As I stated yesterday, each day this week I want to tell about a different microeconomic or simlar project in developing countries. I believe churches should think about investing in these, especially when solid CHristian organizations are involved, rather than just throwing money at these countries the way it has been done in the past decades with little result.
Today's example sounds a bit strange. But, I've heard this from so many, both here in the west and those in the developing countries. Here is what they're saying.
"Stop sending stuff to us! Stop sending surplus food and clothes."
Why, we might ask?
"Because it's putting our farmers and tailors out of work. They cannot compete with this free stuff that then is sold by wealthy middlemen and corrupt government officials. Instead, send is medicines and technology and teach us how to use these things. Give us money for seed. It's hot in Africa. Why would we want your old winter clothes anyway?"
The church must listen to the people - and a good way to do this IMO is connecting with legitimate churches in Africa. BY legitimate I mean those with leaders that care about their poeple, not the ones who are led by pastors interested in enriching themselves.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Really Helping Africa
This week I would like to explore how we can REALLY help Africa. I am worried that so many Christians and Christian ministries/churches nowadays seem to be doing what the liberal Protestants have done for decades with little success - - that is, throwing money at the problem. Sadly, as I'm sure most of you know, most of the time only a trickle of the money gets to the people who need it. I read today where many European countries are really helping Africa by helping them with micro-economic ventures, while the United States, despite all the money it pours down Africa's throat, is near the bottom as far as results go. I feel microeconomic aid is worth looking into and I'll describe how microeconomics works in tomorrow's post as well as showing real live examples from various countries as to how these work throughout this week.
Today I would like to start by making a suggestion as to one way churches can help other nations without much loss of results. Find a church along the same belief lines as your church and partner with them. Money would go to feeding and clothing the church members and helping them start microeconomic projects. Then they will have money to support themselves and their families as well as to reach out to those outside of the church. But along with this, make sure the African church is active in evangelism because no country will ever change without some being converted to Jesus Christ.
Here is an example of what my church is doing. I cannot give specific details because of safety issues involved with the church in this other country as well as the pastor-missionary from our church who ministers there at times. So do forgive me if I am a bit vague. The church in this country is constantly being attacked by muslims supported by the government. They've burned and bombed the church. People in this area are homeless and starving. Our church sent money to secure building stone and the church in the other country has now been built to withstand bombs and fire. We have been told that it is almsot undestructible. Next, our money went to help the church members. They are evangelizing and helping their muslim neighbors and have had tremendous success.
I wonder if each church in our country would "adopt" a church in a poor country, what could happen. I believe that too much of our precious Christian money is being wasted. Perhaps, if this giving is done on a smaller scale, church-to-church, it might work better.
Today I would like to start by making a suggestion as to one way churches can help other nations without much loss of results. Find a church along the same belief lines as your church and partner with them. Money would go to feeding and clothing the church members and helping them start microeconomic projects. Then they will have money to support themselves and their families as well as to reach out to those outside of the church. But along with this, make sure the African church is active in evangelism because no country will ever change without some being converted to Jesus Christ.
Here is an example of what my church is doing. I cannot give specific details because of safety issues involved with the church in this other country as well as the pastor-missionary from our church who ministers there at times. So do forgive me if I am a bit vague. The church in this country is constantly being attacked by muslims supported by the government. They've burned and bombed the church. People in this area are homeless and starving. Our church sent money to secure building stone and the church in the other country has now been built to withstand bombs and fire. We have been told that it is almsot undestructible. Next, our money went to help the church members. They are evangelizing and helping their muslim neighbors and have had tremendous success.
I wonder if each church in our country would "adopt" a church in a poor country, what could happen. I believe that too much of our precious Christian money is being wasted. Perhaps, if this giving is done on a smaller scale, church-to-church, it might work better.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
The Law Ain't What It's Cracked Up To Be
The law is weak when it comes to changing us. The law's purpose then, as described in Romans 3:20, is to convict us of sin. This applies not just to the Old Testament laws, but also to laws of society. Well, if laws that are passed do not change society, why have them? If some laws are purposely disregarded then why have them? For instance, let's take the drug laws. Where I live in California they are a joke. So should we ditch them? Here is why certain laws probably should be ont he books. First, as a deterrent and that comes under the "convicted of sin" heading. Second, I think it's important for the next generations of children to see good laws so they might see what a good society should be, even if it isn't at particular times. However, we might wish to be more selective in what laws we have. If we have too many, especially too many that are disobeyed, then the concept of law itself becomes a joke. Sadly, that seems to be where this country (USA) is now in many regards.
But as I've said here before, why the Christian Right thinks passing laws are going to change society is beyond me. We should have used our money and energy to get people convertd becyase Christ in them is the only change agent. And sadly, now we have the Christian left who are making the same mistake. And misguided Christians wll give to them too, but there won't be much fi any societal change.
I read an interesting article by John Loeffler (the link is below) outlining the processes of how laws fail. Here is a synopsis of that process as outlined in this article:
(1) A crime situation comes into existence.
(2) In order to deal with this crime situation the Justice Department or some arm of government claims expanded powers are required to deal with the situation in order to prevent more crime in the future.
(3) These laws invariably stomp on protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but citizens are promised they will be safer and the crime will be prevented and that the laws will only be used against "bad guys" - you know, drug traffickers, terrorists, and [bad guy label here].
(4) Invariably the new laws do not prevent crimes and more are committed, almost always due to government ineptitude in using the surveillance powers and the laws it already has. In cases of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of agents representing government, no one is ever punished.
