Friday, 15 April 2011
-
How Emergent Christian Are You?
At the moment, I’m working through the book, “Why We’re Not Emergent” by Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck. To be honest, I’m only picking it up because David F. Wells wrote the foreword, and he’s a fantastic theologian, one of my favourites.I’ve only finished the first chapter so far, so I have no particular opinion on the book so far. In the introduction though, there was something fascinating with how much of my form of Christianity is similar to the emergent Christianity described within the book. I admit I’m a bit of a hipster, but the correlations to emergent Christianity is interesting, almost when alternativeness is taken to an extreme and applied to theological epistemology.
DeYoung gives a long list of attributes which are somewhat generalised, but such measures are important when describing a diverse and somewhat undefined movement in Christianity. Then again, it is all the more dangerous because there is no single proponent of it, but a collective message of many pastors who are more subtle in their change. It is difficult to combat because there is no Le Corbusier, no Jean Paul Sartre of philosophy, no Thomas Hardy, no pushing ambitiously the movement forward.
Anyway, the following quote is a checklist of sorts that I seem to somewhat fulfil most:
“You might be an emergent Christian:
If you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from the Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists of primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Breannan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, david Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Wink and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic naive and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritise urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular vide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism – if all or most of this torturously long sentence describe you, then you might be an emergent Christian.”
How emergent are you? Does it worry you that your favourite blogger is seesawing on the fringes of emergent churchery?
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: llamalima@xanga
- About Me: Who am I? I am 19 year old university student, prone to stressing over about some assignment due the next day. I sometimes have time to blog mostly about Christian thoughts. In my spare time, I am also a musical connoisseur, ninja, movie junkie, and full-time hypochondriac. I may have lied about one of those, or a few.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 162 Views: 0 143715 Comments: 0 1733 View all posts by llamalima@xanga
Comments (31)
Very emergent. McLaren rocks!
Wow. Some of that does not fit soundly with Christianity. Salvation IS about atoning for sins/guilt. While Jesus did it with an open invitation to all His creation, they aren't all taking it up and so that sentence about bringing all of creation into shalom with its maker just cannot be, which is unfortunately.
And how can a Christian not speak out for the unborn?! I can understand Christians supporting gay rights - but I can't understand them not worrying about murder of the unborn/pre-born.
The comment about nobody may be there anyway (Hell)?! That's BS!
I think that book will just lead people into lives where they *think* they're saved but that falsely lets them believe they don't have to live their lives any differently than they did before they were "saved." This is watering down the Bible, Christianity, morals, etc and "modernizing" it to make it more appealing and popular. That's just not okay to change the messages of the Bible like that.
The part bashing conservative Christians homes is crapola too.
Now, the part about be the church instead of attending - that's great stuff. The list of political concerns are also great ones.
All in all - this is just dressing Christianity up in a mini-skirt and slapping some cheap make-up on it to make it all gussied up for those who don't really want much to do with Christianity.
I am sure my views on this aren't popular but that's alright. (What's right isn't always popular and what's popular isn't always right.) I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throat - just sharing my beliefs and convictions on this issue that I'm passionate about. We're all entitled to our opinions.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - "I think that book will just lead people into lives where they *think* they're saved but that falsely lets them believe they don't have to live their lives any differently than they did before they were "saved."
The quote from the book is giving examples of what an emergent church is, which is what the book is not about, since it's called "Why we're not emergent." Therefore the book is supporting a lot of your views. :)
I'd say I'm sort of in the middle. I agree about the quintessential Christian disciples, I use a mac, my regular church has couches, candles, and people a lot of times dance, lay on the ground, paint or other things during worship, I support women in ministry, I do want to be the church and not just go, I have an amazing community, and I believe doctrine can definitely be a distraction for people's relationships with Jesus
But for the most part I don't read or listen to anything that doesn't help me grow in my walk with Christ, I believe in absolute truth, I care a lot about abortion, and I definitely care a lot about people going to hell and I do believe it exists.
I would say yes to almost all of those, so I guess I would be. Some however, ask us to choose one over the others, which I think is wrong... and, ironically, not Emergent I believe, lol (Ex: "if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt
and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with
its Maker;")
Not Emergent in the least --- and believe that the new "Emergent heresy" is just that. Label me a Conservative Fundamentalist who believes hard core that the Bible was written BY GOD for men, and as such is THE ONLY source of true wisdom existent today (James 3:14-18; 1 Corinthians 3:19). My blog consistently hits that nail in the head every time I write something, as more and more hammers (re: the vain philosophies of men) come to take on the anvil of God's Word, only to find themselves broken and wasted in the end.
