith that addresses suffering as opposed to being one that is inherently obsessed with negativity and darkness.

Since holding to a variety of explanations of soteriology instead of just concentrating on penal substitution is the view of the church fathers, and anyway penal substitution refers to Calvin's 16th century formulation, then certainly holding to a range of soteriological theories matches the early Christian view instead.
 
I am to blame for bringing up what G. Boyd was saying in the 90s which had the predicable effect of derailing the discussion. Boyd's work in the early '90s wasn't the core of the current social movement called Progressive Christianity. On that topic see The Ten Commandments of Progressive Christianity By Dr. Michael Kruger, 2019. Really this isn't about the atonement[1]. I would be inclined to claim that LGBT affirmation is probably the core issue[2] which all so called Progressives agree on. I looked at Michael Kruger's book which is easy reading and well written.

I call this a social movement because it isn't about Historical Christianity. It is outside and unrelated to Historical Christianity. The people I know who are on this path are into the occult. They despise Historical Christians.

[1] Not the same as eastern orthodoxy. That is a cleaver dodge they use. Claiming their views are similar to eastern orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't want to be associated with this movement which is a western heresy. You don't Franky Schaeffer on your team.

[2] along with BLM and ANTIFA.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Active member
I call this a social movement because it isn't about Historical Christianity. It is outside and unrelated to Historical Christianity. The people I know who are on this path are into the occult.
Is your Progressive nephew into the occult? Maybe the "Progressive Christians" who you know are into the Occult, but it sounds like you are misrepresenting "Progressive Christianity", because it's not occult. That would be like saying that Freemasonry was common among Protestants in the first half of the 20th century, and then implying that Protestantism was occult-related.

Freemasonry and Protestantism
In: Handbook of Freemasonry
Author: Guy Liagre
...
Many Roman-Catholics have seen Freemasonry as an extension of Protes-tantism, because of the loyalty to the Hanoverian dynasty that was common in many masonic lodges during the eighteenth century. However, competing Catholic Jacobite lodges also existed on the masonic scene during this period. But it is no coincidence that in Protestant countries such as Sweden and Britain Freemasonry has been associated with the conservative establish-ment, whereas in Catholic and Orthodox countries Freemasonry has often been considered as a subversive force. There is a generally recognised close relationship between the Protestant movement (viz. of the Liberal, rationalistic and in Northern Europe of the pietistic type) and Freemasonry. They are sometimes even considered as parent and child, as expressed in the Hamburger Fremdenblatt, June 13, 1917 for the two hundredth anniver-sary of Freemasonry (1717) and the four hundredth anniversary of the Reformation (1517):The coincidence, for it is only a coincidence, which unites the two cele-brations in the same year suggests the question as to whether these two spiritual forces, Protestantism and Freemasonry, are not very closely related to each other. It is a remarkable fact that the one rests on the other as on its foundation and that Freemasonry is inconceivable with-out Protestantism.
 
Is your Progressive nephew into the occult? Maybe the "Progressive Christians" who you know are into the Occult,

Once again: Were not talking about the same thing! Your concept of Progressives is unrelated to the Progressive Movement.

I knew about the Occult connection with progressives fifty years ago. The haunting of Bishop Pike, Merrill Unger 1971. At the end of his life Pike got involved with a movement that still exists. It isn't important to name it. The movement doesn't need a formal organization. It is capable of functioning as an international collection of fellow travelers.

Richard Rohr is listed as a spiritual guru to the current Progressive Movement. There are other proponents of contemplative spirituality also providing guidance to progressives. These gurus are not the Progressive Movement. They are guides to people associated within the Progressive Movement. What makes someone a progressive is acceptance of a set of ideas spelled out in The Ten Commandments of Progressive Christianity By Dr. Michael Kruger, 2019.

