Muzi's Response

RESPONSE TO XXXXXXXXXXXXXX CRITIQUE OF  THINKING ABOUT – GOD – TALKING ABOUT

By Muzi Cindi                                                                                      24 February 2010

Dear XXXXXXXX,
 
Thank you for the critique you emailed me on 15 February 2010 and for the subsequent email conversations we held since then. I do not have answers, no one has answers, I only have responses. We all have responses. This is the language we use in the Emerging Church Conversation. I requested you to critique my book because I am very much interested in the diversity of responses to anything. For every theses there is always an anti-thesis. I found your critique quite exhaustive and thorough. Very much unlike passing comments from Christians who want to make comments and not be engaged on the comments they make. Your language has been very mild compared to the language I am used to already. My muscles are very much strengthened from the criticisms I received from modern day Christian zealots. I am looking forward to some interesting engagement in the future. I hope my response will make you think about things you have never thought about before. I pray that this response will take you life to other spiritual horizons you never thought existed. i read and re-read you critique many times. I did this to make sure that there was nothing in your critique I missed. I took the time I took to respond because I really wanted to give myself time to think about what you wrote and think deeply on my response.
 
As I have indicated in my response that you will be going through; I HAVE BEEN WHERE YOU ARE and even in a more fundamentalist way than you perhaps. My observation from your critique is; YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN WHERE I AM. It was futurist Alvin Toffler who said, "The illiterates of the 21st century are not those who cannot read and write; the illiterates of the 21st century are those who cannot learn, unlearn and re-learn".   
 
We are in the very beginning stages of the New Reformation expected to last for the next 3000 years of Christianity as per different Church historians. This Reformation will demand the new learning of new theologies, new Christologies, and new God paradigms. The process will still be tough and involve a lot of pain. It is not easy to unlearn something you have learned and embraced as truth all of your life. The day for the new; new truths, new earth, new heaven, as predicted in the Bible has come. These new things will not come until we are willing to unlearn what we learnt over the past 50 years or more of our lives. Some Christians would rather die than re-learn new things, and dying they will die. New wine will flow into new wineskins. The history of humanity since the early writing of the Bible and other holy books has always been this way.
 
I have also attached an unedited version of excerpts from my coming book. You do not have to critique this one as we have not exhausted our discussion on the current book. Your passing comments are more than welcome. The book is entitled; THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. The subtitle is; The end of Dogmatic Religion and The Emergence of Global Spirituality. In the book I raise this important question; IS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH MISSING THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST THE SAME WAY JEWS MISSED THE FIRST COMING?
 
I then go on to discuss the current trends in where organized religion is being replaced by Spirituality across all spheres of religions and cultures. I deal with the person of Christ being manifested and incarnated throughout the religions of the world. I deal with the historical belief in the literal second coming and how it originated. I finally deal with the Cosmic Christ. A lot of what is in the book is a heresy of heresies. This is how the history of religion has been throughout the years. Evangelicalism was a heresy when it started. Christianity was a heresy when it started. Orthodox Christians still see the Catholic Church as some form of heresy. Catholics still view Protestants as a bit heretical. Protestants look at Evangelicals as heretics. Evangelicals see the Emerging Church as a Church of heretics. It seems like Jesus likes to manifest amongst heretics. 
 
Enjoy the attached response to your critique.
 
MAY GOD BLESS YOU.
 
