"Once we recognize that we are saved by the quality of Christ and His righteousness rather than by our own faith and its inherent qualities, we look outside of ourselves and receive the gift that is delivered to us in the gospel."
Source: Modern Reformation magazine - March/Apirl 2006 issue
Monday, May 29, 2006
Saturday, May 27, 2006
NAFTA is Old News - Now the NEW Replacement
A while back here on the blog I warned that George W. Bush was not what many conservative Republicans thought; that he was selling out too much to business interests, especially the oil comapnies. I think my point has pretty well been proven over the past 5 1/2 years. If you aren't convicned, then here is a real doozy for you. This isn't some "conspiracy" theory since I don't buy into those. And it isn't something people emailed to me. I heard this on a legitimate radio program from a man who is studying it. At the end of this post is the source website. So here goes...and remember...I have been a (mostly) conservative Republican all my life, so I'm not coming at this from a liberal, left point of view.
In March 2005, at Baylor University ( a Christian University) , three people signed an interesting document that we have never heard of in the mainstream media. This is really interesting since they are so anti-Bush, but perhaps they like this document. These three people were President Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada. And guess what they were doing there?
Here is where I don't understand the stance of many Christians. Even after I tell you what they were doing there, many will excuse and enable Bush. While we always honor and show respect and pray for our leaders, for Christians to enable and excuse them when they are clearly doing the wrong thing is really amazing to me. To me what I am about to say is not only shocking, but ominous for Christians in the future. Talk about the anti-Christ system being ushered in. So here is what they did there at Baylor in 2005.
A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners.
Basically, this is would be similar to the European Union with a "North American" common currency and anyone in the three countries able to live and work in the other countries freely. In other words, anyone can move over the borders of any of the other two countries. Also, the Partner's court might have authority OVER our courts including our Supreme Court on certain matters.
"The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues.
In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:
'NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.'"
Now read this - notice the court part:
"Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.
Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security."
So, I leave you with the above thoughts about our sovereignty being compromised.
Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017
In March 2005, at Baylor University ( a Christian University) , three people signed an interesting document that we have never heard of in the mainstream media. This is really interesting since they are so anti-Bush, but perhaps they like this document. These three people were President Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada. And guess what they were doing there?
Here is where I don't understand the stance of many Christians. Even after I tell you what they were doing there, many will excuse and enable Bush. While we always honor and show respect and pray for our leaders, for Christians to enable and excuse them when they are clearly doing the wrong thing is really amazing to me. To me what I am about to say is not only shocking, but ominous for Christians in the future. Talk about the anti-Christ system being ushered in. So here is what they did there at Baylor in 2005.
A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called, “The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The joint statement termed the SPP a “trilateral partnership” that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners.
Basically, this is would be similar to the European Union with a "North American" common currency and anyone in the three countries able to live and work in the other countries freely. In other words, anyone can move over the borders of any of the other two countries. Also, the Partner's court might have authority OVER our courts including our Supreme Court on certain matters.
"The North American Union is envisioned to create a super-regional political authority that could override the sovereignty of the United States on immigration policy and trade issues.
In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed:
'NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.
This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements.'"
Now read this - notice the court part:
"Pastor also proposed the creation of a Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment with the view that “a permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” The intent is for this North American Union Tribunal would have supremacy over the U.S. Supreme Court on issues affecting the North American Union, to prevent U.S. power from “irritating” and retarding the progress of uniting Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a new 21st century super-regional governing body.
Robert Pastor also advises the creation of a North American Parliamentary Group to make sure the U.S. Congress does not impede progress in the envisioned North American Union. He has also called for the creation of a North American Customs and Immigration Service which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security."
So, I leave you with the above thoughts about our sovereignty being compromised.
Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15017
Friday, May 26, 2006
....the 1960's Evangelical...Now in Leadership
Steve Camp's blog is presenting an excellent two-part series from the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Leominster, MA, Lars Larson.
Here is a sampling:
Here is a description of evangelicals of that period [the 1960's]:
A generation brought up on guitars, choruses, and home group discussions. Educated, as one of them put it to me, not to use words with precision because the image is dominant, not the word. Equipped not to handle doctrine but rather to 'share'. A compassionate, caring generation, suspicious of definition and labels, uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle with sustained didactic exposition of theology. Excellent when it comes to providing religious music, drama, and art. Not so good when asked to preach and teach the Faith or to express it in writing.
Whenever we loose our ability to discern, when we become “uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle” with issues of truth, we set ourselves up for a major fall. This mindset began in the world, and was carried over into the church. The results have been staggering. But since one aspect of discernment is recognizing error, few even realize a problem exists. And those who recognize a problem are considered alarmists, extremists, irrelevant, outdated, and out of touch.
We are all susceptible to being shaped by our environment. In fact, we will have our thinking formed by the world about us unless we take definite steps to prevent it from occurring. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, “Do not be conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). The verb is an imperative, a command. But it is important to note that it is written in the present tense. Paul does not warn against the commencing of action; rather, he forbids it’s continuing. Paraphrased, he says, “You are presently being conformed to this world, put a stop to it.” And how is that done? It is accomplished by “being transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is.” Unless you make a definite, deliberate effort to stop the process already at work, you will be unable to know what is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. You will “drift away”, a fearful condition of which the undiscerning babies in Hebrews were in danger. What is the preventive? “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard (the teachings of the apostles) (Heb. 2:1).
I am relieved to find that I am not the sole person who is saying these things. The scary part is these '60's people are now in leadership in evangelical churches. And we wonder why things are so bad. I do realize there are a few of you Baby Boomers who are sane. Hopefully they will be listened to more and more by their peers.
The above excerpt is from The Need for Discernment in These Perilous Times Pt 2 .
For Part I, Go here.
Here is a sampling:
Here is a description of evangelicals of that period [the 1960's]:
A generation brought up on guitars, choruses, and home group discussions. Educated, as one of them put it to me, not to use words with precision because the image is dominant, not the word. Equipped not to handle doctrine but rather to 'share'. A compassionate, caring generation, suspicious of definition and labels, uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle with sustained didactic exposition of theology. Excellent when it comes to providing religious music, drama, and art. Not so good when asked to preach and teach the Faith or to express it in writing.
Whenever we loose our ability to discern, when we become “uneasy at, and sometimes incapable of, being asked to wrestle” with issues of truth, we set ourselves up for a major fall. This mindset began in the world, and was carried over into the church. The results have been staggering. But since one aspect of discernment is recognizing error, few even realize a problem exists. And those who recognize a problem are considered alarmists, extremists, irrelevant, outdated, and out of touch.
We are all susceptible to being shaped by our environment. In fact, we will have our thinking formed by the world about us unless we take definite steps to prevent it from occurring. Paul wrote to the Christians at Rome, “Do not be conformed to this world” (Rom. 12:2). The verb is an imperative, a command. But it is important to note that it is written in the present tense. Paul does not warn against the commencing of action; rather, he forbids it’s continuing. Paraphrased, he says, “You are presently being conformed to this world, put a stop to it.” And how is that done? It is accomplished by “being transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is.” Unless you make a definite, deliberate effort to stop the process already at work, you will be unable to know what is true or false, right or wrong, good or bad. You will “drift away”, a fearful condition of which the undiscerning babies in Hebrews were in danger. What is the preventive? “For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard (the teachings of the apostles) (Heb. 2:1).
I am relieved to find that I am not the sole person who is saying these things. The scary part is these '60's people are now in leadership in evangelical churches. And we wonder why things are so bad. I do realize there are a few of you Baby Boomers who are sane. Hopefully they will be listened to more and more by their peers.
The above excerpt is from The Need for Discernment in These Perilous Times Pt 2 .
For Part I, Go here.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Quote of the Day
"The rediscovery of boundaries wll be the reoccupation of the twenty-first century theology. Some cannot imagine any boundary-making work without becoming anxous."
Source: Steven Camp's Blog
Source: Steven Camp's Blog
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Grow Up!
