The more I studied the diaprax concept being utilized in errant Christian theology, the more I was convinced that it was truly the glue that holds together the various false movements so prevalent on the religious landscape today.
The emergent church movement and the gay christian movement may not readily acknowledge their striking simularities based on diaprax, but the evidence is there.
What’s more its inevitable that the two will eventually come into a collusive cooperation with each other. This will be no doubt heralded by the gcm as a major accomplishment of “full acceptance” by the church, but will it be accepted by God?
Dr. Robert E. Klenck, M.D. defines diaprax as the “repeated practice (praxis) of the Hegelian dialectic (the dia – of diaprax). The Hegelian dialectic process he says, works like this: a diverse group of people (in the CGM, this is a mixture of believers and unbelievers – thesis and antithesis), gather in a facilitated meeting (with a trained facilitator/”teacher”/group leader), using group dynamics (peer pressure), to discuss a social issue (or dialogue the Word of God), and reach a pre-determined outcome (consensus, or compromise). When the Word of God is dialogued (as opposed to being taught didactically) between believers and unbelievers, and consensus is reached – agreement that all are comfortable with – then the message of the Word of God has been watered down, and the participants have been conditioned to accept (and even celebrate) their compromise. This [new synthesis] becomes the starting point [thesis] for the next meeting. The fear of alienation from the group is the pressure that prevents an individual from standing firm for the truth of the Word of God. The fear of man then overrides the fear of God.”
The purpose of diaprax, according to Paul Proctor is to coalese factions under a generic Christian banner, where “unity” is esteemed higher than biblical truth:
The goal of Diaprax in the church is to rid the flock of its pesky and divisive hang-ups and habits that impede unity and change – personal convictions and restrained behaviors that are based on Biblical truth rather than political correctness, pragmatism and personal taste. Diaprax is a truth-silencing technique that covertly promotes humanist ideals and a reciprocating brotherly love known in the Greek as ‘phileo’ through imagery (arts/media) and conversation (opinion/dialog) at the expense of the more Godly, obedient, self-sacrificing, truthful and unworldly ‘love-your-enemy’ kind of love called ‘agape’ – the kind of love that drove the Apostle Paul to speak the bitter truth about sinful man from the chains of a dark and lonely prison; the kind of love that caused Stephen to cry out: “lay not this sin to their charge” as the angry crowd stoned him to death for his cutting words of conviction; and what moved the Lord Jesus Himself to say as He hung on a cross for the sins of the world: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
This ambitious rethinking of the faith once delivered to the saints is a thinly veiled precursor to the antichrist’s grand scheme of one world religion with himself installed as the chief god. Proponents of diaprax use the concept as an accusation of divisiveness against those who would hold true to biblical standards of faith, sexual morality, and sound doctrine. Its taking a toll on the church, much like accusations of so-called “homophobia” have allowed the gcm greater access with their foul beliefs.
Of course the inference of diaprax is that we do not represent Jesus. After all, Jesus wants us “united”. There’s a major problem with this line of thinking in that it includes unbelievers and false doctrine-mongerers as part of the church’s unity. The “them” Jesus cited in John 17 does not include those who reject sound doctrine. There is to be no collusion of light and darkness.
But that is completely ignored by the practioners of this false religious concept. And that’s why its so dangerous for us to let down our guard because we are accused of not wanting “unity”. One of the major goals of the gay christian movement is to eventually seed itself into the “mainstream” of Christianity. Indeed, many gay churches have adopted an almost identical doctrinal stance, modes of worship, language and the appearance of a “normal” church. But the one glaring difference is that they reject the God’s restrictions of sexual expression and thought.
To the average Christian, the “positives” would seemingly outweigh the insignificant negative, thus there appears to be no need not to fellowship with homosexual churches. After all, they sing the same songs, read the same Bible, say the same words, even cry. And for the pentecostal crowd speak in tongues and “shout”, too. What insignificant pettiness to not include them simply because they “love someone of the same gender”.
Doing church “better”
This argument for inclusion appeals to the postmodernist Christian mindset. Its a better, smarter way to do church. Call it Rodney King church. Proctor notes that the emergent church’s collusion has manufactured seductive buzzwords like ‘interactive’, ‘image-rich’, ‘cutting edge’, ‘futurist’, ‘new learning strategy’, ‘rewired’, ‘leadership’, ‘team-building’, ‘transition’, ‘audience’, ‘participative’, ‘entrepreneurial’, ‘next millennium’, ‘whatever it takes’, ‘dialog’, ‘evaluate’, ‘programming’, ‘new paradigm’, ‘image-based’, ‘carving ministries’, ‘casting ministries’, ‘experiential momentum’, ‘passion-driven’, ‘purpose-driven’, ‘success’, ‘non-relevant lectures’, ‘post-modern’, ‘concepts’, ‘solidifying’, ‘invest’, ‘money’, ‘resources’, ‘conversational’, ‘intentionally relational’, ‘share experiences’, and ‘connecting’.