Kind Regards
 
Muzi Cindi

A FEW MISCONCEPTIONS ON YOUR CRITIQUE
In page 181 of my book I quoted lyrics from Michael Jackson’s song, “...Before you judge me; try to love me first.... Ask yourself questions about my childhood...”  I did that to address the judgements I had received from the first book I had written, entitled “Through my eyes.”  The book was actually a full story of my spiritual journey leading up to my spiritual encounter which you have already judged as demonic. After the release of the book I received an incoming barrage of unequivocally the most hateful, hurtful correspondence I had ever received --- from self-proclaimed Christian fundamentalist zealots, 21st century Cain brothers portending to be defenders of what is right, correct and true; Christians who judge with absolute confidence who is in and who is out. The responses confirmed my beliefs that indeed Christianity had evolved into a Pagan religion very much divorced from the way of Jesus Christ. As I have indicated in my email message, I have found your response much better than the responses from other self-proclaimed zealots and defenders of the faith. I have also suggested to my detractors to rather not make absolute statements like; you are not a Christian. They’d rather say; “in my context and understanding of Christianity I do not see you as a Christian”. That is safe because Jesus warns, “Do not judge and you will not be judged...with the measure you judge other people, you will be judged.”   There are however, a few misconceptions I would first like to respond to.
From your response I detect that there are a few misconceptions stemming from the fact that you do not really know me and the only image you have of me is from the book you read. I tried to tell my story in the chapter entitled – Jesus and me (my story.) I realize that I may have left out a few details that had been addressed in my first book. I have already indicated that I have been an evangelical all my life. As soon as I grew up and gained self-consciousness I discovered I was in this big ship called the evangelical church. I never chose this ship, I found myself in it because of the geographical region my country is in, the country I was born in, and the family I was brought up in. It was a predestined choice for me. I had a “born again” experience when I was 17, still a member of the evangelical Church where I gained my self-consciousness. At the age of 20 I was already a Pastor in a different Pentecostal Church. I had by then become a fundamentalist who believed that the Bible is the inspired word of God. To cut my story short, I believed everything you believe today. I embraced Christianity the very same way you embrace it, I was even more fundamental than you are in my beliefs. Due to the strategic position of my country in Africa, there is no American school of beliefs that did not come to South Africa. I embraced everything, from, Oral Roberts, Kenneth Hagin, Copeland, Swaggart, and all the others. I then moved on to the “third wave” and restoration movements of the 80”s. I embraced the “Toronto blessing” movement, the Vineyard, New Covenant, Calvary chapel and all the progressive evangelical movements that came from America. I then got deeply involved in biblical scholarship and began to read the Bible differently. I was heavily involved in apologetics through Hank Hannegraf, Josh McDowell, Norman Greisler, James Dobson, Paul Turek, Allister McGrath, John McArthur and most popular evangelical apologetics. There is nothing in the school of evangelicalism I have not been exposed to. My library is full of books by these evangelical apologetics. I never made you aware of this information, hence your misconception on what I know and need to know. I now engage evangelical apologetics from the other side of evangelicalism. I have been to most cities in Europe, the birthplace of evangelicalism 300 years ago. I saw hundreds of empty cathedrals that exist for tourism purposes only now. I saw the holocaust museums and war museums. I have travelled to India, Japan, China, and many Eastern and Middle East countries. I have spoken to scholars and monks across all religions on God and spirituality. I dialogued with them to find out more on their calling and on their concept of the sacred. I was amazed at the love and warmth I discovered amongst these people. I discovered the Christ of my faith deep inside them. I came back and renounced the belief that Christianity was the absolute religion. No wonder I say; do not go where I have been.  My spiritual journey is far from its end, like mythical Abraham I keep on walking; not knowing where the journey will lead me. Wherever it leads – I will find a loving God waiting for me. Some say I will find Satan – that is their belief system.
South Africa was itself inflicted by an Apartheid “Christian regime” that unleashed horrendous suffering over the majority blacks, all in the name of the Bible and God. This system of Government was theologically approved and supported by the Church. It was read into our Country from the Judaism story of land conquests. Our conquerors even had a religious name for our country. It was called Die Vaderland (Father’s Land), from the Abraham story of being given land. White South Africa Christians saw themselves as somehow re-enacting the biblical story of the Israelites entering the Promised Land – which in this case was South Africa. They saw God granting them this fruitful land. Because they were so sure of this, just like the Israelites, they had no qualms about robbing, enslaving, or killing the people living in their conquered land.  Colonialism in Africa was unleashed in the name of the Bible and the Biblical God. The British, Belgians, Germans, and all other European empire states also saw themselves as God’s chosen people, with a divine mission to occupy large parts of the world so that they could convert them to Christianity. Then there was slavery where more that 30 million Africans were sold as slaves, still by “Christians” who would sing praise songs on the top deck of their ships while thousands of slaves were squashed like sardines below them. Some would die in their thousands before they even reached their destination. That slavery was condoned by the Bible, subject to certain rules which evil men failed to abide by. In South Africa we had our Truth and Reconciliation Commission where there were confessions by whites who had killed thousands of blacks. It was confessions like, “We believed in Apartheid. We believed that Apartheid was of God. We believed that the Church was used by God.” These are the confessions that make you ask, “Muzi, why are you mad at God?” I am actually mad at the God image inherited. I guess that if all the colonial slave masters, all those who raped in the name of the Bible, and all those who killed heretics can be woken up, they would make similar confessions, “We believed what we did was of God.”  The idea of a chosen nation has become more and more spiritualized over the past 300 years of evangelicalism. Christians are constantly reminded that they are “God’s chosen people”, and encouraged to see themselves as having a special mission in the world – an idea that creates the kind of self-righteousness and intolerance that is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. I love God very much. I find God very lovable. It is the God of organized religion that I hate so much; the God of the book; any holy book. After my visitation I knew that it was my calling to spend the rest of my life talking about the God who visited me. This is the reason why I am so radical. When I hear Christians use the words “chosen generation” I think of the biblical atrocities perpetrated by the “chosen generation”. I think of the Imperial conquests in Africa and other parts of the world by the “chosen generation”. I think of the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars where prayers are made to God to be on the side of the “chosen generation” against the “un-chosen”. I think of the “chosen” in the Middle East and the unending conflict there in the name of being “chosen”.   Here are a few excerpts from the first book I first wrote on God:
More fundamental than the experience itself, is the undercurrent of peace, love, humanness, that has never left me since then. I often feel like I’ve just woken up from the most horrible nightmare ever. I feel free and free indeed. Sometimes the experience is real and strong, at other times it is somewhere in the background, like a distant melody. Most times it is this small voice or silence that I hear. The silence itself is God. Time is God.