Sorry I haven't posted in a while....I was on jury duty....:)
One time a few years ago I was house and pet sitting for a neighbor and decided to watch AMC - the old movie channel. I came in on the middle of a movie that looked as if it was set either during the end of WWII or a year or two afterwards. The scene was in the kitchen; a couple was begging their daughter to not move out and get her own apartment.
I thought, "People, let your daughter get her own place. I mean she sure is old enough...about 30."
Her parents said, "But you're only 18." I was in a state of shock. 18? People sure looked older in those days. But they didn't just LOOK older. They ACTED older - and more mature.
I recall the missionary couple, T.L. and Daisy Osbourne, who married in their late teens and went immediately to the mission field. They had what seemed like a very happy marriage until her death a few years ago. I cannot fathom any Chrisitan geting married at that age today and having the marriage last longer than a max of five years much less going off to the mission field right afterwards.
What has happened to the generations after WWII???
They've been pampered. And excused and enabled. And the result? Rebellion.......and Self-Centeredness.......and Contempt for others outside their circle.
I am soo tired of the worn-out line of how the church of old doesn't relate and we are old fogies and the elderly have really nothing to contribute and "those churches that don't cater to the world" have the religious spirit. You know, I wouldn't mind that so much if I saw something of substance. But when I see the seeker sensitives and emergents basically indulge the flesh and their fleshly minds, I understand what really is going on here.
Rebellion.
You might wonder what sparked this tirade. Mark Driscoll. When I read Tim Challies' description of something in Driscoll's new book, I hit the roof. And this isn't the first time I've hit the roof over Driscoll. It isn't what he preaches as much as his lifestyle. What Challies reported is especially grevious to me if it is true. The word here is provocative. Trying to be provocative. Why do the Baby Boomers and their brothers and sisters, the Baby Busters have to be provocative? Why would a Chrisitan want to be IN YOUR FACE? Is that kind? And why are they OF the world so much instead of merely being IN it?
After examining the Third Wavers, the seeker-sensitives and the emergents for many years now, I cannot believe they ever read the New Testament much. Or much of the Old for that matter. Or perhaps they do what so many of us have done here in America. We tend to play cafeteria with the Bible - taking what we like and leaving behind what we don't like.
I was reading Jacob Prasch (www.moriel.org) the other day and he said it well. If the evangelical church is caving in to so much deception now, what will it do when the really BIG deception (s) hit us?
Kudos to those who are trying to hang in there without compromising, excusing, complaining, whining and rebelling against the Bible; and also to those who are simply trying to live it out.
And my hat is off to those who want to grow up. It isn't popular to do so in our culture today; nor in the church.
One time a few years ago I was house and pet sitting for a neighbor and decided to watch AMC - the old movie channel. I came in on the middle of a movie that looked as if it was set either during the end of WWII or a year or two afterwards. The scene was in the kitchen; a couple was begging their daughter to not move out and get her own apartment.
I thought, "People, let your daughter get her own place. I mean she sure is old enough...about 30."
Her parents said, "But you're only 18." I was in a state of shock. 18? People sure looked older in those days. But they didn't just LOOK older. They ACTED older - and more mature.
I recall the missionary couple, T.L. and Daisy Osbourne, who married in their late teens and went immediately to the mission field. They had what seemed like a very happy marriage until her death a few years ago. I cannot fathom any Chrisitan geting married at that age today and having the marriage last longer than a max of five years much less going off to the mission field right afterwards.
What has happened to the generations after WWII???
They've been pampered. And excused and enabled. And the result? Rebellion.......and Self-Centeredness.......and Contempt for others outside their circle.
I am soo tired of the worn-out line of how the church of old doesn't relate and we are old fogies and the elderly have really nothing to contribute and "those churches that don't cater to the world" have the religious spirit. You know, I wouldn't mind that so much if I saw something of substance. But when I see the seeker sensitives and emergents basically indulge the flesh and their fleshly minds, I understand what really is going on here.
Rebellion.
You might wonder what sparked this tirade. Mark Driscoll. When I read Tim Challies' description of something in Driscoll's new book, I hit the roof. And this isn't the first time I've hit the roof over Driscoll. It isn't what he preaches as much as his lifestyle. What Challies reported is especially grevious to me if it is true. The word here is provocative. Trying to be provocative. Why do the Baby Boomers and their brothers and sisters, the Baby Busters have to be provocative? Why would a Chrisitan want to be IN YOUR FACE? Is that kind? And why are they OF the world so much instead of merely being IN it?
After examining the Third Wavers, the seeker-sensitives and the emergents for many years now, I cannot believe they ever read the New Testament much. Or much of the Old for that matter. Or perhaps they do what so many of us have done here in America. We tend to play cafeteria with the Bible - taking what we like and leaving behind what we don't like.
I was reading Jacob Prasch (www.moriel.org) the other day and he said it well. If the evangelical church is caving in to so much deception now, what will it do when the really BIG deception (s) hit us?
Kudos to those who are trying to hang in there without compromising, excusing, complaining, whining and rebelling against the Bible; and also to those who are simply trying to live it out.
And my hat is off to those who want to grow up. It isn't popular to do so in our culture today; nor in the church.
Monday, May 15, 2006
James at Proclamation, Invitation & Warning has asked some very interesting questions in his post, Questions About Churchianity vs. The Church.
1. Should the life of a congregation of Christians revolve around the personality of a man?
2. Should human leaders try to be the Holy Spirit in peoples lives?
3. Should meetings of believers be productions for spectators to watch?
4. Who is truly our Pastor? Whose sheep are we?
5. Must a Christian Fellowship be operated like a business corporation? Must it have a CEO? Must it have assets to acquire and control? Should leaders act like employers? Should Christian brothers be treated like employees?
6. Is frantic, unrelenting activity, projects, programs necessarily the same thing as Holy Spirit-led ministry?
7. Is the Church a human organization that must be "controlled" or "operated" or is the Church simply the individuals who belong to Jesus and who are called to be in a relationship with each other?
8. Should there be a priesthood-class of men over the laity or does the Bible teach the priesthood of all believers?
I agree with the thrust of all of these questions except #8 and perhaps part of #4. The apostles SET OVER the churches - elders/pastors. Isn't that a mature class over the laity? I understand where he is going with this but it turns out that he is in favor of house churches. I emailed him and asked him how you could run something without leadership; and how that leadership functions after a while without any supervision. He has just emailed me back and I will report our discussion (if he agrees).
And now, what say you? This question is a hot one, being asked a lot in recent years. Please feel free to comment (even anomously) in the comment section of this blog.
1. Should the life of a congregation of Christians revolve around the personality of a man?
2. Should human leaders try to be the Holy Spirit in peoples lives?
3. Should meetings of believers be productions for spectators to watch?
4. Who is truly our Pastor? Whose sheep are we?
5. Must a Christian Fellowship be operated like a business corporation? Must it have a CEO? Must it have assets to acquire and control? Should leaders act like employers? Should Christian brothers be treated like employees?
6. Is frantic, unrelenting activity, projects, programs necessarily the same thing as Holy Spirit-led ministry?
7. Is the Church a human organization that must be "controlled" or "operated" or is the Church simply the individuals who belong to Jesus and who are called to be in a relationship with each other?
8. Should there be a priesthood-class of men over the laity or does the Bible teach the priesthood of all believers?
I agree with the thrust of all of these questions except #8 and perhaps part of #4. The apostles SET OVER the churches - elders/pastors. Isn't that a mature class over the laity? I understand where he is going with this but it turns out that he is in favor of house churches. I emailed him and asked him how you could run something without leadership; and how that leadership functions after a while without any supervision. He has just emailed me back and I will report our discussion (if he agrees).
And now, what say you? This question is a hot one, being asked a lot in recent years. Please feel free to comment (even anomously) in the comment section of this blog.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Too Much Authority?
I have studied Hitler and other dictators for over 25 years now. So when I see what is happening in our government today (in the United States), I become concerned - majorly.
David Brooks' OpEd comment in today's New York Times pretty well encapsulates it.
In the political world, we're seeing a conservatism that emphasizes freedom give way to a conservatism that emphasizes authority.