Had a discussion about Richard Rohr with Ed Sherman[1] when he was here in 2018. Ed Sherman was one my colleagues in 1970-71, one of several people I had worked with who were extensively familiar with neo-paganism. I am not a guru on contemplative spirituality so I talk to others about it. Suggest others do the same. Find someone who knows and ask them about it. Richard Rohr fits a prototype,

[1] Sherman has been teaching Christian World View for over 40 years.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
People are always coming up with their own doctrines for beliefs of their gods in ignorance from lack in having the One Jesus had in himself as their own mind.
Exactly. Yet in all of my time at CARM, you are the person who has departed from orthodoxy and try to convince others they must be perfect to attain heaven!

That's 'another' gospel. Paul says your teachings are accursed!
 

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
What is the issue with Rob Bell? I have seen a teaching by him, but don't know the breadth of what he teaches.
Rob Bell is a heretic. He was once orthodox, but has openly challenged the Bible's teaching on homosexuality.

An excerpt from Wiki:

Beliefs[edit]​

In his writings, Bell says, "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God."[27]

Bell's book Love Wins caused a major controversy within the evangelical community. The controversy was the subject of a Time magazine cover story and a featured article in the New York Times.[28][29][30] In the book, Bell states that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as eternal, conscious torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation. Though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states "Whatever objections a person may have of [the universalist view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."[citation needed]

The book was criticized by numerous conservative evangelical figures (in particular, some reformed church leaders), such as Albert Mohler, John Piper, and David Platt, with Mohler saying that the book was "theologically disastrous" for not rejecting universalism.[31][32] Other evangelicals, such as Brian McLaren,[33][34] Greg Boyd[35] and Eugene Peterson[36][37][38] defended Bell's views. Bell denies that he is a universalist and says that he does not embrace any particular view but argues that Christians should leave room for uncertainty on the matter. As Jon Meacham stated, Love Wins presents [Bell's] "case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude."[39][40] Some evangelicals argued that this "uncertainty" is incompatible with Scripture,[41] while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about some traditional interpretations of Scripture.[42][43] In the book, Bell also questions "evacuation theology" which has Christians focused on getting to heaven, instead of focusing on God's renewal and transformation of this world. Bell argues that Jesus (and the wider Jewish tradition of which he was a part) focused on God's ongoing restoration of this world, not getting individuals to heaven.[44][45]

At his Viper Room appearance in July 2012, Bell took a question from an audience member concerned about the church's acceptance of gay members. Said Bell, "Some people are gay, and you're our brothers and you're our sisters, and we love you. We love you... [Gay people] are passionate disciples of Jesus just like I'm trying to be, so let's all get together and try to do something about the truly big problems in our world."[46] On March 17, 2013, in an interview at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, Bell said, "I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man...And I think the ship has sailed. This is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."[47]

In March 2013, Bell expressed frustration with the state of conservative evangelicalism, calling it "a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized Evangelical subculture." He says that Evangelicals have "turned away lots of people" from the church by talking about God in ways that "don't actually shape people into more loving, compassionate people," adding that Evangelicals "have supported policies and ways of viewing the world that are actually destructive, and we've done it in the name of God and we need to repent."
[47]
 

Sethproton

Well-known member
Rob Bell is a heretic. He was once orthodox, but has openly challenged the Bible's teaching on homosexuality.

An excerpt from Wiki:

Beliefs[edit]​

In his writings, Bell says, "I affirm the truth anywhere in any religious system, in any worldview. If it's true, it belongs to God."[27]

Bell's book Love Wins caused a major controversy within the evangelical community. The controversy was the subject of a Time magazine cover story and a featured article in the New York Times.[28][29][30] In the book, Bell states that "It's been clearly communicated to many that this belief (in hell as eternal, conscious torment) is a central truth of the Christian faith and to reject it is, in essence, to reject Jesus. This is misguided and toxic and ultimately subverts the contagious spread of Jesus' message of love, peace, forgiveness and joy that our world desperately needs to hear." In this book, Bell outlines a number of views of hell, including universal reconciliation. Though he does not choose any one view as his own, he states "Whatever objections a person may have of [the universalist view], and there are many, one has to admit that it is fitting, proper, and Christian to long for it."[citation needed]