Since I am now aware that I am really engaging a Bible worshipper and a bible literalist, I need to say a few things about the Bible – the book of books. I have read this book all of my life since I gained self-consciousness; this means I have been embedded in this book for more than forty years. I have studied it both constantly and deeply when I was still a Pastor. I have read it on differing levels at different stages of my life. I read it as a fundamentalist. I read it devotionally for most of my adult life. I underlined all the verses that seemed to speak to me and never minded the verses I never underlined. I now read it as a scholar; I read it as a believer and a critic at the same time. I read it every day, intensely, critically, and devotionally. I invest hours and hours on this book. I will never throw it away, as I said in my book. Deep within this book I find “the word of God.” Deep within it I find signposts for the generations that will be living ten thousand years after my death. I dig deep into the Bible to find treasures for the coming generations.  I go back to those verses I never underlined and enquire why I never underlined them. I write books on the verses I never used to underline. I read it devotionally, I read it critically, and I also read it as a sceptic. I use the best post-modern scholars to read this book of books, so that I can interpret it for the post-modern generation. This is my new calling. I have entered my own age of enlightenment and this has made this thing called belief, very complex for me. No one can fully understand religion and remain a believer.  Up until the eighteenth century most people viewed the Bible as an infallible authority because they were not aware that there was any other way to view it. The infallible Pope had been replaced with an infallible Bible (a paper Pope). We no longer read the Bible with the innocence of the previous generations. Knowledge has now expanded; we no longer simply accept the Biblical claims without question. No one, in our 21st century can believe anything exactly in the same way as someone living in the 1st century. Our 21st century scientific mind questions even the term “word of God” in a culture in which people are encouraged to think for themselves, a culture where ideas are presented as points for discussion rather than decrees to be obeyed. A society that understands “values” better than “commandments”. There are just too many Scriptures in the Bible where we will simply not be able to say, “This is the word of the Lord”,
I am giving you this information to make you understand that I have been where you are. I have spoken your language, maybe even more vigorously than you. There is no school in evangelicalism that I have not been exposed to. As much as I appreciate you referring me to evangelical apologetics, the reality is; I have been there already. I still posses the books you recommended. I am saying all this to say to you; you have not been where I am now! I have been where you are. I have lived in your world for more than 40 years but you have never been in the world that I am in now. You have never been exposed to the worldview I am exposed to now. As the wind sweeps wherever it will; it will soon catch up with you also, one of the good days. I say more about the new worldview of the new move later. For now I have to say that there is a New Reformation sweeping the Christian Church. I am called, just like John the Baptist, to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom in a new way.  I quoted Thomas a’ Kempis’s words, “If you fancy that you know many things, and fairly understand them; remember that the things you do not know are many more than those you know”.
I am actually the one to suggest books to you as I have read all the books you are suggesting to me. I have been there, have used the dogmatic language with absolute confidence. I have defended God the way you are defending him. I, like the Apostle Paul, like other pioneers in the Emerging Church, had our own Damascus experience. You will also have that experience soon. It is coming, it is evolving. When it has come to you, you will also talk like me. You will also embrace the new God concept and totally renounce the old God concept. You will have new wine flowing into your vessel. Just like you are asking me, traditional Christians will ask you, “Why are so mad at God?” Like the Apostle Paul, you will also talk of the zeal in which you wrote emails defending the Old Testament God. You will also write your book on God. You will tell your story on how you persecuted those who were followers of the new way. The time is coming, it is inevitable. The wind of the Spirit is blowing all over the world. Is it not in scripture that, “I will do a new thing! Do not see it? (Is. 43:19). I expect to hear from you when this new thing has caught up with you. Believe me when I say it is coming. Brian McLaren, who is an Evangelical pioneer based in the USA has written a lot of books on the New Reformation sweeping the Church, they include Everything must Change, Generous Orthodoxy, and The Church on the other side. There is a trio-logy called The New Kind of Christian. There is also a new recently released explosive book by Brian McLaren called A New Kind of Christianity: ten questions transforming the faith. There is also a book by Tony Jones called New Christians. There’s, also a lot of conversations on the internet around the New Reformation. The Jesus Seminar group of eminent Professors are the main brains behind the New Reformation. Professor Marcus Borg is one of the leading scholars. I would suggests Marcus Borg’s brilliant classics I mentioned in my bibliography; The Heart of Christianity, The God we never knew; Jesus – a Revolutionary; Reading the Bible again for the first time, and Meeting Jesus again for the first time. I see the Jesus Seminar Professors and Clerics being looked back as Early Church Fathers by the year 5000 CE. This Reformation, like all previous Reformations, is like a tsunami. I always tell people; if you feel called by God to fight this Reformation (like Paul fought the first Jesus movement Reformation) fight it with all your zeal, but make sure it is God calling you to fight. Make sure you have not called yourself to fight it. I desire for everyone to be everything they were created to be. 
I am giving you this background to address a few misconceptions in you critique:
HERESY – you say that “heresy is an opinion or teaching contrary to biblical doctrine.” I beg to disagree with you. Wikipedia defines heresy as, “proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion...heresy conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief system.” I have defined myself as a self-confessed heretic out of this definition. All of us are heretics, we see through a tainted glass. Unless if you believe that your utterances are absolute truth, and express Gods will exactly as he wants it expressed. In that case, all believers who have a different opinion from yours are heretics, and they are in their millions. You keep on affirming that my writings are heretic again and again, even though I have expressed that from the start. Martin Luther was a heretic because his utterances were contrary to the established belief system of the time. Martin Luther was rightly labelled a heretic, using this definition. Protestantism and Evangelicalism came later. Jesus was also a heretic. Actually, Jesus was a worse heretic; he was a heretic of heretics. Jesus was killed for heresy. How many times was Jesus accused of blasphemy? How many times did the orthodox accuse him of blaspheming God through his utterances? Jesus was extremely crazy and extremely subsversive. He was also accused of being demonically duped. (Matt. 9:34) Jesus was actually accused by those who should have received him gladly. He challenged their cherished beliefs. This is exactly what the New Reformation is doing to the established religious authority.  All his followers became heretics using the above definition, and they were killed by the defenders of orthodoxy. Christians are heretics in terms of the Jewish belief system as much as we (New Christians) are heretics and blasphemers, as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned. What orthodox Christians are doing to us today is exactly what orthodox Jews did to Jesus and his followers. After my very first book I was informed by our own National Intelligence Agency of information they had received on some Pastors who were plotting my assassination. I was not surprised because all followers of Jesus are judged as being crazy and material for elimination. More than twenty five thousand heretics have been killed, tortured, and burnt at stake since Jesus Christ. Some of these heretics were scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, Campella, Pucci, Bruno, Tyndale, and many more others. Some of them were killed for beliefs and creeds that are widely ignored by the Church today. In 1094 the Orthodox Church declared the Catholic Church as heretics when they broke away. In 1517 the Catholic Church declared the Protestant Church heretics when they broke away. In the eighteenth century the Evangelical Church was declared a heresy when it was established. The Evangelical Church has declared all the splinter groups that have broken away from it as heretics in one way or another. Today, we have more than fifty thousand separate belief systems within the Protestant movement alone. Each and every one of the group holding this body of belief claims orthodoxy for its own cause with absolute confidence. The Emerging Church that has broken away from all the former groups has been declared as heretical. This is just evolution taking its course.