By the way, many times, how a country goes predicts how the church will go, organizationaly that is. It's interesting to note how many churches nowadays, especially both the seeker-sensitive-purpose-driven and Third Wave ones, are telling us that the pastor is king. Well, they don't actually say it that way, but that's what they mean. And here I thought elders were supposed to run churches. At least that's what I discovered in reading the organization of the early first century church
Gee....perhaps I was wrong............
David Brooks' OpEd comment in today's New York Times pretty well encapsulates it.
In the political world, we're seeing a conservatism that emphasizes freedom give way to a conservatism that emphasizes authority.
By the way, many times, how a country goes predicts how the church will go, organizationaly that is. It's interesting to note how many churches nowadays, especially both the seeker-sensitive-purpose-driven and Third Wave ones, are telling us that the pastor is king. Well, they don't actually say it that way, but that's what they mean. And here I thought elders were supposed to run churches. At least that's what I discovered in reading the organization of the early first century church
Gee....perhaps I was wrong............
Saturday, May 13, 2006
2 Pastors
Dan has a post at his blog, Cerulean Sanctum about a friend of his who is becoming disillusioned with the church and how they conduct business.
Emphasis is on the word business.
Dan writes,
Instead, he's found a lot of the business world in the Church, where people in leadership positions, when confronted with problems, would rather let innocent underlings die by the sword than to be responsible men and fall on it themselves.
I have seen this fine line between running a church efficiently and being "too business-oriented" to the extent of ignoring people and their needs. I also notice an interesting dilemma in a church's choice of pastors. Many churches are on a see-saw. They hire what I call a "people-person" pastor. At first the people love him because he is so personable and seems to understand where they are in their lives. But then, they begin to see the church organization fall apart because they come to realize that their pastor is not a good administrator. And herein is the BIG secret in church land: Most pastors are either people pastors or administrative pastors. Rarely are they both. But when you have one who is both, rejoice! You truly have a treasure.
So now the church decides to dump the people-person pastor and hire a more administrative pastor. At first everyone is happy because it seems the church is getting its act togehter. But by and by the people notice that this guy may be a bit gruff, controlling and not people-oriented. So, they get rid of him and get a people-person pastor....and so the see-saw saws on......and on.......and on.......
Emphasis is on the word business.
Dan writes,
Instead, he's found a lot of the business world in the Church, where people in leadership positions, when confronted with problems, would rather let innocent underlings die by the sword than to be responsible men and fall on it themselves.
I have seen this fine line between running a church efficiently and being "too business-oriented" to the extent of ignoring people and their needs. I also notice an interesting dilemma in a church's choice of pastors. Many churches are on a see-saw. They hire what I call a "people-person" pastor. At first the people love him because he is so personable and seems to understand where they are in their lives. But then, they begin to see the church organization fall apart because they come to realize that their pastor is not a good administrator. And herein is the BIG secret in church land: Most pastors are either people pastors or administrative pastors. Rarely are they both. But when you have one who is both, rejoice! You truly have a treasure.
So now the church decides to dump the people-person pastor and hire a more administrative pastor. At first everyone is happy because it seems the church is getting its act togehter. But by and by the people notice that this guy may be a bit gruff, controlling and not people-oriented. So, they get rid of him and get a people-person pastor....and so the see-saw saws on......and on.......and on.......
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Imputation? Amputation? Computation? Huh?
Well, the White Horse radio program is at it again. It's survey time! This year they took a survey at the 2006 National Pastors Convention. That's the one with many emergent types in attendance.
The BIG question this year was:
"How important to your ministry is the doctrine of imputation?".
33% were familiar with the concept
67% were unfamiliar with the very term (and therefore couldn't begin to answer the original question).
One pastor replied, "Amputation?"
Another said with regard to the congregation he works with,
"…if you asked them to explain what made a difference in their life, it would have nothing to do with that…"
I looked up imputation in the dictionary.
It said, "the act of imputing; something imputed."
Well that is helpful...LOL. So I looked up to impute.
""to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly; to assign."
OK....so now we just need to know who got blamed falsely for what?
Here are all of the NT passages where impute or a form of it is used:
Ro 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Ro 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Ro 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Ro 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Jas 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
It sounds as if faith has a lot to do with imputation. So according to Romans 4:24, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus, something will be imputed. But what? Romans 5 gives us a clue - sin.
So sin is not imputed to us who believe on Jesus but is imputed to Him...our sin is imputed or assigned to Him. And frankly, that is the crux; the centrality; the foundation of Christianity, It is also what makes Christianity completely different from other religions and WHY Chrisitanity really cannot be meshed with Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, psychology and all the other -ologies.
And 67% of the pastors at this conference had no clue to this fact.
AND YOU WONDER WHY I STARTED THIS BLOG........................
[from my sidebar on the right]:
Discussion of the theological direction in which the church is moving.
Yep...and methinks at times she ain't moving in a very good direction.
The BIG question this year was:
"How important to your ministry is the doctrine of imputation?".
33% were familiar with the concept
67% were unfamiliar with the very term (and therefore couldn't begin to answer the original question).
One pastor replied, "Amputation?"
Another said with regard to the congregation he works with,
"…if you asked them to explain what made a difference in their life, it would have nothing to do with that…"
I looked up imputation in the dictionary.
It said, "the act of imputing; something imputed."
Well that is helpful...LOL. So I looked up to impute.
""to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly; to assign."
OK....so now we just need to know who got blamed falsely for what?
Here are all of the NT passages where impute or a form of it is used:
Ro 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Ro 4:11
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Ro 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Ro 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Ro 4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Ro 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Jas 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
It sounds as if faith has a lot to do with imputation. So according to Romans 4:24, if we believe on Him who raised up Jesus, something will be imputed. But what? Romans 5 gives us a clue - sin.
So sin is not imputed to us who believe on Jesus but is imputed to Him...our sin is imputed or assigned to Him. And frankly, that is the crux; the centrality; the foundation of Christianity, It is also what makes Christianity completely different from other religions and WHY Chrisitanity really cannot be meshed with Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, psychology and all the other -ologies.
And 67% of the pastors at this conference had no clue to this fact.
AND YOU WONDER WHY I STARTED THIS BLOG........................
[from my sidebar on the right]:
Discussion of the theological direction in which the church is moving.
Yep...and methinks at times she ain't moving in a very good direction.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
The Chipping of the Atonement
Mark Deaver writes that a lady came up to him and said,
"A friend of mine said that I am too Atonement-centered."
The lady then asked her friend what she meant by that? The friend replied that she talked too much about Christ's death, which dealt with our guilt due to sin.
This is not an isolated incident. For the past few years, and especially recently, the Atonement has, and is, taking a real beating.
I'm not sure how you can square being a Christian if you either don't believe in, or even water down, the Atonement. What do you do with Isaiah 53:3-5?
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Deaver then goes into other views of the Atonement - other than the classic orthodox view.
First, there is Christus Victor
"The first set of theories argues that humanity's main problem is that we are trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control. Christ's death, then, is seen as a ransom that frees us from captivity. His death and resurrection defeats the evil spiritual forces."
Second, Deaver says,
"there is the set of theories dealing with the subjective need of all people to know God's love for us. These theories emphasize that Christ's death on the Cross demonstrates God's love so dramatically that we are convinced of his love and are now able to share it with others. This set includes the moral-influence theory of Abelard, among others."
I would add that this view is the foundation of Protestant Liberalism and I believe also the emergents. Watch their lingo and see if they talk more about Christ's love at the cross as an example, rather than taking our sins away.
Third, he lists the orthodox, and I believe the correct Biblical view of the Atonement.
"A third set of theories assumes that our main problem is God's righteous wrath against us for our sinfulness, which puts us in danger of eternal punishment. These theories argue that Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins is necessary to satisfy God's righteousness. Christ's death bore a divine penalty that we deserved. By taking our penalty upon himself, God satisfied his own correct and good wrath against us. Theories in this set, such as the satisfaction theory and the penal-substitution theory, emphasize how Christ represents us."
Deaver writes,
"These criticisms follow a path laid by others throughout history, from Abelard to Socinus to Schleiermacher to C. H. Dodd." IN other words, he is saying that this is nothing new to postmodernism, although many would liek you to think so.