When we get to Heaven, God will not ask you what you thought of Bono.
When we get to Heaven, God will not inquire how much of Mother Theresa's writings you've read.
When we get to Heaven, God will not inquire which side of the political debate you landed on.
When we get to Heaven, God will solely inquire how you responded to HIS SON, as presented in HIS WORD, and then how much you followed in obedience to all else that you read in there. (Acts 4:12; 1 John 3:21-22; Matthew 25: 31-46; ) If Jesus rebuked the Pharisees & Saducees for not knowing the Scriptures --- how much greater will he rebuke us because we turned to the world and rejected HIS WORD. (The link is to a post I wrote nearly a year ago entitled "God words versus God's Word: Going to Hell in Jesus Name.)
In the end it comes down to this: 1 John 2:6
"whoever CLAIMS to live in Him MUST walk as Jesus walked."
And I find that out by looking to the life of Jesus as found in the Bible, not by turning to Desmond Tutu. You can keep the Emergent Church junkfood that takes you nowhere --- I'll stick to what's been tried, tested, and found true now for over 200 centuries --- what Jesus labeled as "man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that came from the mouth of God".
All these modern day attempts to re-write the Church and make it more "user friendly" and strip the gospel of it's historical power (Romans 1:16-17) in the end only pander to people looking to have their ears tickled (2 Timothy 4:3) and not know, understand or seek God as He has revealed himself in His Word of Truth (Romans 1:21-23; John 4:24). I did my own research, spent 6 straight years looking into the writings of Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augustine, and beyond... enough to know Dan Brown should be crowned the King of Crap.... just to understand the issues we face and how the early Church functioned. Trust me, the Bible really is all you need, and all those saints of old stated just as much up front in their own quoting of it as the one true source of God's pure wisdom.
I'll stick to the Reformers
Sola Scriptura
Sola Christus
Sola Gratis
Only the Scriptures
Only Christ
Only Grace
Amen.
@MS - I definitely misread that then, thanks for pointing that out.
Some of that list I would say is silly but really not that troublesome (who cares if you have bean bags in your church?). But other things are quite important and I think the church should be focusing on it. For example, bringing Heaven to earth rather than waiting to go to Heaven when we die. Jesus taught us to pray the former way, and there are problems with the latter. Or being the church instead of going to church: the church IS the body, it's not a place. "poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression": these ARE things we should be concerned about as the church. Otherwise, much of it seemed like it had sort of a hipster/Indie vibe, but what's wrong with that? As culture changes, we can change how we express our love for Jesus. I went to a concert last night that might be considered part of the emergent church (singer with a Faux-hawk, lots of distortion in the music, tight jeans and chucks were worn), but why should we even care? I'm all for being against people watering down Jesus to make it more "attractive", but my personal opinion is that Jesus really is incredibly attractive, it's just that much of the church portrays Him in a somewhat nauseating light. A lot of nonbelievers can really relate more to this.
My general thought is this: who cares, as long as it's bringing people into the Kingdom? These people sound like the Judaizers who demanded that Gentile converts follow the Torah, observe Shabbot and get circumcised. You're blocking entrance into the Kingdom when you make things more difficult than they need be.
@kk_grayfox@xanga - I completely agree with you! :)
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - While Jesus did it with an open invitation to all His creation, they aren't all taking it up and so that sentence about bringing all of creation into shalom with its maker just cannot be, which is unfortunately. What about Paul's teaching that creation is eagerly awaiting it's redemption? I'm not sure that "bringing all of creation" necessarily means every single human being placing their trust in Christ. Perhaps it extends beyond humans to all of created matter?
Like kk_grayfox said, there are a number of things on that list that really just don't matter when it comes down to it...
But for the record, I identify with many of the things on that list, but not all of them. For instance, I love Henri Nouwen AND I'm more or less a Calvinist. I'm thinking maybe I should read this book to see what they have to say...
@kk_grayfox@xanga - I would question how many emergents are going to heaven to be honest. What we save them with, is what we save them to. If we save them through anything but the Gospel, then I would doubt they would remain after the suffering begins.
I agree that the list doesn't give a objective answer to whether you're going to heaven or not. I am a lot of that list, I'm a bit fanatical about sustainability, I love Moby, I love my Yoder. The context of the quote is just showing how widespread emergent church is without realising it. This was more of a humourous post if anything. =)
This book is still on my to-read list, but I can definitely identify with their description of "emergent" even though it's written to be condescending and dismissive. Yes, I read Rob Bell and Brian McLaren and Brennan Manning and Jim Wallis and others like them, and yes, I believe that Jesus called us to bring the Kingdom here on earth.