I suggested in my book that I was not a Christian by the traditional definition of what a Christian is. You, however express that I am not a Christian in absolute terms. You even go further to say that, “you have been demonically duped,” “I believe you were visited by a demon,” etc. you make such absolute statements without even a shadow of doubt. Was Jesus not once accused of, “getting his power from Satan, the prince of demons?” (Matt.1:24). “You say I am empowered by Satan. But if Satan is divided and fighting against himself, how can his kingdom survive”? I do not have a literal view of Satan. I realize that Satan is not a metaphor for you, but a literal person or being like us who “is very pleased with this” as you have indicated in page 10 of your critique. I highly recommend the following books by Professor Walter Wink: The Powers that be: Theology for a New Millennium; Naming The Powers: The language of Power in the New Testament; Engaging The Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination; Homosexuality and Christian Faith: Questions of Conscience for The Church.  You can check out reviews on the internet or go to www.walterwink.com. I hope he will sort out the problem of Satan and evil in the world, for you. Professor Wink is an activist who has marched through Chile, South Africa, and the streets of New York identifying and then unmasking the powers and exposing the domination system they represent. He has identified the world dominating systems that are characterized by unjust economic relations, and the use of violence to maintain them all; very similar to the American Capitalist system.
What is your take on the God of Job who took a bet with Satan over Job? Is that literal, as Biblical literalists? Did God and Satan “meet” and “gossip” about Job? Did God kill all Job’s kids and just “replace them” with others. Is Job just a Jewish metaphor of life, a fable or is it a “true story?” Satan is mentioned thirteen times in Job and only three times in the whole Old Testament. Are you aware that the evolution of Satan in human consciousness came with Jewish captivity? You can do your own research on the internet under the subject: evolution of Satan in human consciousness. Renowned bible scholars will help you like they have helped me; unless you do not want to get help. There is no reputable scholar I know who still subscribe to a belief in a literal Satan with headquarters under the earth where “he and his demons” plan their activities. Most scholars agree, that Satan is a metaphor for evil in the world and resides inside each and every human being who lives in our universe
I am not aware of any modern theologian, conservative or liberal, who still has a problem with the statement, “GOD DOES NOT EXIST.” All modern theologians have accepted this as fact. Scholars have long ago given up the idea that God “exists.” Most scholars encourage a discourse on God and the idea of God as the Ultimate Reality that helps us to become ourselves and to live well. I dedicated a whole of five chapters; seven, eight, nine, ten, and eleven of my book, on the subject of the Apophatic God concept. This is called Apophatic theology. I only became aware of this terminology after my spiritual encounter. You will hear more of this Apophatic theology as the New Reformation takes its course. I quoted from philosophers, John Caputo, Derrida, and theologian Peter Rollins as some of the eminent spokespersons behind this theology.  Just open your eyes, ears, and research a lot. This is how Wikipedia defines   Apophathic theology:
Apophatic theology--also known as Negative theology or Via Negativa (Latin for "Negative Way")-—is a theology that attempts to describe God, the Divine Good, by negation, to speak only in terms of what may not be said about the perfect goodness that is God. It stands in contrast with Cataphatic theology.
In brief, negative theology is an attempt to achieve unity with the Divine Good through discernment, gaining knowledge of what God is not (apophasis), rather than by describing what God is. The apophatic tradition is often, though not always, allied with the approach of mysticism, which focuses on a spontaneous or cultivated individual experience of the divine reality beyond the realm of ordinary perception, an experience often unmediated by the structures of traditional organized religion or the conditioned role playing and learned defensive behavior of the outer man.
 May I quote Peter Rollins again, on page 102, “our questioning of God is never really a questioning of God, but only a means of questioning our understanding of God”  This causes me ask you, “Is there a difference between who God is, and what you understanding of God?” “Is God and your God-image the same thing?”  To quote theologian Paul Tillich on page 121 and 124, “God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him...It would be a great victory for Christian apologetics if the words ‘God’ and ‘existence’ were definitely separated except in the paradox of God becoming manifest under conditions of existence...” Tillich said that God is “being itself,” above and beyond the mere fact of any particular being. We, as temporal beings are limited by our finitude. The moment God is brought from essence into existence God is corrupted by finitude and our limited understanding.  God can no longer and will no longer be spoken of as “existing.” A God who is spoken of as ‘existing belongs to yesterday’s cosmology. The science (knowledge) of the first century and our modern science (knowledge) are on a collision course. The reason why Christianity is coming to an end as a religion of power, fear and control, is because the science (knowledge) on which its story was based has fallen away. The New Reformation the Church is in now is all about a new understanding of cosmology and taking science and religion as a converged signpost to lead us to the future. Maybe you will have to explain to me, should you still disagree with the above, how your God can be spoken of as existing. Does He exist like all things that exist? Can a telescope be used to picture him? Where does He exist? Is “exists” a word that should be used when describing God? I hope this sort out the “misunderstanding” caused by my assertion that “God does not exist.” I however, take this further to declare that I am an atheist as far as the tribal, vindictive, capricious, angry God portrayed in the Hebrew scripture. I continue to affirm that this is not the God Jesus introduced. This is not the God Jesus called Abba Father. This is not the God Jesus proclaimed to be on the side of the marginalized, the lepers, the Samaritans, the Gentiles, prostitutes, tax-collectors, sinners and society’s outcasts. Jesus came to show Jews and us a different face of God than the one tradition was used to. I realize you are still trapped in tradition. Jesus was asked, “Why do your disciples disobey our age-old tradition?” He responded, “Why do you, by your traditions, violate the direct commandment of God?” (Matt. 15:2-3) These are questions being raised of the Emerging Church in the New Reformation and also questions Jesus is raising of traditional Christians like you who fail to “read the time.”  A God who used to be spoken of as “existing” above the skies; a God who used to “visit” the garden of Eden has been taken away from us and destroyed by both the march of time and the explosion of knowledge. No wonder British scholar, Professor Michael Goulder, has described him as “homeless” and “unemployed.” The God of the tribe and the God of “a chosen few” is no more. The emerging God is the God of the global community of people. Let me quote Peter Rollins again, as quoted in page 139 of my book;
 The primary problem with idolatry is not that it falsely claims to have a connection with God but rather that it falsely claims to understand the God it is connected to...If we fail to recognize that the term ‘God’ always falls short of that towards which it is supposed to point, we will end up bowing down before our own conceptual creations forged from the raw materials of our self-image, rather than bowing before the one who stands over and above creation.
THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD: You seem to be having a problem with me calling myself this? On page 71 of my book I quoted the Philosopher Wittgenstein who spoke of a language game. We use the language game to create a language of meaning for interpreting the meaning of life or creating meaning for life. I am the only begotten Son of God because I am unique amongst billions of people who have inhabited this planet. There is no one like me and never will. No one will walk the journey I have walked, meet the people I have met, and do the things I have done. You are the only begotten Daughter of God because there is only one XXXXXX in the whole universe. There will never be anyone like you. No one will ever do what you have done. No one has ever, and no one ever will, walk the journey you have walked, meet the people you have met, and do the things you have done. Doesn’t the Bible call Jesus the first born? The only unique first born! I’m the only unique (maybe 100billionth) begotten Son of God. If this does not help, I do not know what will! 
AREAS WHERE YOUR BIBLE SPIN HAS FAILED
RAPE IN THE BIBLE – You have tried your best to bring up a spin to the issue of rape. The more you try is the more it leaves a gaping hole. Your definition of rape is very simplistic. I am very disappointed to hear that definition coming from a woman. You do not seem to believe that rape can occur under the cloak of “marriage.” You do not seem to “get it” that these virgins were made perpetual sex slaves under the guise of “being married” to their captors. I am disappointed that you do not even decry the fact that these poor virgins had their human rights taken away from them, their right to choose for themselves, to right to make their own independent decisions. You say, “It was not rape because they married them.”  I would understand this (less painfully) if it was coming from a man. You mention that the conquerors were allowed “to marry them (in order that they not be dishonoured) and treat them as their wives if they wanted them”. You further state that, “The Bible does not condone men raping captive women. If a man wanted a slave woman sexually, then he had to marry her and provide for her as he would provide for any other woman he wanted to marry. And then if he wasn’t pleased to be married to her (and it wouldn’t have been very hard for her to make herself displeasing if she wanted to)” You are interpreting the Bible in a twenty first century frame of mind (you do not go into the patriarchy/ polygamy/ slave/conquest context) and still make a very pathetic job in it. What do you say about the men who were already having serial wives and still wanted to taste a captured virgin? What about the choices of a woman? Any man, who engages in sex with a woman under duress, against her (free willing) consent, even if that duress is legalized through marriage, is engaging in rape. Even if those Israelites married those women – IT WAS STILL RAPE, because they were denied the power and right to make their own independent decision. Even in our modern world, married people still get charged with raping their own wives. The women themselves were slaves who were not killed because they happen to be virgins and were also beautiful. How would they have spared ugly women? How does a beautiful woman make herself ugly? Do rapist even consider that, or all what they want is the fulfilment of their sexual urges? Basically, the Bible is actually telling these men rules on having sex with captives. What kind of a marriage is marriage with a captive woman? Do you really call this thing marriage? You go into a country, take virgins as slaves, under the “conscience” of marrying them against their will, have sex with them and sleep with a clean conscience before God. This is demonic. There are similarities between Jewish and African cultures. It does not matter what spin you bring to it. What kind of women will be attracted to worship a God who condones or never condemns such behaviour? No wonder a leading feminist theologian has said it so aptly that, “If God is male then male is God.”  You interpretation of Paul is out of context with the male chauvinistic patriarchal worldview he was writing under. When Paul says the women must obey their husbands in all things, he means exactly that. That is what was demanded by the patriarchy of his time. There cannot be any biblical spin here. Paul then goes on to say that those who oppose this drivel of his should be accursed. What intolerance! He is now using the religion of fear to silence people. Many scholars, while they appreciate the value Paul brought to the message of the Gospel, also accuse him of being a theologian who turned the message of Jesus Christ into a complicated set of doctrines and imposed his own orthodoxy on everybody.