And why would Christians want to downplay the Atonement? Reasons given are that it is too guilt-producing, too bloody, and too irrelevant for today's postmodern world.
Perhaps these people need to re-read the book of Hebrews and the entire first 5 books of the OT. In those places, God clearly tells us WHAT was needed as far as a sacrifice was concerned, and WHY it was needed. Today we see satan and his demonic forces gushing in to lie to Christians about Christ's precious work at the cross. The demons hate it, and if Christians despise it too, what does that say about them and what is influening them?
Hmmmm......
"A friend of mine said that I am too Atonement-centered."
The lady then asked her friend what she meant by that? The friend replied that she talked too much about Christ's death, which dealt with our guilt due to sin.
This is not an isolated incident. For the past few years, and especially recently, the Atonement has, and is, taking a real beating.
I'm not sure how you can square being a Christian if you either don't believe in, or even water down, the Atonement. What do you do with Isaiah 53:3-5?
4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.
Deaver then goes into other views of the Atonement - other than the classic orthodox view.
First, there is Christus Victor
"The first set of theories argues that humanity's main problem is that we are trapped and oppressed by spiritual forces beyond our control. Christ's death, then, is seen as a ransom that frees us from captivity. His death and resurrection defeats the evil spiritual forces."
Second, Deaver says,
"there is the set of theories dealing with the subjective need of all people to know God's love for us. These theories emphasize that Christ's death on the Cross demonstrates God's love so dramatically that we are convinced of his love and are now able to share it with others. This set includes the moral-influence theory of Abelard, among others."
I would add that this view is the foundation of Protestant Liberalism and I believe also the emergents. Watch their lingo and see if they talk more about Christ's love at the cross as an example, rather than taking our sins away.
Third, he lists the orthodox, and I believe the correct Biblical view of the Atonement.
"A third set of theories assumes that our main problem is God's righteous wrath against us for our sinfulness, which puts us in danger of eternal punishment. These theories argue that Christ's perfect sacrifice for our sins is necessary to satisfy God's righteousness. Christ's death bore a divine penalty that we deserved. By taking our penalty upon himself, God satisfied his own correct and good wrath against us. Theories in this set, such as the satisfaction theory and the penal-substitution theory, emphasize how Christ represents us."
Deaver writes,
"These criticisms follow a path laid by others throughout history, from Abelard to Socinus to Schleiermacher to C. H. Dodd." IN other words, he is saying that this is nothing new to postmodernism, although many would liek you to think so.
And why would Christians want to downplay the Atonement? Reasons given are that it is too guilt-producing, too bloody, and too irrelevant for today's postmodern world.
Perhaps these people need to re-read the book of Hebrews and the entire first 5 books of the OT. In those places, God clearly tells us WHAT was needed as far as a sacrifice was concerned, and WHY it was needed. Today we see satan and his demonic forces gushing in to lie to Christians about Christ's precious work at the cross. The demons hate it, and if Christians despise it too, what does that say about them and what is influening them?
Hmmmm......
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
The Old Truth blog has a fascinating comparison between some of today's "hip" pastors and those serious ones of old. Here are some excerpts from the blog.
Pastors and Worldliness -- Then versus Now
"I've selected some excerpts from the writings of two head pastors, from the 18th century (Jonathan Edwards), and the 17th century (Richard Baxter). I believe these men to be representative of the morality standards of their day.
Representing the new breed of pastors, I've selected some excerpts from the public blogs of two of today's head pastors: church planter - Gary Lamb, and mega-church founder Perry Noble. I do not believe that these men are extreme cases, but rather - are representative of seeker-driven innovative church pastors in their age category. It's worth noting that more extreme cases could be found by sampling the public statements of (postmodern) Emerging Church pastors instead."
Now:
From Gary Lamb's blog: I'm not sure what to say about the INXS show last night. ... Marty and the Lovehammers opened up and all I can say is the TV show made him look a lot better then they are. ... JD [of INXS] is a superstar, plain and simple. He is going to be a great frontman and showed signs of it last night. He has got to learn two things: 1.) How to interact with the crowd. 2.) How to stay sober. By the end of the show he was flying high and was getting vulgar. ... The music was good, the show needed some work. We are doing a better job [at my church] with lighting and video then they are. Their video was awful. I might be being to hard. After seeing Bon Jovi last week, this was a let down. It was less of an event and more about just a band playing. That isn't bad if you like that type of stuff. Bon Jovi is like the modern church - They do a great job getting the message out in an event format and they draw huge crowds. INXS was more like the postmodern church - Everything was scaled way back and the crowd was fractions of the Bon Jovi crowd. Neither is better, just different.
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: Think seriously how Christ, and his apostles, and holiest servants in all ages spent their time. They spent it in praying, and preaching, and holy conference, and in doing good, and in the works of their outward callings in subserviency to these: but not in cards, or dice, or dancing, or stage-plays, or pampering the flesh, nor in the pursuit of the profits and honors of the world. I read where Christ spent
"all night praying" but not where he spent an hour in playing.
I know that you will say that you expect not to reach their degree of holiness. But let me remind you that he who does not desire to be perfect is not sincere. And that he is graceless who willfully keepeth any beloved sin, which he had not rather be delivered from; and willfully refuses any duty, and had not rather perform as he ought. ... And therefore if Christ and his holy servants were sparing of their time, and spent it in works of holiness and obedience, have not you greater need to do so than they? ... Are you not more behindhand, as having lost much time? ...
Now:
From Gary Lamb's blog: Tomorrow night, I complete the
concert run that started last week. Tim and I are heading to see Scott Stapp tomorrow night with some dudes from church and it should be good. Scott seems to be struggling a little lately. Last week he was locked up hours after getting married for being drunk. Not good. Then a sex video he and Kid Rock made 6 years ago has been made public. Not good again. This dude has got demons but he has written some powerful songs with spiritual themes. Depending on which Scott shows up this could be a great show or it could be very very bad. ... Oh yeah, pray for my ear, it hurts like crap!
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: Would you dare pray to God to bless your cards, and dice, and stage-plays, to the good of your soul or body? Would your conscience tell you that this is but a mocking of God? No recreation is lawful, which you can not pray for a blessing on.
Now:
Gary Lamb - two days later: I am a concert junkie. I have been to a lot of concerts in my life and I am here to tell you that last night Scott Stapp put on one of the best shows I have ever seen in my life!... He talked alot about his struggles and the "voices" in his head that every day pull him in the direction of good or evil and how he has many times went the wrong way with decisions. ... For $25 bucks it was money well spent. Listen, if Scott Stapp is coming to your area, do yourself a favor and go check him out.
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: As for music, which is a lawful pleasure ... All should be done to the glory of God; and we have much more in scripture for the holy use of music (public and private) than for any other use of it whatsoever. And it is the excellency of the melody and music, that are the recreations which may be more aptly and profitably sanctified by application to holy uses, than any other. And I should think them little worth at all, if I might not use them for the holy exhilarating or elevating of my soul, or affecting it towards God.
Now:
From Perry Noble's blog: I Am So Torn... I had friends beg me to begin watching "Lost" and now I am HOOKED! (Did you see the ending last night...I literally screamed at the television...
"NO, you can't end the show like that!!!"). It was so much fun watching all the episodes from season one and then catching up on season two. BUT...now I am in a serious dilemma...some friends let us borrow the first season of 24 tonight--and I just don't know what I should do! I have heard it is awesome...and then I have heard its not that good...and the main actor, to me, will always be "Doc" from Young Guns !!! So...I guess I am going to watch it to see what all the hype is all about! Speaking of hype...and I've got to say this...I am NOT impressed with American Idol this season whatsoever!!! I guess I am just spoiled because I get to hear awesome music EVERY week
at [my church]!
Then:
From Jonathan Edwards - The Preciousness Of Time:
Upon time we should set a high value, and be exceedingly careful that it be not lost; and we are therefore exhorted to exercise wisdom and circumspection, in order that we may redeem it. ... If men were as lavish of their money as they are of their time, if it were as common a thing for them to throw away their money, as it is for them to throw away their time, we should think them beside themselves, and not in the possession of their right minds. ... Improve well your time of leisure from worldly business. Many persons have a great deal of such time, and all have some. If men be but disposed to it, such time may be improved to great advantage. When we are most free from cares for the body, and business of an outward nature, a happy opportunity for the soul is afforded. Therefore spend not such opportunities unprofitably, nor in such a manner that you will not be able to give a good account thereof to God. Waste them not away wholly in unprofitable visits, or useless diversions or amusements.