There are scriptures which support all of the different positions on Hell, just as there are scriptures which support all the different positions on predestination versus free will. Anyone can justify any position by selecting some scriptures and ignoring others. It does seem very clear to me, though, that Jesus was calling us to follow, not by making a statement that we believe and then spending the rest of our lives reading the scriptures (the Pharisees already did that), but by bringing God's justice into reality here in this world.
@caroliiineee@xanga - Mac user! *unfriend* jk. ;)
This describes me almost exactly... but I'm not convinced it's righteous.
Most of it is. U2 and Johnny Cash, caring for the broken instead of picketting those we disagree with, not wasting time figuring out who's going to hell, not standing for stale monotone uncaring religion... and I'm convinced that what's described here is closer to the truth than THAT(monotone religion).
but though I'm not convinced the Bible is unerring or that I can really find the truth, I don't think God WANTS that for me. Or He wouldn't have sent Jesus (who believed and quoted the Bible) or given us the book.
It's closer, but hard to keep accountable when we don't firmly "believe" anything.
but yes, caring about what He cared about is a good start and a shocking change.
@MS - the cover also reads, "by two guys who should be"... I haven't read the book, but it does imply they wish they were more emergent.
@catecumen - amen
Conservative traditionalist ALL THE WAY!
@hisprincess_selah@xanga - "U2 and Johnny Cash, caring for the broken instead of picketting those we disagree with" I mean, picketting people is not the opposite of loving U2. I think both are somewhat bad, the former somewhat more. I myself prefer a medium between the two.
I mean, I love Hurt by Johnny Cash, it's deathly honest from someone struggling.
RE: The subtitle of the book, it's referring to them having come from emergent backgrounds but having rejected it.
@llamalima@xanga - ohh -okay, thanks.
anyhow, I wasn't saying anything about the opposite of liking U2 being picketting. just listing some of the things in the paragraph I found lovely.
Huh. So it's bad that I think Mother Theresa was the one of the quintessential Christians?
This is...bugging me. Let's not diss other Christians for having less 'traditional' beliefs.
"
if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant"
This is where trouble begins.
It bums me out hard how as soon as labels are applied, it ultimately leads to division. And along with that, once you label yourself with a certain label, you begin to think according to that label's thoughts on certain topics, because you ascribe to is - not necessarily because you believe it. (ie. "I'm a republican, I have to be pro-life")
All that being said, the root of the problems with many different strains of Christianity, are when they disregard the Bible as the ultimate source of Truth we as humans have. as @Yoru_Kendo said, and I was thinking this before I read his comment, when we discredit the Bible's authority, that is the very beginning of big, big trouble within The Church.
@JulieMillerFan@xanga - yes!! listen to solomon. ecclesiates. why fill your mind with words that aren't from God? bc yes God is the only truth there is to seek. The Word is LIVING! and it is GOD BREATHED!
@merrymoth@xanga - Depends --- do you agree with Mother Theresa that her main role was to make "Muslims better muslims, Hindus better Hindus and Christians better Christians" (I'm paraphrasing the quote) --- is that the role of a "Christian"? I also would question her stance on the importance of Mary in the role of our salvation. I don't see where Mary's ever shown ONCE to have a part in dieing for me on the Cross --- beyond what the Roman Catholic Big Pompadoo has pontificated as alleged truth. Sorry, for me the book was sealed with the words "whoever ADDS TO the words of this book... will be cursed." Makes me wonder about the present status of a lot of dead popes.
I'm not railing against Roman Catholics, don't get me wrong. I'm railing against a system that injects many ANTI-Biblical teachings as fact and then tries to say that "It is appointed man once to die, and then to Judgment" as a probable lie seeing as there's purgatory between one step and the other. I'm railing against a system that props salvation up by WHAT WE DO rather than WHAT JESUS DID. (Go say 10 Hail Marys and your sins will be forgiven.... right.) I'm railing against a system that continues to sacrifice Christ DAILY in the mass --- cause Obviously Jesus words "IT IS FINISHED" weren't true and Hebrews statement "ONCE, FOR ALL" was also a lie.
If the popes honestly did have the power to exonerate souls from suffering in purgatory, then why are they not all that gracious --- let them empty out purgatory and stop having people PAY for masses for the dead. Oh, but wait, that would crash the whole system which is based on .... TADA... money.
Peter had it right "Your money perish with you".