YOUR TAKE ON PAUL’S THEOLOGY: - You make the same spin with Paul’s words. Paul said, “a man is a head of a woman, wives be subject to your husbands, a man is the image and glory of God, a woman is the glory of man, it is shameful for a woman to speak in church, a woman must cover her head,” etc There is no biblical spin to get out of these utterances. How do we say only these utterances are not for us today? Is Paul’s teaching on homosexuality for us today? Why homosexuality and not women issues? What about Paul’s claim in Romans 1:27 where “God abandoned men to homosexuality?” For Paul, homosexuality was a punishment from God.  Paul of Tarsus was a first century man. He thought in categories consistent with the world view of his time. Like you; He also believed that he lived in a three-tiered universe over which God reigned from a heavenly throne just above the sky. Paul had never heard of a weather front, a germ or a virus. He viewed both the weather patterns and human sickness as being divine punishment sent from this external, supernatural God and based on our deserving. One should not, therefore, read the first century Paul as if he spoke from the vantage point of eternal truth. That is what biblical literalism does. The Bible, which many Christians call "the Word of God," includes letters that Paul wrote. They are personal, passionate, argumentative and sometimes even vindictive. Paul would probably be the most surprised person in the world, and the most disturbed, to learn that the words in his letters had been elevated by the people of the Christian Church to a realm in which they have achieved the position of ultimate authority in which Paul's voice is actually confused with the voice of God. Do you really expect women in the twenty first century to be attracted to the chauvinistic God presented by Paul? I know you wrote a book on this. The God presented by Paul of Tarsus was a male chauvinist in a totally patriarchal culture. We need to reveal a loving God to the twenty first century women.

