This will get to the heart of the matter about the heresy within the emergent church movement. In a nut shell their goal is a Jesus religion that cares little about the Biblical Jesus or His words. They plan to reinvent Christianity so it will fit right in with the postmodern generation taught that there are no moral absolutes. This is why this movement will be identified with the harlot who rides the Beast in Revelation.
Erwin McManus’s False Teachings “Erwin McManus has made it crystal clear that he hates Christianity. This is very well documented. He has said, “The greatest enemy of the movement of Jesus Christ is Christianity,” and “My goals is to destroy Christianity as a world religion and be a recatalyst for the movement of Jesus Christ.”[1] Now before you argue that I am taking his words out of context, understand that I am fully aware of forms of “Christianity” that every true Christian should hate, forms that aren’t Christian at all. There are many who claim to be Christians but show no evidence of Christ being their Lord. And there are many churches that do the same. We should hate that kind of “Christianity,” which isn’t really Christianity at all.
But that’s not the kind of Christianity Erwin McManus is talking about. No, he’s talking about biblical Christianity. He’s talking about the Christianity of the Gospels, the Christianity of the Apostles, the Christianity that triumphed in the Reformation when certain godly men stood up for truth against Roman Catholic heresy. When Erwin says he wants to destroy Christianity, he is speaking of the Church of Jesus Christ that exalts God’s glory in justification by faith alone to the glory of God alone. Simply put, Erwin wants to destroy Truth. Now, let’s see how.”
You also might read what the late Ken Silva had to say and follow the links in his well documented article to what others also said.
http://apprising.org/2010/09/11/erwin-mcmanus-the-mouth-that-roared/
I’m sorry, but I fear you haven’t actually taken his comments in context. It’s a game of semantics, really. And surely he could’ve been more responsible with making statements like that, but if you examined the thing in context, you would see you’ve misunderstood him. I know I’m years behind, but I couldn’t ignore this.
It should be obvious that I did not write the article. I just quoted an excerpt from an article written by Ron Foster. The article I quoted is very well documented and says what it says. If you have a problem with what Ron Foster documented about McManus and really have a case why McManus was understood I suggest that you take it up with Foster and the site where the article was published. I am sure if you can prove your case they will withdraw the article. Until then it stands.
Fair enough. I have no problem taking it up with the source. However, your article (not the other) was the one that came up in my reading about McManus, and I would graciously caution you against charging pastors with false teaching, aiming for “a Jesus religion that cares little about the Biblical Jesus or His words”, and being “identified with the harlot who rides the Beast in Revelation.” Such are bold charges against fellow believers, and in McManus’ case I strongly believe the charges are misdirected. I appreciate your conviction and your desire to keep the flock from wandering, but such accusations can be very confusing and divisive – especially when they’re built on strawmen. Take it or leave it- that’s just my two cents.
Thanks for your response and your feedback. Blessings!
Maybe I did not make myself clear. In my brief statement on that post I was talking about the direction of the Emergent Church movement where I have been made quite aware that McManus was one of the leaders.
What you believe is just your opinion, but what I quoted was a documented article that quoted McManus’ own words. If McManus was teaching what I read, and if what other discernment ministries have said about McManus teachings are true, then he is helping to lead his followers to the Harlot.
If that is not the case then it is up to McManus to scripturally justify what others documented about his teaching. Even cult leaders have a dedicated following, so words of support from followers do not mean much.
I suggest that you argue the points where and why Ron Foster got it wrong in his article. But argue it with Ron Foster because I did not take McManus words our of context and I will bet that Ron Foster will say they he did not take him out of context either in his well documented article. You might also let Brannon Howse know why McManus is such a fine pastor and teacher. The article was published on his discernment site for darn good reason.