From Jonathan Edwards - Personal Resolutions:
Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God;
Pastors and Worldliness -- Then versus Now
"I've selected some excerpts from the writings of two head pastors, from the 18th century (Jonathan Edwards), and the 17th century (Richard Baxter). I believe these men to be representative of the morality standards of their day.
Representing the new breed of pastors, I've selected some excerpts from the public blogs of two of today's head pastors: church planter - Gary Lamb, and mega-church founder Perry Noble. I do not believe that these men are extreme cases, but rather - are representative of seeker-driven innovative church pastors in their age category. It's worth noting that more extreme cases could be found by sampling the public statements of (postmodern) Emerging Church pastors instead."
Now:
From Gary Lamb's blog: I'm not sure what to say about the INXS show last night. ... Marty and the Lovehammers opened up and all I can say is the TV show made him look a lot better then they are. ... JD [of INXS] is a superstar, plain and simple. He is going to be a great frontman and showed signs of it last night. He has got to learn two things: 1.) How to interact with the crowd. 2.) How to stay sober. By the end of the show he was flying high and was getting vulgar. ... The music was good, the show needed some work. We are doing a better job [at my church] with lighting and video then they are. Their video was awful. I might be being to hard. After seeing Bon Jovi last week, this was a let down. It was less of an event and more about just a band playing. That isn't bad if you like that type of stuff. Bon Jovi is like the modern church - They do a great job getting the message out in an event format and they draw huge crowds. INXS was more like the postmodern church - Everything was scaled way back and the crowd was fractions of the Bon Jovi crowd. Neither is better, just different.
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: Think seriously how Christ, and his apostles, and holiest servants in all ages spent their time. They spent it in praying, and preaching, and holy conference, and in doing good, and in the works of their outward callings in subserviency to these: but not in cards, or dice, or dancing, or stage-plays, or pampering the flesh, nor in the pursuit of the profits and honors of the world. I read where Christ spent
"all night praying" but not where he spent an hour in playing.
I know that you will say that you expect not to reach their degree of holiness. But let me remind you that he who does not desire to be perfect is not sincere. And that he is graceless who willfully keepeth any beloved sin, which he had not rather be delivered from; and willfully refuses any duty, and had not rather perform as he ought. ... And therefore if Christ and his holy servants were sparing of their time, and spent it in works of holiness and obedience, have not you greater need to do so than they? ... Are you not more behindhand, as having lost much time? ...
Now:
From Gary Lamb's blog: Tomorrow night, I complete the
concert run that started last week. Tim and I are heading to see Scott Stapp tomorrow night with some dudes from church and it should be good. Scott seems to be struggling a little lately. Last week he was locked up hours after getting married for being drunk. Not good. Then a sex video he and Kid Rock made 6 years ago has been made public. Not good again. This dude has got demons but he has written some powerful songs with spiritual themes. Depending on which Scott shows up this could be a great show or it could be very very bad. ... Oh yeah, pray for my ear, it hurts like crap!
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: Would you dare pray to God to bless your cards, and dice, and stage-plays, to the good of your soul or body? Would your conscience tell you that this is but a mocking of God? No recreation is lawful, which you can not pray for a blessing on.
Now:
Gary Lamb - two days later: I am a concert junkie. I have been to a lot of concerts in my life and I am here to tell you that last night Scott Stapp put on one of the best shows I have ever seen in my life!... He talked alot about his struggles and the "voices" in his head that every day pull him in the direction of good or evil and how he has many times went the wrong way with decisions. ... For $25 bucks it was money well spent. Listen, if Scott Stapp is coming to your area, do yourself a favor and go check him out.
Then:
From Baxter's Practical Works: As for music, which is a lawful pleasure ... All should be done to the glory of God; and we have much more in scripture for the holy use of music (public and private) than for any other use of it whatsoever. And it is the excellency of the melody and music, that are the recreations which may be more aptly and profitably sanctified by application to holy uses, than any other. And I should think them little worth at all, if I might not use them for the holy exhilarating or elevating of my soul, or affecting it towards God.
Now:
From Perry Noble's blog: I Am So Torn... I had friends beg me to begin watching "Lost" and now I am HOOKED! (Did you see the ending last night...I literally screamed at the television...
"NO, you can't end the show like that!!!"). It was so much fun watching all the episodes from season one and then catching up on season two. BUT...now I am in a serious dilemma...some friends let us borrow the first season of 24 tonight--and I just don't know what I should do! I have heard it is awesome...and then I have heard its not that good...and the main actor, to me, will always be "Doc" from Young Guns !!! So...I guess I am going to watch it to see what all the hype is all about! Speaking of hype...and I've got to say this...I am NOT impressed with American Idol this season whatsoever!!! I guess I am just spoiled because I get to hear awesome music EVERY week
at [my church]!
Then:
From Jonathan Edwards - The Preciousness Of Time:
Upon time we should set a high value, and be exceedingly careful that it be not lost; and we are therefore exhorted to exercise wisdom and circumspection, in order that we may redeem it. ... If men were as lavish of their money as they are of their time, if it were as common a thing for them to throw away their money, as it is for them to throw away their time, we should think them beside themselves, and not in the possession of their right minds. ... Improve well your time of leisure from worldly business. Many persons have a great deal of such time, and all have some. If men be but disposed to it, such time may be improved to great advantage. When we are most free from cares for the body, and business of an outward nature, a happy opportunity for the soul is afforded. Therefore spend not such opportunities unprofitably, nor in such a manner that you will not be able to give a good account thereof to God. Waste them not away wholly in unprofitable visits, or useless diversions or amusements.
From Jonathan Edwards - Personal Resolutions:
Resolved, never to lose one moment of time; but improve it the most profitable way I possibly can. Resolved, never to do any manner of thing, whether in soul or body, less or more, but what tends to the glory of God;
Monday, May 08, 2006
Emergent Study
Steve Addison reports that two Fuller Seminary professors have written a new book defining emergent churches. Their book, Emerging Churces: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Times, is the result of their five year study including fifty leaders of the Emerging church in the US and UK speaking for themselves.
Their findings?
Emerging churches are distinguished by three core practices:
(1) identify with the life of Jesus
(2) transform the secular realm
(3) live as community
These three distinctives are expressed in a further six behaviours:
(4) welcome the stranger
(5) serve with generosity
(6) participate as producers not consumers
(7) create as created beings
(8) lead as a body
(9) merge ancient and contemporary spirituality
According to the authors the Emerging church is set apart from “young adult services, Gen-X churches, churches-within-churches, seeker churches, purpose-driven or new paradigm churches, fundamentalist churches or even evangelical churches.”
In fact, these forms of church are roundly condemned. “Their approach to ministry is modern with their dualistic/spiritualized/interiorized understanding of Jesus, their embrace of the sacred/secular split, and their focus on the church meeting as opposed to community life. The same is true for their parents, seeker churches..."
Despite their attacks on other expressions of Christianity, especially evangelicalism, the authors describe the Emerging church as “a fragile movement that can be marginalized by denominational leaders and killed with criticism by theological power brokers.”
Their findings?
Emerging churches are distinguished by three core practices:
(1) identify with the life of Jesus
(2) transform the secular realm
(3) live as community
These three distinctives are expressed in a further six behaviours:
(4) welcome the stranger
(5) serve with generosity
(6) participate as producers not consumers
(7) create as created beings
(8) lead as a body
(9) merge ancient and contemporary spirituality
According to the authors the Emerging church is set apart from “young adult services, Gen-X churches, churches-within-churches, seeker churches, purpose-driven or new paradigm churches, fundamentalist churches or even evangelical churches.”