  HOMOSEXUALITY   - You have mentioned that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says so. That is quite an absolute statement!  Which other sexual practices or behaviours does the Bible also call sin but are largely ignored by the Church? I bet you that there is nothing that is going to divide the church like the issue of homosexuality over the next thirty years. We will see Jesus embrace marginalized homosexuals the same way he embraced the lepers, prostitutes, Samaritans, Tax-collectors, sinners, etc. Watch this space on homosexuality. Honestly speaking, I do not like this homosexual orientation and behaviour. It is one of the most mystifying issues about human sexuality. I understand why believers and non-believers alike respond so negatively. Our reactions and our abhorrence (mine included) of this orientation and behaviour is one of the things that are going to test us in the manner in which we follow Jesus in the coming centuries. I have made extensive research on both the orientation and behaviour of homosexuals. I have convinced myself, using scientific evidence, not a “holy book” that this is a condition human beings are born with and cannot be cured. I will forward you this extensive research should you request it. I will like to give you a few facts on sexuality from Dr. Walter Wink’s book and would welcome your response:
The Bible condemned the following sexual activities, which we also condemn; incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But the Bible also condemned the following practices which we today either generally allow or at least do not universally condemn: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, marriage to non-Jews, naming sexual organs, nudity under certain conditions, masturbation, and birth control. Granted, some Christians today still condemn one or more of these things. The Biblical voice of God, however, is regarded as uncertain on these matters today, whereas in the past the Bible was assumed to be quiet clear and debate was, therefore, not allowed. The Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood unclean, which most people living today do not. In this analysis we can see just where and how sexual attitudes have changed and that whenever these changes have occurred, the literal biblical attitudes are set aside. The Bible also permitted the behaviours we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubines, treatment of women as property, and early marriage (for the girl ages eleven to thirteen). While the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. Out of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them and disagree with it on sixteen. The Bible is an ambiguous document about specific sexual practices.   
YOUR USE OF THE BIBLE – Can I just suggest to you that God is behind exposing the Bible as not “God’s inerrant, unalterable, God-breathed, literal word?”  You will definitely have a heart failure trying to defend the Bible. You seem to have adopted the “my mind is made up - I do not want to be confused by facts” approach to reading the Bible. As I have indicated previously, I used to have the very same approach you have toward the Bible until God revealed to me that the Bible is an inspired library of books amongst other religion’s inspired library of books. You may suggest that it I was demonically duped, it is okay. I realize that you relationship with the Bible is strictly devotional. You do not have a historical - scientific relationship with it. God has bringing this relationship over the past two hundred years. Do not trouble yourself with apologetics like Josh McDowell who are still trying to defend the Bible from attacks by the recent explosion of knowledge. You have given me three full pages (pg 23-25) of discourse to convince me the Bible does not have contradictions. I am quite used to that line of arguing because I used to employ it as an apologetic. You use subjectivity and relativity which come back to haunt you. What do you say about the subjectivity and relativity of all articulated truth? There is no objective truth out there my sister. All articulated truth is totally subjective ant totally relative.
 There are too many inconsistencies, incompatibilities, and contradictions to accept the story of Jesus told in the Gospels as historical fact. Many of the contradictions in the Gospels are mutually exclusive: that is, if something happened as one of the Gospels says it did, it could not have happened the way another Gospel tells it. As much as we accept that eyewitness stories to an accident will differ when eventually related; the difference cannot be that one eyewitness says the accident happened in Los Angeles between two cars, and another says the same accident was actually in New York and it involved two trains. John says Jesus was crucified before the Passover (19:14 – 16) and Luke says it was after the Passover (22:14-23). Since you have engaged me in length on the contradictions in the Bible I have decided to give you a long list of mutually exclusive contradictions. This is actually only a third in my list. I am releasing a book in May where I discuss all these contradictions and explain why they are in the Bible as opposed to denying that they are actually contradictions. Most of these Gospel utterances were actually sermons that were delivered in synagogues for thirty five to seventy years after the death of Jesus. These were plays that Jewish Christians were re-enacting as they remembered Jesus Christ. The passion stories, resurrection stories, and ascension stories were actually plays that were played to remember Jesus Christ. These are very similar to the often contradictory sermons preached on TBN. Artist will always bring their art, independent thinking and genius into any play or sermon in our case. This is what we call mythology; they are not literal events. In my coming book I deal with the mythology that surrounded the person of Jesus Christ. However, if you still insist they are literal events you are welcome to engage me further. If you are interested in the copy I will send you one. Here’s a list of the (mutually contradictory) plays that were enacted:
The announcement of the special birth came before conception. Lk.1:26-31.
The announcement of the special birth came after conception. Mt.1:18-21.
Jesus' parents were told of their son's future greatness. Mt.1:18-21; Lk.1:28-35.
Jesus' parents knew nothing of their son's potential. Lk.2:48-50.
The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20.
The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.
Jacob was Joseph's father. Mt.1:16.
Heli was Joseph's father. Lk.3:23.
Jesus was tempted during the 40 days in the wilderness. Mk.1:13.
Jesus was tempted after the 40 days in the wilderness.Mt.4:2-3.
The devil first took Jesus to the pinnacle, then to the mountain top. Mt.4:5-8.
The devil first took Jesus to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle. Lk.4:5-9.
Jesus begins his ministry after John's arrest. Mk.1:13-14.
Jesus begins his ministry before John's arrest. Jn.3:22-24.
Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law after he cleansed the leper. Mt.8:1-15.
Jesus cured Simon Peter's mother-in-law before he cleansed the leper. Mk.1:30-42; Lk.4:38 to 5:13.
James and John were with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Mk.1:29-31.
James and John were not with Jesus when he healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law. Lu.4:38-39; 5:10-11.
The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52.
The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Gennesaret. Mk.6:53.
After the feeding of the multitude, Jesus went to Capernaum. Jn.6:14-17.
Jesus cursed the fig tree so that it would not bear fruit. Mt.21:19; Mk.11:14.
It wasn't time for the fig tree to bear fruit. Mk.11:13.
The "Lord's Prayer" was taught to many during the "Sermon on the Mount". Mt.6:9.
The "Lord's Prayer" was taught only to the disciples at another time. Lu.11:1.
Jesus had his own house. Mk.2:15.
Jesus did not have his own house. Lu.9:58.
Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11-12.
 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves. Mt.10:10.
Take only sandals (shoes) and staves. Mk.6:8-9.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees". Lk.12:1.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees". Mt.16:6-11.
Jesus said, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Herod". Mk.8:15.
Jesus heals two unnamed blind men. Mt.20:29-30.
Jesus heals one named blind man. Mk.10:46-52.
The cock crowed once. Mt.26:74.
The cock crowed twice. Mk.14:72.
Peter makes his first denial to a maid and some others. Mt.26:69-70.
It was only to the maid. Mk.14:66-68; Lk.22:56-57; Jn.18:17.
Peter’s second denial was to another maid. Mt.26:71-72.
It was to the same maid. Mk.14:69-70.
It was to a man and not a maid. Lk.22:58.