Sorry if I seem vitriolic, it's just that the Catholics have played a great PR game in the last 3 decades and now nobody seems to question what Martin Luther really was protesting about. Again, I'm not against the people, it's the system that is as false as it gets. The people need to be told the truth --- Jesus died for them so that they would THIS DAY be a part of the Kingdom. The beauty of Romans 8:1 "There is now therefore NO CONDEMNATION to them who are in Christ Jesus." is tarnished under a system that says "Ummm, God obviously didn't mean he'd forgive ALL your sins... you still need to pay more, do more, and follow us more in order to REALLY have a shot at heaven --- if you can make it through purgatory of course."
I'll step off my soapbox now and let the Catholics have their opportunity for inevitable rebuttal.
@emo_chik114@xanga - How do you always seem to find me.... it's uncanny.
@JulieMillerFan@xanga -
I understand some of your arguments, but I really don't think that you can safely say that you're not railing against Roman Catholics when, in fact, you are. It also bothers me that you bring "what Martin Luther really was protesting about" into this. One of the main things he was protesting was the use of indulgences (something the Catholic church no longer uses, because the church isn't nearly as out for money as they were back in the 1500s)
Back in Luther's day, the church was corrupt. They depended on the ignorance of the masses to make, in essence, dirty money. The congregations couldn't read the Bible because it was only published in Latin. Luther protested the dependence on works for salvation (and he was right to do so), but by no means does that mean that Christians aren't obligated to do good work in the world. Much of what Christ preached concerned good works. He told people to give to the poor and help those in need-- yes, His divinity is key and His sacrifice is the rock of our faith, but this in no way nullifies the fact that He wants us to show good and mercy to others. I read a book called "The Irresistible Revolution" that mentioned the fact that a lot of Christians get so caught up in the next life that they don't consider their obligation to help people in this life.
There are doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants. But what are the principles of the faith? Christ was the Son of God. He was born of a virgin into the world, as predicted by the prophets. He died for the sins of the world. He rose again, which foreshadows the ultimate conquering of death that will happen eventually.
I'm pretty sure that Catholics believe these basic principles. Mother Theresa certainly did. And that woman was selfless-- can you judge her for her Catholic doctrines? Does anyone have the right, when she showed so much love and sacrifice towards others? Does anyone but God have the right to judge at all?
It just upsets me to see Christians judging other Christians. It just does more to break up people of the faith, in a world where we need all the support from one another we can get! And I apologize if I'm being just as judgmental and/or argumentative by posting this. I feel like it needs to be said.
@merrymoth@xanga - Doctrine actually matters more than you would think. Would you so loosely define "Christian" as to include "Christian Scientists"? Jehovah's Witnesses? "Mormons"? would they be "Christian" because they call upon the name of Jesus?
My personal life verse is 1 Timothy 4:16. Before I state it, let me say that what I mean by "Life verse" is a verse that overshadows all I do -- it helps keep me focused. That verse is this
Watch your life AND YOUR DOCTRINE -- C-A-R-E-F-U-L-L-Y -- persevere in these and you will SAVE both yourself and your hearers.
Paul thought doctrine so important that he told Timothy that it has some role in our salvation. I'm not saying that doctrine is what brings me into heaven --- but RIGHT DOCTRINE keeps me in line with Christ and not preaching heresy... in Jesus name. (Review James 1: 25 for more on this point)
Now, that all said --- let me ask you a few pointed questions.
Foremost -- Does Christ share his glory with anyone other than the Father? Revelation states that the host of Heaven cry out "To YOU ALONE belong all Glory, Honor, Power and Praise".
Your answer to the above question will guide you through the next course of questions --- .
Did Christ share His Glory and make a man the head of his Church?
Did Christ share His Glory and give man the power to create Doctrine whimsically?
Did Christ share His Glory and exalt Mary to the title of "Queen of Heaven"?
Did Christ share his Glory and give Mary a co-redeeming role in our salvation? (This is actually taught! Mary has the title "Co-redemtrix with Christ" in the role of attaining our salvation!!!)
Those few questions asked, let us attend to the matter of Salvation. Was what Christ did on the Cross sufficient or insufficient for our needs? Christ said "It is finished" and the writer of Hebrews states "Christ died, ONCE FOR ALL." And yet the Catholic teaching is that Christ DID NOT finish his work upon the cross (ever wonder why Catholic Crucifixes still have him on the cross???) but that he set up A NEW --- mark that --- A NEW system of sacrifices to replace those once done at the temple.
Both teachings can't be true, either Christ finished his work or he didn't. Which is true, which is false?