The book was criticized by numerous conservative evangelical figures (in particular, some reformed church leaders), such as Albert Mohler, John Piper, and David Platt, with Mohler saying that the book was "theologically disastrous" for not rejecting universalism.[31][32] Other evangelicals, such as Brian McLaren,[33][34] Greg Boyd[35] and Eugene Peterson[36][37][38] defended Bell's views. Bell denies that he is a universalist and says that he does not embrace any particular view but argues that Christians should leave room for uncertainty on the matter. As Jon Meacham stated, Love Wins presents [Bell's] "case for living with mystery rather than demanding certitude."[39][40] Some evangelicals argued that this "uncertainty" is incompatible with Scripture,[41] while others say that the book is simply promoting overdue conversation about some traditional interpretations of Scripture.[42][43] In the book, Bell also questions "evacuation theology" which has Christians focused on getting to heaven, instead of focusing on God's renewal and transformation of this world. Bell argues that Jesus (and the wider Jewish tradition of which he was a part) focused on God's ongoing restoration of this world, not getting individuals to heaven.[44][45]

At his Viper Room appearance in July 2012, Bell took a question from an audience member concerned about the church's acceptance of gay members. Said Bell, "Some people are gay, and you're our brothers and you're our sisters, and we love you. We love you... [Gay people] are passionate disciples of Jesus just like I'm trying to be, so let's all get together and try to do something about the truly big problems in our world."[46] On March 17, 2013, in an interview at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco, Bell said, "I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I am for love, whether it's a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man...And I think the ship has sailed. This is the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are."[47]

In March 2013, Bell expressed frustration with the state of conservative evangelicalism, calling it "a very narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized Evangelical subculture." He says that Evangelicals have "turned away lots of people" from the church by talking about God in ways that "don't actually shape people into more loving, compassionate people," adding that Evangelicals "have supported policies and ways of viewing the world that are actually destructive, and we've done it in the name of God and we need to repent."
[47]
Ok. Thanks. I read most of this and his views on homosexual marriage is not Biblical.
Not sure that ranks him as a heretic. But that word is thrown around on these threads, generally meaning "I disagree with you."
 
Here is a podcast about Progressive Christianity. The first person Michael Kruger mentions is Richard Rohr.

035: Dr. Michael Kruger: 10 Commandments of Progressive Christianity

Perhaps it would be helpful for people not familiar with Richard Rohr to do some research on non-dualism. Finding a clear answer to this may be difficult. What I am hearing is that Richard Rohr is outside the worldview of Historical Christianity because non-dualism contradicts a foundational assumption that all reality can be divided into two forms of being: Creator : creature. Peter Jones has written on this theme decades ago. I was telling people about Peter Jones in the '90s when I got a reply email for Driscoll[1] informing me Peter Jones had sent him several of his books.

[1] Never heard of him? He was a making a lot of noise in the '90s.
 
Last edited:

Berserk

Member
Perhaps it would be helpful for people not familiar with Richard Rohr to do some research on non-dualism. Finding a clear answer to this may be difficult. What I am hearing is that Richard Rohr is outside the worldview of Historical Christianity because non-dualism contradicts a foundational assumption that all reality can be divided into two forms of being: Creator : creature. Peter Jones has written on this theme decades ago. I was telling people about Peter Jones in the '90s when I got a reply email for Driscoll informing me that Peter Jones had sent him several of his books.
A precise definition of "progressive Christianity" is no more possible than a definition for "Emerging Church" and "existentialism. Fundamentalists seize on this ambiguous complexity as an excuse to wallow in simplistic and misleadning stereotypes of spiritual movements. Thus, the same Baptists who take umbrage when they are identified with the odious excesses of Westside Baptist Church. take gleeful delight in discussing Roman Catholic spirituality solely in terms of perceived weaknesses and errors without regard to what they might learn from Catholic spirituality at its best. In their critique of evolution they lack the integrity to watch how respected Christian evolutionists defend this theory, preferring the warped caricatures of Fundamentalist apologetics instead. In short, they are incapable of in depth honest and open inquiry into fresh perspectives. To get a taste for why my evangelical sister-in-law raves about Richard Rohr's spirituality, watch this Rohr sermon in a Washington cathedral:

 
A precise definition of "progressive Christianity" is no more possible than a definition for "Emerging Church" and "existentialism
Totally agree. Existentialism wasn't Being & Nothingness. All the others said what ever Existentialism means it isn't what Sartre wrote in this book. The Ten Commanments Michael Kruger, 2019 is a prototype borrowing a model from semantic theory. This is social science, looked into that somewhat when I was a young pacifast in college.

Here is a link to Peter Jones on Richard Rohr.
Peter Jones has written on this theme decades ago.

Postscript: Michael Kruger, check his credentials.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Ok. Thanks. I read most of this and his views on homosexual marriage is not Biblical.
Not sure that ranks him as a heretic. But that word is thrown around on these threads, generally meaning "I disagree with you."

His views on heaven and hell do not conform with scripture.

He has said: "The Bible has caused so much damage. In many ways it has been an agent for dragging everything backwards."



Like I said, he's a heretic.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Exactly. Yet in all of my time at CARM, you are the person who has departed from orthodoxy and try to convince others they must be perfect to attain heaven!
Agreed. Jesus taught the same thing. Matt 5:48.
That's 'another' gospel. Paul says your teachings are accursed!
Yes that is why I follow the way of Jesus instead of Paul.

It is better for me to follow that what Jesus taught than it is to follow what Paul taught. If Paul has the better way for you then I do understand your position as Paul has the better way than jesus had.

People who follow Paul instead of Jesus think that Jesus is insufficient to relay his message so they rely on the opinions of Paul instead. . Setting aside Jesus in his ways in favor of Paul.
 
Last edited:

Beloved Daughter

Super Member
Agreed. Jesus taught the same thing. Matt 5:48.

Yes that is why I follow the way of Jesus instead of Paul.

It is better for me to follow that what Jesus taught than it is to follow what Paul taught. If Paul has the better way for you then I do understand your position as Paul has the better way than jesus had.

People who follow Paul instead of Jesus think that Jesus is insufficient to relay his message so they rely on the opinions of Paul instead. . Setting aside Jesus in his ways in favor of Paul.

The Bible records that Jesus chose the Apostle PAUL to spread the good news. Too bad you don't recognize the authority of Jesus to choose whom He wills
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
The Bible records that Jesus chose the Apostle PAUL to spread the good news. Too bad you don't recognize the authority of Jesus to choose whom He wills
Actually Paul made that decision as a self appointed -- not Jesus. Jesus didnt need Paul at all to lead him to the Father.

To bad that I follow Jesus teachings instead of Pauls? That explains a lot about you.
 

Berserk

Member
Totally agree. Existentialism wasn't Being & Nothingness. All the others said what ever Existentialism means it isn't what Sartre wrote in this book. The Ten Commanments Michael Kruger, 2019 is a prototype borrowing a model from semantic theory. This is social science, looked into that somewhat when I was a young pacifast in college.

Here is a link to Peter Jones on Richard Rohr.
Peter Jones has written on this theme decades ago.

Postscript: Michael Kruger, check his credentials.
LOL, it's a small world. You and Peter Jones both mention Fuller Seminary. I transferred from Fuller to Princeton Seminary because Fuller was so Fundamentalist that professors were angry at the tough questions I was asking about biblical authority, the very questions that brought me to seminary in the first place to help me better serve Jesus. At Princeton Peter Jones (several years older than me) lived across the hall from me and we were in constant conversation in those years. Peter had grown up with Beatle John Lennon in Liverpool.
 