It was to more than one per Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.
Jesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.
Jesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.
Peter’s third denial was to several bystanders. Mt.26:73-74; Mk.14:69-70.
It was to one person. Lk.22:59-60.
It was to a servant. Jn.18:26-27.
The chief priests bought the field. Mt.27:6-7.
Judas bought the field. Acts 1:16-19.
Judas threw down the money and left. Mt.27:5.
Judas used the coins to buy the field. Acts1:18.
Judas hanged himself. Mt.27:5.
Judas fell headlong and burst his head open. Acts1:18.
Jesus is given a scarlet robe. Mt.27:28.
Jesus is given a purple robe. Mk.15:17; Jn.19:2.
Jesus is given a gorgeous robe. Lk.23:11.
The centurion says, “Truly this was the son of God”. Mt.27:54.
The centurion says, “Truly this man was the son of God”. Mk.15:39.
The centurion says, “Certainly, this was a righteous man”. Lk.23:47.
There was no centurion. Jn.19:31-37.
Upon their arrival, the stone was still in place. Mt.28:1 2.
Upon their arrival, the stone had been removed. Mk.16:4; Lk.24:2; Jn.20:1.
There was an earthquake. Mt.28:2.
There was no earthquake. Mk.16:5; Lk.24:2-4; Jn.20:12.
The visitors ran to tell the disciples. Mt.28:8.
The visitors told the eleven and all the rest. Lk.24:9.
The visitors said nothing to anyone. Mk.16:8.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was right at the tomb. Jn.20:12-14.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was fairly near the tomb. Mt.28:8-9.
Jesus first resurrection appearance was on the road to Emmaus. Lk.24:13-16.
One doubted. Jn.20:24.
Some doubted. Mt.28:17.
All doubted. Mk.16:11; Lk.24:11-14.
Jesus said that his blood was shed for many. Mk.14:24.
Jesus said his blood was shed for his disciples. Lu.22:20.
Simon of Cyrene was forced to bear the cross of Jesus. Mt.27:32; Mk.15:21; Lu.23:26.
Jesus bore his own cross. Jn.19:16-17.
Jesus was offered vinegar and gall to drink. Mt.27:34.
Jesus was offered vinegar to drink. Jn.19:29-30.
Jesus was offered wine and myrrh to drink. Mk.15:23.
Jesus refused the drink offered him. Mk.15:23.
Jesus tasted the drink offered and then refused. Mt.27:34.
Jesus accepted the drink offered him. Jn.19:30.
Nicodemus prepared the body with spices. Jn.19:39-40.
Failing to notice this, the women bought spices to prepare the body later. Mk. 16:1; Lu.23:55-56.
The body was anointed. Jn.19:39-40.
The body was not anointed. Mk.15:46 to 16:1; Lk.23:55 to 24:1.
The women bought materials before the Sabbath. Lu.23:56.
The women bought materials after the Sabbath. Mk.16:1.
Jesus was first seen by Cephas, then the twelve. 1 Cor.15:5.
Jesus was first seen by the two Marys. Mt.28:1, 8-9.
Jesus was first seen by Mary Magdalene. Mk.16:9; Jn.20:1, 14-15.
Jesus was first seen by Cleopas and others. Lu.24:17-18.
Jesus was first seen by the disciples. Acts 10:40-41.
The two Marys went to the tomb. Mt.28:1.
The two Marys and Salome went to the tomb. Mk.16:1.
Several women went to the tomb. Lu.24:10.
Only Mary Magdalene went to the tomb. Jn.20:1.
An angel sat on the stone at the door of the tomb. Mt.28:2.
A man was sitting inside the tomb. Mk.16:5.
Two men were standing inside the tomb. Lk.24:3-4.
Two angels were sitting inside the tomb. Jn.20:12.
Peter did not go into the tomb but stooped and looked inside. Lk.24:12.
Peter did go into the tomb, and another disciple stooped and looked inside. Jn.20:3-6.
After the resurrection, the disciples held Jesus by the feet. Mt.28:9.
After the resurrection, Jesus told Thomas to touch his side. John 20:27.
After the resurrection, Jesus said that he was not to be touched. Jn.20:17.
The disciples were frightened when they saw Jesus. Lk.24:36-37.
The disciples were glad when they first saw Jesus. Jn.20:20.
Twelve disciples saw Jesus. 1 Cor.15:5.
Eleven disciples saw Jesus. Thomas was not there. Mt.28:16-17; Jn.20:19-25.
Jesus ascended on the third day after the resurrection. Lk.24:21, 50-51.
Jesus ascended the same day as the crucifixion. Lk.23:42 43.
Jesus ascended forty days after the resurrection. Acts1:3-9.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 120 brethren. Acts1:15.
At the time of the ascension, there were about 500 brethren. 1 Cor.15:6.
The ascension took place while the disciples were seated together at a table. Mk.16:14-19.
The ascension took place outdoors at Bethany. Lk.24:50-51.
The ascension took place outdoors at Mt. Olivet. Acts1:9-12.
The Moneychangers incident occurred at the end of Jesus’ career. Mt.21:11-12.
The Moneychangers incident occurred at the beginning of Jesus’ career. Jn.2:11-15.
Zacharias was the son of Jehoida, the priest. 2 Chr. 24:20.
Jesus said that Zacharias was the son of Barachias. Mt.23:35. (Note: The name Barachias or Barachiah does not appear in the OT.)
The coming of the kingdom will be accompanied by signs and miracles. Mt.24:29-33; Mk.13:24-29.
It will not be accompanied by signs and miracles since it occurs from within. Lk.17:20-21.
Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Mk.3:29.
All sins are forgivable. Acts 13:39; Col.2:13; 1 Jn.1:9.
The Holy Spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15-41.
The Holy Spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41.
The Holy Spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67.
The Holy Spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25.
Jesus is the Son of God. Jn.6:69; Jn.20:31.
Jesus is the Son of Man. Mt.18:11; Lk.21:27.
Paul states that he does not lie. Rom.9:1; 2 Cor.11:31; Gal.1:20; 1 Tim.2:7.
Paul states that he does lie. Rom.3:7.
Paul said that he does not use trickery. 1 Thes.2:3.
Paul admits to using trickery. 2 Corinthians12:16.
Paul teaches not to steal. Eph.4:28.
Paul admits to stealing. 2 Corinthinas11:8.
 This is what we read in the Gospels, when we read them critically as opposed to reading them devotionally.  How could Jesus be born in Nazareth and Bethlehem? Was John the Baptist the new Elijah as claimed by Mathew and Mark (Mark 9:13, Matt 14:1-12) or was Jesus the new Elijah as claimed by Luke and John (Luke 1:17, John 1:21). How could the literal resurrection happen in Galilee and Jerusalem at the same time, as the Gospels claim? Was it literal or spiritual? You mentioned that Paul says Jesus was seen by 500 people and then by him, He says He was the last to see the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-8). Paul was converted long after the Easter experience. Was his seeing actual sight or insight? The accounts of Jesus' life are also full of things that are impossible for the 21st century discriminating mind to accept. Let me use another example, the resurrection myth, the book of Mathew 27:52 tells of the “saints in Jerusalem”, whose graves opened by Jesus’ death and their bodies which were long deceased were seen by many. Was this literal seeing? This is supposed to have occurred while Jesus was on the cross. In the next chapter we are told about the resurrection of Jesus. The question is; which of the two resurrection stories is fact or myth? Some evangelical scholars dismiss the first episode as myth and the one relating to Jesus as fact. Let us accept their explanation, but, does this take away the inherent contradictions? Was this resurrected Christ naked?  The Bible tells us Roman soldiers took his clothes and divided them amongst themselves (John 19:24).       
MY ANALYSIS OF YOUR GOD CONCEPT
Every time I hear a person talk about God, my immediate question is, “I wonder which God they have in their mind?” having been involved in conversations across all religions, I can easily tell how each person will appropriate their God concept on other people’s life and behaviour. The following, is my analysis of your God concept as per the critique you sent me:
You are an atheist; as far as Allah and other God’s are concerned. You do not believe these Gods exist. I am an atheist as far as all Gods are concerned, including the Christian and Jewish God. You have a very simplistic definition of atheism. Atheism is a belief that is opposed to a theistic definition of God. The right definition for Richard Dawkins and co is actually non-theism and non belief (my definition is hopelessly inadequate). Historically, atheism has rarely been a denial of the sacred itself but has always been a rejection of a particular conception of God. Buddhists are atheist even though they believe in the sacred. You call them Pagans. I suggest you read George Barna and Frank Viola’s book, Pagan Christianity. You will discover Jesus’ word on finger pointing and removing planks from “others” eyes afresh after you read the book. Until you have had a very deep conversation with a Buddhist monk you will never appreciated the profound sacred behind their spirituality.
God, for you, is a person or a being like us (just enlarged), with hands, feet, noses, eyes, and all the physical attributes we have. He has all the feelings that human beings have; He gets angry, repents, changes his minds, feels offended and blasphemed, and reacts like we human beings react to all situations. He has all the swing moods and feelings like us. He thinks like us and makes the kind of judgements we make. He has all the attributes we human beings have. He created the heavens and the earth about six thousand years ago. He created literal Adam and Eve, like an artisan, using soil. He then visited Adam and Eve (from heaven) in the cool of the day; then came, the speaking snake, with legs. The snake was later punished by the removal of its legs. Maybe you have a good biblical spin on this also. He is a supernatural being separate from the world. He visits the universe from outside of it. So, your God dwells just beyond the blue sky, not far from the earth.  I concede that you denied that God is a very big man. You say He is Spirit – which I fully agree with. What then of the human-like language in the Bible; the language that Jesus is seated at the “right hand of God?”  Is this Jesus Christ a human being? Is Christ a literal person? Where does He live? I am addressing this issue in my coming book.
Back to your God concept; He regretted creating human beings and destroyed them with water, including billions and billions of animal and plant life. He hated Egyptians so much that He killed the first born male in every Egyptian household. He sent frogs, mosquitoes, horseflies, and locusts against the Egyptians. He hardened Pharaoh’s heart and still continued to destroy him for a hardened heart. He sent snakes to bite his people because the murmured against him. He decimated his own people because their King took a census of his empire. Plagued the Philistine nation with rats because they were enemies to “his chosen nation” called Israel. He sent poisonous snakes against the same “chosen nation”.  He sent lions to eat people.  He sent “his only Son” to die a cruel death on the cross (similar to the Isaac and Abraham story), in order to appease his just anger that was evoked by sin.
This, of course, is the Biblical God, or the God of the Bible. In your concept, there is no difference between the God described in the Bible and the God of the Bible. The GOD OF THE BIBLE and THE GOD IN THE BIBLE is one and the same thing. It does not occur to you that the God described in the Bible is just an imagination of the ancient Jew nation. The Biblical thought in the Bible itself is quite revolutionary. God was not given the Jehovah names until after Egyptian bondage. God evolved further until the birth of Jesus. He was not known as Abba Father. It was Jesus who introduced a new concept and a new definition of God as Abba Father, which is a term that denoted a loving and passionate being.
