It almost seems today that apostasy is cool. Apostasy is the new black. It means you're a thinking Christian, and you can just claim that name even if you reject everything that it historically means at its core, and that you'll only get flack for it by those unthinking dinosaurs who can't change with the times.
When I grew up, the bigger threats to orthodoxy were found in the cults. Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. all worked to undermine orthodox theology.
Now, however, because we exist in a hyper-individualistic culture, we don't join churches, denominations, or even cults. Instead, our apostates grow up within our ranks and stay there. They identify themselves as believers, attend churches that supposedly believe, and claim titles for themselves that were once only given to orthodox Christians.
What is interesting about this is that if a Joseph Smith or Charles Russell were to grow up and teach in the church today, they would likely just stay in it. They would have a blog and just argue that any Christians trying to push them out of the church are just a bunch of close-minded gatekeepers who have to make theology a litmus test for Christian faithfulness. They would work to marginalize the orthodox rather than to be marginalized and excommunicated by them.
That brings us to this question: Have evangelicals and emergings worked so hard to include people into their groups that they are no longer capable of identifying anyone as an apostate, but only Christians with different gods, theologies, ethics (i.e., Christians with different religions)?
If you think I'm off on this, let's look at a specific case. Rachel Evans, by her own admission, does not worship the God of John Piper. She continually puts his deity in lower case, implying that her god is not the same as his. She also repudiates his God. So let's look at this.
What she is essentially saying is that she and John Piper do not worship the same deity. What this means for biblical Christianity is that either Rachel is a Christian or John Piper is, or neither one is, but both cannot be.
I would argue, of course, that since John Piper's God is that of the Puritans, Reformers, Church Fathers, and Apostles and Prophets, that proves that Rachel, by her own admission (not mine), is not a Christian. She, by arguing that John Piper's God is evil, is arguing that she rejects the God of Christianity that looks exactly like John Piper's God and not Rachel's.
However, she still wants to be considered a Christian. She still wants to be considered in the fold. And the point I want to make from above is that many who claim to be Christians want to consider her a Christian as well. Why? Well, we don't want to be judgmental or make theology a big issue in identifying Christians. Um, OK. Then that pretty much proves the point that apostasy is impossible in false Christianity, which is yet another mark that it is not the faith of the prophets and apostles.
Come out from among them and do not be partakers with them and THEN you will be considered the sons and daughters of God. Otherwise, if these supposed churches do nothing to excommunicate these apostates and state clearly that they are not Christians, they will not only throw immature Christians who don't know better to wolves, but they will also prove themselves to be one with those who repudiate true Christianity.
But apostasy is the new black, so it's going to take a love of God and courage that transcends the need for the deluded masses to speak well of you.