In fact, these forms of church are roundly condemned. “Their approach to ministry is modern with their dualistic/spiritualized/interiorized understanding of Jesus, their embrace of the sacred/secular split, and their focus on the church meeting as opposed to community life. The same is true for their parents, seeker churches..."
Despite their attacks on other expressions of Christianity, especially evangelicalism, the authors describe the Emerging church as “a fragile movement that can be marginalized by denominational leaders and killed with criticism by theological power brokers.”
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Sunday Religious TV
I decided to visit another church today with friends as my church would be almost empty - it was family camp weekend. Since the chruch I visited was later than I usually leave, I was able to watch church programs that air on Sunday mornings, mostly on our local channels. I don't have cable but even with the VHF-UHF stations, we get quite a variety here in the Los Angeles area. As I've wrtten here before, Jesus Christ seems to be missing from most evangelical churches these days. My program watching this morning seemed to support that thesis.
I only watched short excerpts from the programs since I wanted to see all of them. The first TV program was by either a seeker sensitive or emergent looking gent - bald head, sports shirt and pants - but no goatee or glasses -he was talking about God is bigger than you; bigger than you can imagine. Oh really? I never knew that (doh).
The second program was an African-American pastor with the mantra that you are hearing most of these days in evangelical, and especially Pentecostal black churches - black men need to be men and rise to the occasion and take care of their women. But it was I didn't hear that bothered me - No Bible. No Christ. No cross.
Then of course, I came across Schuller Jr. of the Crystal Cathedral. After the usual inspiring guest, he launched into the 23rd Psalm and how it really helped him through his divorce years ago. This Psalm seems to be in the liturgical calendar today as the church I visited also had this Psalm as its focus. Usually the Crystal Cathedral folks don't talk about Christ much but as I had to leave, I don't know what he said.
The next program was a nice grey-haired looking Baby Boomer telling us our strength is in God and the Holy Spirit is our helper. I felt he was more on top of things spiritually than the others, but again, no mention of Christ or the cross. As the program ended I wondered if there would be any short gospel presentation and an invitation to accept Christ. At least that would have been something. There wasn't. When they announced the church and who the pastor was, I almost fell on the floor. It was my old church. The new pastor is actually someone I had known many years ago. I didn't recognize him with the grey hair. This program used to have the gospel presentation/invitation at the end. What happened? Sigh......
Next I tuned into an African-American lady pastor with a funny hat that looks like those worn by the Nation of Islam folks. Hers was a pretty lime-green. Actually I thought she was the best of the programs but I only had 5 minutes to listen before I had to leave for my visiting church adventure. I think I'll try to find her on the web. She seemed really intelligent and actually read out of the Bible; in fact, the New Testament yet. It was the story about Jesus raising a woman's son from the dead in the gospel of Luke. Then she said that Julius Caesar said "Veni, Vidi, Vici. I came, I saw and I conquered." She really said the Latin. I was majorly impressed. Continuing, she observed that Jesus functioned a little differently. He saw, then came and then conquered. I would have loved to have heard what she said next. I wonder if she said He saw our sin. Or maybe our suffering.
Next I saw Fred Price and he is always good as far as reading Scripture and teaching on it verse by verse. Yes, I know most of you don't agree, but you should watch him sometime. He is very logical and Scriptural and Christ-centered. Just ignore the now and again prosperity stuff. Today he talked about the Scriptures where we need to have pure thoughts to have pure actions.
After my TV survey, I went to a new church to visit but it was dead, dead, dead. I wasn't particularly sleepy but to keep me awake I thought about what I was going to say today in my blog. And so here it is.
One last note. When I got home I turned on TBN and watched one of my very favorite guys, Gilbert Patterson, head of the Church of God in Christ COGIC), the largest African-Amercian Pentecostal denomination. Patterson, as usual, preached out of the Bible with the Holy Spirit anointing and fire. He is the only one I can find out here on TV except James Kennedy that actually talks about Jesus and the cross. But the added bonus with Patterson is the strong Holy Spirit anointing. This is where the church should be going IMO - following men like that, instead of the sad bunch that showed up to speak at the Azusa Street Centenniel. The Pentecostals should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be so co-opted. But, sigh...that is for another post.
One observation about the church I visited...the liturgy was fine...but the spirit was missing. It really gave me a new appreciation for my church. I do believe there is some life there...and it's from the Holy Spirit.
I only watched short excerpts from the programs since I wanted to see all of them. The first TV program was by either a seeker sensitive or emergent looking gent - bald head, sports shirt and pants - but no goatee or glasses -he was talking about God is bigger than you; bigger than you can imagine. Oh really? I never knew that (doh).
The second program was an African-American pastor with the mantra that you are hearing most of these days in evangelical, and especially Pentecostal black churches - black men need to be men and rise to the occasion and take care of their women. But it was I didn't hear that bothered me - No Bible. No Christ. No cross.
Then of course, I came across Schuller Jr. of the Crystal Cathedral. After the usual inspiring guest, he launched into the 23rd Psalm and how it really helped him through his divorce years ago. This Psalm seems to be in the liturgical calendar today as the church I visited also had this Psalm as its focus. Usually the Crystal Cathedral folks don't talk about Christ much but as I had to leave, I don't know what he said.
The next program was a nice grey-haired looking Baby Boomer telling us our strength is in God and the Holy Spirit is our helper. I felt he was more on top of things spiritually than the others, but again, no mention of Christ or the cross. As the program ended I wondered if there would be any short gospel presentation and an invitation to accept Christ. At least that would have been something. There wasn't. When they announced the church and who the pastor was, I almost fell on the floor. It was my old church. The new pastor is actually someone I had known many years ago. I didn't recognize him with the grey hair. This program used to have the gospel presentation/invitation at the end. What happened? Sigh......
Next I tuned into an African-American lady pastor with a funny hat that looks like those worn by the Nation of Islam folks. Hers was a pretty lime-green. Actually I thought she was the best of the programs but I only had 5 minutes to listen before I had to leave for my visiting church adventure. I think I'll try to find her on the web. She seemed really intelligent and actually read out of the Bible; in fact, the New Testament yet. It was the story about Jesus raising a woman's son from the dead in the gospel of Luke. Then she said that Julius Caesar said "Veni, Vidi, Vici. I came, I saw and I conquered." She really said the Latin. I was majorly impressed. Continuing, she observed that Jesus functioned a little differently. He saw, then came and then conquered. I would have loved to have heard what she said next. I wonder if she said He saw our sin. Or maybe our suffering.
Next I saw Fred Price and he is always good as far as reading Scripture and teaching on it verse by verse. Yes, I know most of you don't agree, but you should watch him sometime. He is very logical and Scriptural and Christ-centered. Just ignore the now and again prosperity stuff. Today he talked about the Scriptures where we need to have pure thoughts to have pure actions.
After my TV survey, I went to a new church to visit but it was dead, dead, dead. I wasn't particularly sleepy but to keep me awake I thought about what I was going to say today in my blog. And so here it is.
One last note. When I got home I turned on TBN and watched one of my very favorite guys, Gilbert Patterson, head of the Church of God in Christ COGIC), the largest African-Amercian Pentecostal denomination. Patterson, as usual, preached out of the Bible with the Holy Spirit anointing and fire. He is the only one I can find out here on TV except James Kennedy that actually talks about Jesus and the cross. But the added bonus with Patterson is the strong Holy Spirit anointing. This is where the church should be going IMO - following men like that, instead of the sad bunch that showed up to speak at the Azusa Street Centenniel. The Pentecostals should be ashamed that they allowed themselves to be so co-opted. But, sigh...that is for another post.
One observation about the church I visited...the liturgy was fine...but the spirit was missing. It really gave me a new appreciation for my church. I do believe there is some life there...and it's from the Holy Spirit.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Into the Marketplace - The Debaters
First, a little history.
Evangelicals were pretty active in the second part of the 19th century. In the latter half two events occurred that sent most evangelicals underground into self-ordained isolation. First, liberalism swarmed here from Europe (mostly from Germany) into the historic Reformational mainline denominations (i.e. Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran). Second, the Scopes evolution trial in Tennessee was won by anti-evolutionists, but it made them look like mud.