Do any of those sound familiar to you? Have you heard any of these used by the so-called “cutting edge” ministries today? Add to those euphemisms from the gay chrstian movement like ‘inclusion’, ‘tolerance’, ‘acceptance’ and the stage is set for these two false movements to find much common ground.
On this site, we have repeatedly cited the growing collusion with gay christianity. Generally the defense of such actions are like this. And this. For people caught up in pushing this fallacy in the church the end justifies the means. Whatever it takes to force unity, they are willing to do it.
That’s why you saw Rick Warren hosting his AIDS conference where he brought opposing political and moral perspectives, including proabortion and homosexuals to his church to “dialogue”. His message: “hey, its not a sin to be sick.”, while ignoring that sexual sin is a primary cause of the AIDS issue. Had he said that half of the enlightened people he invited would have stayed away.
Diaprax was also at the heart of the Rethink Conference held by positivity thinking guru Robert Schuller (<<dont miss this!). Schuller’s enlightened wish list guests are hardly people who you’d hear messages about sin, salvation, sacrifice, suffering or hell from. Those things aren’t “positive” and would disturb the beautiful unity of the conference.
5 thoughts on “Diaprax, collusion and emergent heresy, part 1”
Thanks for the lesson on diaprax – I learned a new word today! That summary was excellent. You can see how the Enemy can use such a process to get people to have unity over false ideas.
What an excellent essay! I have heard the term “diaprax” before, but could not recall the meaning. You have certainly explained it very well here!
Over at a blog called Herescope the writers there share valuable information on the combined errors of Rick Warren, the emergent church movement, and the rethink movement.
I found that the following paragraph shows quite conclusively that repentance, the cross of Christ, and the true Gospel as revealed through the Bible have been replaced by the diaprax and “do good” ideas:
“Do Good” Pluralism
The “do good” gospel is, by definition, pluralism in action. It brings in everybody and everything, and stands for nothing but to “do good.” It partners with anybody–governments and corporations, and even other religions–for the overarching purpose to “do good.” Its dominionism seeks to build kingdom of God on earth with whatever tools are handy, with whomever shows up on the scene, by whatever methods, doing “whatever it takes,” never minding the integrity of the Gospel.”
All of these movement, include the gay “christian” movement, have the “unity over false ideas” mantra in their theology. It all adds up to the title of this post – “Diaprax, collusion, and emergent heresy!” And, what they all have in common is “never minding the integrity of the Gospel.”
Christine, in this war, its of the utmost importance that the enemy be exposed. The people he uses count on complacency, material gain, and false platitudes to wreak havoc from within.
When you look at the focus of the Word of Faith movement, emergent church, gcm, and several others they share are never in pursuit of the true and living God.
I feel a revolution coming on. Its time to make the call:
Who is on the Lord’s side? Exodus 32:25-29
What saddens me is the fact that many churches do not engage within the culture. They don’t preach against sin anymore. They don’t expose the sins that our culture either ignores or “celebrates” (as is the case with homosexuality). They don’t warn against heresy and apostasy. Why? Because they fear “offending” someone. They don’t want to appear “intolerant.” They don’t want anyone who might be involved in such sins to think they are being “lectured at the pulpit.” So, it is just as you stated – the Enemy of our souls “counts on complacency, material gain, and false platitudes to wreak havoc from within.”
The churches that do get involved in the culture war are to be commended. I recently wrote a blogpost about one that I have been supporting financially over the years. The new pastor there has a book coming out called “Media Revolution.” How gratifying it is that the legacy of the church founder will continue.
I have found that preaching against homosexuality is a rare thing. Again, no one wants to be labeled negatively because of it. As the link above discusses, the “Name Game” can keep people away from declaring the truth about immoral practices.
Over at that Herescope link, I read a post about the recent lion attack at the S.F. Zoo. At the end of the post, the writer had some really good advice:
Just as people depend on zoo officials to keep them safe from animals, believers should be able to depend on their pastor/shepherds to protect them through accurate scriptural counsel. For spiritual leaders to minimize and ignore the warnings in Scripture plays right into our Adversary’s hands. Just as the San Francisco Zoo officials did not appear to factor in Tatiana’s previous violent history and basic cat nature, and thus take precautions to build up their retaining wall accurately, pastors are not taking Satan seriously anymore, nor can we trust their statements about our spiritual Adversary to be accurate.
Make sure your hedge of protection is measured accurately. Measure everything by Scripture – not by the unreliable words of undiscerning spiritual leaders.
Great illustration re. the zoo. Again, that is where the orthodox have been too “nice” in letting false teachers in – or not kicking them out when they became false teachers. It is not kind or loving to let wolves in sheep’s clothing stay in your church.
Comments are closed.