The Roman Catholic system teaches that the Mass is a CONTINUAL SACRIFICE --- perpetual until Christ returns --- offered daily BY PRIEST ALONE, to rescind sin for only a bit. People still pay for masses to be said for their loved ones. You said that indulgences are finished --- that may be, but paying the Church to cover the sins of loved ones long dead (Ever wonder why a Catholic church has so many candles burning???) by the saying of masses for their souls in purgatory -- that one hasn't budged an inch.
So --- salvation was procurred at the Cross, or was it? Both ideologies can't be likewise true. Either Christ died ONCE for our sins, sitting down at the right hand of God because His work was finished ---- or Transubstantiation is correct and Christ is daily pulled down from Heaven to re-embody himself in the form of wafers (known as host's) and wine IN PHYSICAL FORM all over the earth, every hour of every day, because the work wasn't finished --- only just started. (In the middle ages, extra care was taken to make sure that the wafer never was dropped --- we wouldn't want the PHYSICAL BODY OF CHRIST to get dirty, would we?)
Communion, to a Catholic, is an essential part of salvation. Why? Because it not just represents Christ's death --- IT IS, ONCE MORE, Christ being sacrificed anew.
Soooo, is it a difference in doctrine merely? or are there such core variances as to make it a wholly different religion, with a wholly different set of values and a wholly different means of attaining heaven?
Who is in Heaven? We would say all that have died IN CHRIST JESUS are present with him AT THIS MOMENT. Not so the Catholic. To them, only those "saints" who have meritted EXTRA SAVING GRACE were able to by-pass purgatory and thus enter into heaven. Ever wonder why Catholics pray to Mary and the saints? It's because they believe those saints --- and Mary --- have EXTRA GRACE with which to share to the faithful.... sort of a heavenly bank account with which Those saints can dole out checks from to the person who cries out loud enough, long enough, and does enough 'good deeds'. Praying to Saints is actually then a plead for mercy APART FROM CHRIST, to help that person enter into Heaven, get a new car, find the perfect wife, stay safe in times of trouble.... and here I thought that there was ONE Mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. (1 Timothy 2:5; 1 John 2:1-2)
While you're right --- we Christians don't do enough to help our neighbor --- you assume to much in proscribing that this is the position of the Catholic church. To the Catholic church, good deeds have saving merit. They actually put us in right standard with God. It was my understanding that JESUS ALONE put us in right standing with God. Both positions can't be likewise true.... we're back to the same place we were all along.... you have two systems, and only one can be right. Either works save us or Jesus saves us -- not both.
Now I have taken the time to give a short reply to your posed question(s). There are far more differences (Take into account Extreme Unction --- making sure you push baptism off to the last moment of your life so as to make sure it covers your sins. Does baptism save us, or does Jesus?) than what few I have commented briefly on, but everything said takes us right back to my first point --- Are you defining "Christian" so broadly as to assume ANYONE who merely bears Jesus name on their lips is in fact his follower?
Jesus himself said "Many will come to me in that day and say 'Lord, Lord, did we not... IN YOUR NAME..." and I will say to them 'AWAY FROM ME, I never knew you.'."
Seems to me, we need to preach the Truth in the face of lies -- and that those who buy into lies, calling them true have rejected Christ in favor of an idol of their own making. (Oh... I could insert any manner of Catholic Idolistic folly here... There were once enough "splinters of the Cross of Christ" floating around to create a cross several hundred feet long and wide....) Those that worship an idol, even tho they name it Christ, do not worship the true God, who seeks men to worship Him "in spirit AND IN TRUTH."
I point you to two of my former posts. One entitled "Laying my cards on the table: Losing Readership, speaking Truth" and another entitled "Misused Scriptures Part 5; JUDGE ME NOT! (aka 'Leave me alone')" (which I positioned at the top of the list for abused Scriptures) Both address in greater detail things you've pointed to or were being addressed here.
It comes down to this, my friend. Either Christianity is correct or Roman Catholicism is correct. Is salvation only granted through adherence to "God's one, true CATHOLIC Church" or is Salvation open to any and all who call upon the name of Jesus? A system that preaches / teaches / submits to lies AS TRUTH is not reflective of the Holiness and unchanging character and Nature of God.
1 John 1 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.
That is to say that in God, no lie ever existed, will exist, can exist or shall exist. God is Truth from start to finish. To teach lies IN HIS NAME --- shows a system that does not know God, in the least.
Would you still call them "Christian" and leave them lost as to their eternal destiny? That would be the gravest of crimes ever committed against them. Expose the system, show them their need of Jesus ALONE for their salvation --- and let them come to know saving Grace as found in Christ, not in a system burdened with lies on how to attain to Heaven.... under your own power.