In page 7 of your critique you say God’s name is “I AM THAT I AM.” I do not want to engage in any biblical spin here, but the original Hebrew translation says, “I AM THAT I AM and I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE.” I got this from a Jewish Hebrew scholar and discovered that this is exactly what it says in the Amplified Bible and in many original scriptures. I am writing this to make you aware that the traditional concept of God as held by you and many millions of Christians, for the past two thousand years, is changing. A New wind of the Spirit is sweeping the universe. The God who said, “I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE,” is definitely becoming in the New Millennium.
THE NEW REFORMATION
Christianity has come to an end of its era. There is a new era beginning. This change will affect the face of Christianity for the next two thousand years or more. Whether Christianity will continue to be called by this name or not still remains to be seen. Since World War 11, momentous changes have taken place in our world – social, political, economic, cultural, religious, and especially mythic. The mythical universe and associated myths have furnished the frame of reference for our Western myths and creeds for more than two thousand years. That world has now come to an end; a new world is emerging right before our eyes. It is now a widely accepted belief that the world was not created six thousand years ago, as many once believed. The world will not end in a fiery holocaust at the hands of an angry God. The world will indeed end – in about 4.5 billion years – when the sun loses its energy and turns into a ball of fire. Maybe this was what our ancestors saw in the Spirit two thousand years ago. All the former mythic certainties associated with the mythic God of the past 6000 years are gone. The Christian era is now being replaced by a global economy, a universal technology, mass consumption, and instant communication between all parts of the globe. These changes, occurring between all parts of our globe within the past fifty years, have altered perceptions forever. Many have accused the New Reformation of being driven by atheism and atheistic scholars. The diagnosis is true. We have not heard the last word from atheists and atheism.
One of the biggest casualties of this change has been the GOD CONCEPT – how human beings think and talk about God. God has been displaced from the mythical heaven to live amongst people. This is the subject of my coming book – The Second Coming of Christ. God will never be known as a God “up there” or “out there” as it has been the case for the past six thousand years of human civilisation. God will be known as immanent – living with us and walking with us in our daily struggles. We will begin to understand that God is not only with us but God has been with us before the foundation f the world and will be with us all the time for eternity. God will be known as: GOD IN EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IN GOD. The new word for it is Pan –en-theism as opposed to Pantheism. This new word is still not in dictionaries but is in new dictionaries on online resources like Wikipedia and web dictionaries. This God will not be known as “existing” like the God in our former human consciousness was. We will know God as IS. GOD IS. He /She /It is always with me, guiding me, instructing me, watching over me, teaching me, and being a present help in time of need. He is helping me to respond to your critique. He is helping you understand my response.
THE NEW REFORMATION AND THE BIBLE
The Bible will remain as our library of inspired books. It will be studied along with other holy books like The Koran, texts of ancient Egypt, Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, Buddhist scriptures, Celtic writings, Hindu Vedanta, and many other holy writings. I know this is just unacceptable to people who have made the Bible the sole source of spiritual inspiration to all people. It is blasphemous to biblical literalists. It is apostasy to those who continue to worship the Bible above the God of the Bible. As a person who have studied the “other’ holy books together with my traditional holy book, the Bible, I no longer feel and see any inconsistencies. Some of my most profound insights into the meaning of life and the nature of God have emerged from these holy books. I even included an appendix named, how Hindus think of God, in my book.
We have to remember that up until the eighteenth century most people viewed the Bible as an infallible authority because they were not aware that there was any other way to view it. Today, we are fully aware that there are other points of view, and each and everyone has a “view” which becomes a “position” to which I or you become committed and which we both justify and defend. The postmodern generation can no longer read the Bible with the innocence of earlier generations, simply accepting it without question. It was only after the period we now call the Enlightenment that it became acceptable for anyone to question religion. The church pretended to know better all along. It would not tolerate an opposing viewpoint, especially if it came from science. The church is now paying the price. Today, according to Roger Jones in Physics for the Rest of Us,
 It is science that dictates to the church and not vice versa...It is science and not religion that gives today’s world its rationale, morality, sustenance, and story of creation, such as it is.
Today, we no longer go to the Bible or Priest to find answers to cataclysmic events like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes etc. We go to science to find answers and explanations to these. Science has become our new God. We no longer understand the modern global scientific universe through the spectacles borrowed from holy books. We read holy books using spectacles borrowed from the global scientific universe. These are the harsh realities we all have to contend with as we live our Christian lives in the postmodern era. We need to allow the best of science and the best of religion to lead us to God. These two need not be anachronistic and dichotomous as they have been for the past five hundred years of the past Reformation. Science and Religion are merging and emerging in the New Reformation. God will be discovered anew in this merger. 
The Emerging Church is addressing the “culture gap” that is widening each and every day. More and more of our kids who were born after 1980 live in big cities miles away from the countryside. Biblical images like the shepherd and sowing have become much more remote. How do we talk about Kings and Queens in a democratic society? How we continue to use a language like King of Kings to a generation that does not even know what a King is? Is this picture and image of God still adequate?  What does the “word of God” mean in a culture in which people are encouraged to think for themselves, and new ideas are presented as points for discussion rather than decrees to be obeyed? How do we talk about “commandments” in a generation that only understands “values”? Our global planet has and continues to rapidly develop a sense of relativity that was rare just a few decades ago. Migration is creating a world in which more and more of us have come to terms with the fact that our culture is not the only one. We are now learning that beliefs are to a great extent the product of culture, which itself is shaped by the accidents of history. The beliefs in the Bible have been changing every hundred years. The Bible is itself a developing literary and historical book. The concept of God has changed with every passing generation.  
One of the most insightful books used by the Emerging Church on the Bible is a book by an emergent Baptist minister, Ray Vincent. The title of the book is, Let the Bible Be Itself: Learning to read it right.  In this book Vincent addresses all the controversial issues raised by the Bible. This is one of the most important on the Bible from a committed Christian so far, the most honest and least bibliolatrous. It is an honest book about what the Bible is not. I would definitely suggest you get the book. Amazon sells it. It is only 150 pages. Ray Vincent has suggested that, “It is the people who never actually read the Bible who tend to treat it as a sacred object”. I would rather say it is people who read it devotionally only. They only read the underlined pages in their Bible and overlook the lines and pages they do not underline.  Let me conclude with closing remarks in Vincent’s book:
...However, we also know that the deepest and most useful lessons in life are learned in a different way. We learn to understand people by entering into their experience. In the field of counselling, the expression often used is “creative listening”. We go along with what another person is experiencing and feeling. We laugh with them and cry with them. This does not mean that we are entirely swallowed up by their feelings. We are still ourselves, and we retain some measure of objectivity. We may not agree with the other person’s interpretation of their experience, but we recognize the reality of their experience and of their perception of it. By this approach we not only give another person the help and support they need, we learn at the same time something more about life and about ourselves. If we can shake off our conception of the Bible as an “authority” and read it from this point of view, then we may well find that it works as a “word of God” on a much deeper level than of mere information.        
Finally, we in the Emerging Church, which is still seen as a heretical church by many, feel God’s call similar to the evangelists who go and preach in prisons. We feel called to free God’s children from the tyranny of a paper Pope. We feel Martin Luther’s Reformation freed God’s people from the tyranny of a human pope and replaced that tyranny with a paper pope. We do that by introducing them to the modern scholarship of the Bible a bit at a time. We can do that producing new translations of ancient texts and by creating new versions of scriptures, both first and second testaments.  We do that by discriminating biblical texts that articulate the wisdom of the prophets and sages from those that reflect ancient, culturally-conditioned perspectives. Rightly dividing the word of truth is wonderful therapy. Other therapies addressed by the Emerging Church conversation include, God anxieties, Scripture anxieties and Christ anxieties. My book is specific therapy that addresses the God and Scripture anxiety. My next book addresses the Christ anxiety.  The Church of Jesus Christ can no longer keep on waiting, rehearsing apocalyptic scenarios, while the crisis in the world deepens. The truth has to be told about the delusions of the past two thousand years. Jesus Christ is getting out of all “boxes”. He is getting out of the Greco-Roman box He was put in two thousand years ago. He is getting out the box that our Church Fathers like Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin put him. He is getting out of the box Papal authority Catholics put him in a thousand years ago. He is getting out of the “paper Pope” box Protestants put him in five hundred years ago. He is getting out of the evangelical box we put him three hundred years ago. And finally, He is getting out of the box fundamentalists put him in exactly a hundred years ago this year.  Are you going to keep him in your box or are you going to remain thinking out of the evangelical box?