After these events, the non-Reformationalists (Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc.) went into isolated fundamentalism. Many of these believed legalism would achieve holiness and made many extra-Biblical rules for their congregations. Meanwhile, the Reformational leaders like Machen refused to embrace liberalism and started their own denominations and seminaries (i.e. the PCA and Westminster Seminary).
IMO today's theological laxity is due to a reaction against this legalism on one hand, and sterile confessions that have not changed many people on the other hand. I don't think confessions need to be sterile, by the way. But too often they aren't presented in a relevant way.
Meanwhile, in teh 1970's many former fundamentalists (like Jerry Falwell) and a few Reformationists (like James Kennedy) decided to get back into the public square - but only politically. This seems to have backfired somewhat as we now have a more conservative Congress, president, and seemingly Supreme Court, but the laws we so passionately wanted to change or effect - aren't.
So now what are the evangelicals up to?
*Some have decided that being sensitive to seekers and bringing their world into the church is the answer (Saddleback).
*Others think speaking in the same philosophical mode might be the answer (emergents).
*Others pushed for Christians to get important high level jobs (like the Third Wave apostle-prophet system).
*Others thought going more to the left politically would be the answer (Jim Wallis).
*But most are simply sitting around watching and wondering what to do. A few decided to dig their heels into that 'ole time religious orthodoxy (MacArthur and friends) and damn the torpedoes if the post-modern generation questioned it ( I like their theology by the way, but in the future they will need to address HOW to reach this new generation).
OK...so I said all of that to present the following, which I think is a good way to go. It gets us into the marketplace without some of the Third Wave nonsense. It gains us respect. But more than that, it doesn't change the gospel, and it can present it in a postmodern voice.
From the news:
No stranger to debate, Liberty University has ended any discussion that they might not field the best team in the country. Liberty finished first in the rankings of three national policy debate groups—a feat that no college has accomplished before—after flirting with the distinction for several years.
"That's a big accomplishment. I'm actually surprised they haven't done it before," said John Katsulas director of forensics at Boston College and president of the American Debate Association. "It demonstrates overall excellence in their program."
For the last three years, Liberty has finished in the top three in the ADA, National Debate Tournament, and Cross Examination Debate Association.
Katsulas said Liberty has consistently done well in policy debate tournaments because of the university's "giant debate budget." Liberty spends about a quarter of a million dollars on its team each year, said the team's coach, Brett O'Donnell, who is on a campaign to raise a $10-million endowment.
"It's very important that Christians know what they believe and why they believe it," O'Donnell said. "Debate helps you understand the arguments behind your belief system, not just your belief system."
Liberty, which focuses on debate to train its students in advocacy, sends about 75 percent of its debaters to law school. "Liberty is not training their students to be preachers, they're training their students to be lawyers, business leaders, and good public citizens," Katsulas said. "They become better speakers, better researchers, and have a grasp of the burning public issues of the day."
Other Christian colleges have also used their debate teams to bring home national trophies this year.
Bethany University's debate team took the Novice National Debate Championships held in Rome, Georgia, March 10-12.
The 450-student school in Scotts Valley, California, began its parliamentary debate team last spring, said communications program director James Stewart. Bethany defeated larger schools, including the United States Air Force Academy and the University of New Mexico, at the tournament.
For the second time, Patrick Henry College's moot court team won the National Moot Court Tournament held at the University of Texas (Arlington) January 21 and 22.
The college swept the tournament with first-, second-, and third-place wins, an achievement not yet accomplished by any other college in the moot court association's history. Moot court is an imitation of an appellate court proceeding.
Patrick Henry's chancellor, Michael Farris, said about one-third of the school's students participate in either moot court or debate. The school located in Purcellville, Virginia, is made up primarily of former homeschool students and focuses on training leaders in the public square."
I wish to add that Biola University (Bible Institute of Los Angeles) has such an outstanding philosophy program that the top ivy league schools such as Havard and Princeton regularly come to recruit there for their graduate schools of philosophy. And get this - they do this because they have come to realize that other views are needed in their grad programs (read that conservative and Christian).
And...not to be left out....Life Bible College, the Foursquare college, has now changed their name to Life Pacific College. Why? They want to offer a more liberal arts program instead of the former ministry track. Changing their program will allow those students who wish to enter the public education or business marketplace to transfer to [accredited] graduate schools.
I don't know about you, but I am very enthusiastic about what these schools are doing.
Evangelicals were pretty active in the second part of the 19th century. In the latter half two events occurred that sent most evangelicals underground into self-ordained isolation. First, liberalism swarmed here from Europe (mostly from Germany) into the historic Reformational mainline denominations (i.e. Presbyterian, Congregational, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran). Second, the Scopes evolution trial in Tennessee was won by anti-evolutionists, but it made them look like mud.
After these events, the non-Reformationalists (Baptists, Pentecostals, Nazarenes, etc.) went into isolated fundamentalism. Many of these believed legalism would achieve holiness and made many extra-Biblical rules for their congregations. Meanwhile, the Reformational leaders like Machen refused to embrace liberalism and started their own denominations and seminaries (i.e. the PCA and Westminster Seminary).
IMO today's theological laxity is due to a reaction against this legalism on one hand, and sterile confessions that have not changed many people on the other hand. I don't think confessions need to be sterile, by the way. But too often they aren't presented in a relevant way.
Meanwhile, in teh 1970's many former fundamentalists (like Jerry Falwell) and a few Reformationists (like James Kennedy) decided to get back into the public square - but only politically. This seems to have backfired somewhat as we now have a more conservative Congress, president, and seemingly Supreme Court, but the laws we so passionately wanted to change or effect - aren't.
So now what are the evangelicals up to?
*Some have decided that being sensitive to seekers and bringing their world into the church is the answer (Saddleback).
*Others think speaking in the same philosophical mode might be the answer (emergents).
*Others pushed for Christians to get important high level jobs (like the Third Wave apostle-prophet system).
*Others thought going more to the left politically would be the answer (Jim Wallis).
*But most are simply sitting around watching and wondering what to do. A few decided to dig their heels into that 'ole time religious orthodoxy (MacArthur and friends) and damn the torpedoes if the post-modern generation questioned it ( I like their theology by the way, but in the future they will need to address HOW to reach this new generation).
OK...so I said all of that to present the following, which I think is a good way to go. It gets us into the marketplace without some of the Third Wave nonsense. It gains us respect. But more than that, it doesn't change the gospel, and it can present it in a postmodern voice.
From the news:
No stranger to debate, Liberty University has ended any discussion that they might not field the best team in the country. Liberty finished first in the rankings of three national policy debate groups—a feat that no college has accomplished before—after flirting with the distinction for several years.
"That's a big accomplishment. I'm actually surprised they haven't done it before," said John Katsulas director of forensics at Boston College and president of the American Debate Association. "It demonstrates overall excellence in their program."
For the last three years, Liberty has finished in the top three in the ADA, National Debate Tournament, and Cross Examination Debate Association.
Katsulas said Liberty has consistently done well in policy debate tournaments because of the university's "giant debate budget." Liberty spends about a quarter of a million dollars on its team each year, said the team's coach, Brett O'Donnell, who is on a campaign to raise a $10-million endowment.
"It's very important that Christians know what they believe and why they believe it," O'Donnell said. "Debate helps you understand the arguments behind your belief system, not just your belief system."
Liberty, which focuses on debate to train its students in advocacy, sends about 75 percent of its debaters to law school. "Liberty is not training their students to be preachers, they're training their students to be lawyers, business leaders, and good public citizens," Katsulas said. "They become better speakers, better researchers, and have a grasp of the burning public issues of the day."
Other Christian colleges have also used their debate teams to bring home national trophies this year.
Bethany University's debate team took the Novice National Debate Championships held in Rome, Georgia, March 10-12.
The 450-student school in Scotts Valley, California, began its parliamentary debate team last spring, said communications program director James Stewart. Bethany defeated larger schools, including the United States Air Force Academy and the University of New Mexico, at the tournament.
For the second time, Patrick Henry College's moot court team won the National Moot Court Tournament held at the University of Texas (Arlington) January 21 and 22.