LOL, it's a small world. You and Peter Jones both mention Fuller Seminary. I transferred from Fuller to Princeton Seminary because Fuller was so Fundamentalist that professors were angry at the tough questions I was asking about biblical authority, the very questions that brought me to seminary in the first place to help me better serve Jesus. At Princeton Peter Jones (several years older than me) lived across the hall from me and we were in constant conversation in those years. Peter had grown up with Beatle John Lennon in Liverpool.
That is amazing. Bruce Metzger is one of my heroes. Bart Ehrman and Michael Holmes were there at the same time with Metzger. I read Orthodox Corruption and exchanged a few e-mails with Ehrman when we were both on the textual criticism forum decades ago. I have Michael Holmes Apostolic Fathers both Accordance and hard copy. I used it this morning. He was also on on the textual criticism forum along with people like Larry Hurtado and William Petersen from Penn State.

I never got south of Monterey Carmel in California. I've been to Half Moon Bay on summer evenings. Fuller was used as an expletive where I attended seminary. Princeton wasn't really mentioned as an option. Wasn't on our radar. I read a lot of Emil Brunner for no better reason than I could understand him and not Barth who was the guy everyone wanted to quote. Was working on thesis in regard to the Divine Human Encounter until my thesis adviser John Feinberg got wind of it and the theology dept agreed that my approach to Brunner wasn't going to fly. So there were certain limitations on what you could write. My growing up next door friend Steve Graham attended Denver Seminary for a while. They got tired of hearing him quoting Herbert Marcuse and he dropped out. My life before forty was crawling with Marxists.
 
Last edited:
C

Chuckz

Guest
Reason for the question: A member of my extended family has self identified as a proponent of Progressive Christianity. He has enthusiastically embraced Rob Bell and Richard Rohr. My nephew attended private "Christian" schools k-12 followed by Whitworth College and Fuller Seminary in Pasadena. He has been working in campus ministries for two decades. This post isn't about my nephew. It is about the worldview he is caught up in.

The question:

How does Progressive Christianity differ from the modernism of the 20th century?

I am wondering if Progressive Christianity is really a thing. It seems that it is somewhat fuzzy at the edges.

There are a few apologists[1] who have taken up discussing Progressive Christianity. But some of them admit it isn't cohesive.

[1] for example, Alicia Childers
I looked at the Wikipedia article and didn't agree with all of the ideas as to what is progressive Christianity.

The trend is that Christian bookstores are closing because no one is reading anymore.

I'm even shocked by CBD because lots of books are now E-books only. There is a lesser amount of Christian reference books. I'm shocked at what is happening at Christian colleges.

Our church took down the name Baptist because they did a study and people in the neighborhood said they would come if the church would not be called "Baptist" so Church became about stories, all the songs became K-Love songs, they got rid of the Organ and Choir (the choir is not seeker sensitive). They kicked the old people out and they got rid of a lot of events that were about us. It was about us watching podcasts and pastors in other buildings who were on a video screen and I can't believe pastors can be an overseer if they are not on the premises. They lacked money because it was the old people who gave (the church kicked them out) and they had to get rid of the kitchen so they could pay less in insurance. It felt like a 4H club. And the pastor admitted they had to find a way to tell the people the gospel but never did before the old people left. Teaching was dumbed down. I asked people every week, "What did you learn?" and no one could tell me. They literally made fantastic promises that never came true.

In retrospect, they were manipulators of men. Sweet talkers. And Christians like you and me are "Joybusters". They all fell for it and no one would defend their church. I brought evidence to people but they said, "not these men" when they were clearly red handed because poor people are dependent on the church and are not going to rock the boat because they are like hirelings. The church decimated the church's academic library and I don't know where it went. I remember walking through the offices when they were being built and they had "The Purpose Driven Life" in leather binding so they were busy going to conferences and stuff. I consider it wasted time because no matter how much I would tell people about the emergent church, no one would believe me. They said, "he doesn't know."

I sent the pastor an email about something neutral after we left and I never got a reply. We don't exist. All the friend making, shaking hands, saying, "hi" was all insincere.

They invited the world in and pocket books started disappearing, someone stole the assistant pastor's car and keys. I held onto my wife's pocketbook.
 
Top