What is Diaprax?

by Dr. Robert E. Klenck, M.D. - http://www.crossroad.to/News/Church/Klenck3.html

Diaprax is the foundational thinking that the Church Growth Movement (CGM) is based upon. This article will show how this process is being utilized in churches, and the direction that it is headed.

Diaprax is the repeated practice (praxis) of the Hegelian dialectic (the dia – of diaprax). Briefly, the Hegelian dialectic process 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.

To read the entire article click HERE or go to http://www.crossroad.to/News/Church/Klenck3.html

An example: A traditionally thinking Christian, when proven wrong with factual information (ie. Biblical moral absolutes), yields to the facts, and admits that he/she is wrong, and then aligns him/herself to those facts. Because Biblical moral absolutes do not change, such traditional thinkers, who align themselves to those unchanging absolutes are "resistant to change".

On the other hand, transformational thinkers, when proven wrong with factual information, have been conditioned to process that information differently -- they automatically question it and dialogue it within themselves; their (deceitful) hearts rebel against it, and then they begin to justify (to themselves and others) why it is that they no longer have to attend to the facts. (They process the facts away, and their conscience becomes seared.) This is the natural result of the dialectic process – the searing of the conscience:

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;" 1 Tim 4:1 (KJV)

These people are then able to justify to themselves why they are no longer bound to Biblical moral absolutes. You see, people are saying that the Biblical message just doesn't apply to today's (humanistic) culture – that it must be interpreted in light of the culture of the day. [To some degree this is true – (i.e. slavery was common then, etc.).]

However, the church growth movement takes it much further, and through the process of continual incremental change (using the Hegelian dialectic over and over with the last synthesis becoming the new thesis – the “new fact” base, or “new reality’), the Word of God is gradually/incrementally changed from its original intent, and eventually it is interpreted to mean something contrary to its original intent. This is the process that all sinners use in attempting to justify their rebellion to themselves and others. The rebellion is subtle at first – simply moving away from the traditional way of “doing” church; later, the ordaining of female “pastors”; and eventually it gets to the point of ordaining lesbian "pastors", etc..

The same process was utilized in the abortion debate – first, the fact (“what is”) was questioned – what is life?, and does it really begin at conception? It was decided that as long as the child was not aware of pain, that it was not viable, or really alive. Now, through incremental change, our society has gotten to the point of tolerating “partial-birth” infanticide. This would have been unconscionable in the days that Roe v. Wade was decided.