The college swept the tournament with first-, second-, and third-place wins, an achievement not yet accomplished by any other college in the moot court association's history. Moot court is an imitation of an appellate court proceeding.
Patrick Henry's chancellor, Michael Farris, said about one-third of the school's students participate in either moot court or debate. The school located in Purcellville, Virginia, is made up primarily of former homeschool students and focuses on training leaders in the public square."
I wish to add that Biola University (Bible Institute of Los Angeles) has such an outstanding philosophy program that the top ivy league schools such as Havard and Princeton regularly come to recruit there for their graduate schools of philosophy. And get this - they do this because they have come to realize that other views are needed in their grad programs (read that conservative and Christian).
And...not to be left out....Life Bible College, the Foursquare college, has now changed their name to Life Pacific College. Why? They want to offer a more liberal arts program instead of the former ministry track. Changing their program will allow those students who wish to enter the public education or business marketplace to transfer to [accredited] graduate schools.
I don't know about you, but I am very enthusiastic about what these schools are doing.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Fascinating Facts
Here are some stats that are fascinating....to me at least.
The population of the United States in 2003 was 292 million.
Worldwide it was 6 billion.
Births per 1000 people in the USA is 14 and worldwide is 22.
Deaths per 1000 people in the USA is 9. It's also 9 in the rest of the world.
Life expectancy in the USA is 74 years old (male) and 80 (female).
Worldwide it is 65 (male) and 69 (female).
The percent of adult population in the USA that is living with HIV/AIDS is .6%.
Worldwide it is 1.2%.
Percent of married women using contraception is 76%.
Wordwide it's 59%.
Percent of women who give birth by age 20 in the USA is 19%. Worldwide it is 31%.
Infant deaths per 1000 live births = 7% in USA; 55% worldwide.
*****
GET THIS ONE!
Maternal deaths per 1000,000 live births is 12%in USA and 400% worldwide.
*****
The number of vehicles per 1,000 people in the USA is 774; worldwide it is 176.
Percent of male labor force in agriculture - USA=4%; world = 46%
Percent of female labor force in agriculture -USA =1%; world = 52%
Tractors per 1,000 agriculture wokers in the USA is 1,542 .
Worldwide it is 20.
Source: Population Connection (www.populationconnection.org)
The population of the United States in 2003 was 292 million.
Worldwide it was 6 billion.
Births per 1000 people in the USA is 14 and worldwide is 22.
Deaths per 1000 people in the USA is 9. It's also 9 in the rest of the world.
Life expectancy in the USA is 74 years old (male) and 80 (female).
Worldwide it is 65 (male) and 69 (female).
The percent of adult population in the USA that is living with HIV/AIDS is .6%.
Worldwide it is 1.2%.
Percent of married women using contraception is 76%.
Wordwide it's 59%.
Percent of women who give birth by age 20 in the USA is 19%. Worldwide it is 31%.
Infant deaths per 1000 live births = 7% in USA; 55% worldwide.
*****
GET THIS ONE!
Maternal deaths per 1000,000 live births is 12%in USA and 400% worldwide.
*****
The number of vehicles per 1,000 people in the USA is 774; worldwide it is 176.
Percent of male labor force in agriculture - USA=4%; world = 46%
Percent of female labor force in agriculture -USA =1%; world = 52%
Tractors per 1,000 agriculture wokers in the USA is 1,542 .
Worldwide it is 20.
Source: Population Connection (www.populationconnection.org)
Thursday, May 04, 2006
New Christian Meditative Technique Goes to the Dogs
From the Sacred Sandwich,
CONFUSED CHURCH GROUP LEARNS MEDITATION FROM SAINT BERNARD
May 2006 --- Garry Worth, a small group leader for Pemberton Methodist Church, recently apologized to his Contemplative Spirituality class for using a large-breed dog to help them learn about centering prayer. “My bad,“ explained a red-faced Worth. “When I was doing background research on Contemplative Spirituality, I misunderstood when Richard Foster suggested that Christians should study the meditation techniques of St. Bernard. I didn’t realize he was talking about the 12th century Catholic mystic from Clairvaux; I just assumed he meant the dog breed."
For the last three group meetings, Worth had borrowed a Saint Bernard named Max from a local kennel and asked his class to emulate the dog’s relaxed, contemplative demeanor as a way to get closer to God. Among the disciplines the group learned were: fetch, roll over, and play dead.
Despite the confusion, most members of the study group felt it was the most satisfying spiritual teaching they had ever received. “Max’s droopy eyes and deep, rhythmic panting certainly centered my energy and took me to a higher spiritual plane,” acknowledged group member, Sue Sheraton. “Of course, his excessive drooling and inappropriate licking were another matter. That was just gross.”
Group leader Worth believes their short time with the lovable canine was misguided, but well-spent. “We gained some wisdom you can't get from human interaction.” he maintained. “After all, 'dog' spelled backwards is God. I don't think that's a coincidence.”
Meanwhile, Max the Saint Bernard has been added as a featured speaker, along with Ruth Haley Barton and Larry Crabb, at Willow Creek’s 2006 Spiritual Formations Conference in the fall. His topic will be “Entering The Chew Toy Zone: Reaching God Through Compulsive Teething.”
CONFUSED CHURCH GROUP LEARNS MEDITATION FROM SAINT BERNARD
May 2006 --- Garry Worth, a small group leader for Pemberton Methodist Church, recently apologized to his Contemplative Spirituality class for using a large-breed dog to help them learn about centering prayer. “My bad,“ explained a red-faced Worth. “When I was doing background research on Contemplative Spirituality, I misunderstood when Richard Foster suggested that Christians should study the meditation techniques of St. Bernard. I didn’t realize he was talking about the 12th century Catholic mystic from Clairvaux; I just assumed he meant the dog breed."
For the last three group meetings, Worth had borrowed a Saint Bernard named Max from a local kennel and asked his class to emulate the dog’s relaxed, contemplative demeanor as a way to get closer to God. Among the disciplines the group learned were: fetch, roll over, and play dead.
Despite the confusion, most members of the study group felt it was the most satisfying spiritual teaching they had ever received. “Max’s droopy eyes and deep, rhythmic panting certainly centered my energy and took me to a higher spiritual plane,” acknowledged group member, Sue Sheraton. “Of course, his excessive drooling and inappropriate licking were another matter. That was just gross.”
Group leader Worth believes their short time with the lovable canine was misguided, but well-spent. “We gained some wisdom you can't get from human interaction.” he maintained. “After all, 'dog' spelled backwards is God. I don't think that's a coincidence.”
Meanwhile, Max the Saint Bernard has been added as a featured speaker, along with Ruth Haley Barton and Larry Crabb, at Willow Creek’s 2006 Spiritual Formations Conference in the fall. His topic will be “Entering The Chew Toy Zone: Reaching God Through Compulsive Teething.”
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The Moral Influence Theory
Michael Horton writes the following in his article "Without Excuse" in the March/April 2006 issue of Modern Reformation magazine,
One of the erroneous assumptions, not only of [many people ], but of many theologians today is, that the basic problem that human beings have with God is lack of information. If people only knew how much God loves them; if they only realized how great God was and worthy of worship, they would embrace HIm.
This is the assumption behind what is called the "moral influence theory" of the atonement: namely, that the cross saves chiefly by showing us how much God loves us and this moving picture is all we need to be brought to repentance.
But, as Anselm countered in his eleventh-century critique of this position,
"You have not yet considered how great your sin is."
One of the erroneous assumptions, not only of [many people ], but of many theologians today is, that the basic problem that human beings have with God is lack of information. If people only knew how much God loves them; if they only realized how great God was and worthy of worship, they would embrace HIm.
This is the assumption behind what is called the "moral influence theory" of the atonement: namely, that the cross saves chiefly by showing us how much God loves us and this moving picture is all we need to be brought to repentance.
But, as Anselm countered in his eleventh-century critique of this position,
"You have not yet considered how great your sin is."
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Quote of the Day
From Examining Emergent,
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that for McLaren and many other EC [Emergent Church] folks, the final source of authority for their opinions are... themselves.
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that for McLaren and many other EC [Emergent Church] folks, the final source of authority for their opinions are... themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