(5) There is then a stampede on the part of congressmen ("moo") to pass more draconian laws, most of which they don't read or understand, all of which trample ("moo") on the rights of US citizens in the name of making them safer, which they don't.
(6) The cycle then repeats itself once more but with one slight twist: the laws do not prevent more crime or terrorism and use of the laws rapidly broadens out, being applied to persons and crimes for which they were never originally intended, frequently sweeping up hapless citizens and making criminals where no criminals would have been before.
[Source: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2208/John_Loeffler]
He goes on to say give examples of certain instances where laws actually made things worse and didn't prevent what they were supposed to. So why have laws? To prevent chaos, to deter, and to give examples of what a righteous society is supposed to look like.
BUT, please don't make the mistake that so many have made within the Christian community that these laws will change society without conversions to Jesus Christ.
But as I've said here before, why the Christian Right thinks passing laws are going to change society is beyond me. We should have used our money and energy to get people convertd becyase Christ in them is the only change agent. And sadly, now we have the Christian left who are making the same mistake. And misguided Christians wll give to them too, but there won't be much fi any societal change.
I read an interesting article by John Loeffler (the link is below) outlining the processes of how laws fail. Here is a synopsis of that process as outlined in this article:
(1) A crime situation comes into existence.
(2) In order to deal with this crime situation the Justice Department or some arm of government claims expanded powers are required to deal with the situation in order to prevent more crime in the future.
(3) These laws invariably stomp on protections guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights but citizens are promised they will be safer and the crime will be prevented and that the laws will only be used against "bad guys" - you know, drug traffickers, terrorists, and [bad guy label here].
(4) Invariably the new laws do not prevent crimes and more are committed, almost always due to government ineptitude in using the surveillance powers and the laws it already has. In cases of malfeasance or incompetence on the part of agents representing government, no one is ever punished.
(5) There is then a stampede on the part of congressmen ("moo") to pass more draconian laws, most of which they don't read or understand, all of which trample ("moo") on the rights of US citizens in the name of making them safer, which they don't.
(6) The cycle then repeats itself once more but with one slight twist: the laws do not prevent more crime or terrorism and use of the laws rapidly broadens out, being applied to persons and crimes for which they were never originally intended, frequently sweeping up hapless citizens and making criminals where no criminals would have been before.
[Source: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2208/John_Loeffler]
He goes on to say give examples of certain instances where laws actually made things worse and didn't prevent what they were supposed to. So why have laws? To prevent chaos, to deter, and to give examples of what a righteous society is supposed to look like.
BUT, please don't make the mistake that so many have made within the Christian community that these laws will change society without conversions to Jesus Christ.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
The Interviews
I'm always interested in interviews with evangelical leaders of developing countries as they often bring another perspective to Christianity and how we do church. Ministry Today magazine (a magazine for church leaders), in its July/August 2007 issue, interviewed seven (7) leaders from Nigeria, Indonesia, India, Singapore, Russia, Ukraine and Israel. I would like to summarize some of the points these leaders made. Many of them stressed the power and gifts of the Holy Spirit instead of man-made programs.
For example. Dominic Yeo, pastor of Trinity Christian Centre in Singapore writes,
We believe coming to church is not an obligation or a Sunday outing. Coming to church is about having a active engagement with a living God.....In that vibrant atmosphere believers are experiencing divine healing, deliverance, prophetic ministry, and the manifesttion of the gifts of the Spirit.
And listen to what Henry Madava, pastor of Victory Church in Kiev, Ukraine has to say,
We must trust the Holy Spirit's power. Although we need to use all facets of the media to advance the kingdom of God, our main source should remain the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, our media will simply highlight and loudly show our emptiness as far as the reality of God is concerned.
Another facet stressed by these leaders was discipleship. And still another was lots of intense prayer and even fasting.
By the way, I didn't get the idea that these leaders were dumping good theology. But rather, they were infusing and reclaiming some badly needed parts of New Testament doctrine that is either missing from our western churches, or is badly misused and abused.
I wish these and other leaders of developing countries would be invited by our churches to speak to us and even bring a few of their congregants along with them. It certainly might wake us up and help us get some of the missing doctrines back into our churches. Gee, maybe we could even get a few people out of their wheelchairs. Do ya think....maybe?
For example. Dominic Yeo, pastor of Trinity Christian Centre in Singapore writes,
We believe coming to church is not an obligation or a Sunday outing. Coming to church is about having a active engagement with a living God.....In that vibrant atmosphere believers are experiencing divine healing, deliverance, prophetic ministry, and the manifesttion of the gifts of the Spirit.
And listen to what Henry Madava, pastor of Victory Church in Kiev, Ukraine has to say,
We must trust the Holy Spirit's power. Although we need to use all facets of the media to advance the kingdom of God, our main source should remain the power of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, our media will simply highlight and loudly show our emptiness as far as the reality of God is concerned.
Another facet stressed by these leaders was discipleship. And still another was lots of intense prayer and even fasting.
By the way, I didn't get the idea that these leaders were dumping good theology. But rather, they were infusing and reclaiming some badly needed parts of New Testament doctrine that is either missing from our western churches, or is badly misused and abused.
I wish these and other leaders of developing countries would be invited by our churches to speak to us and even bring a few of their congregants along with them. It certainly might wake us up and help us get some of the missing doctrines back into our churches. Gee, maybe we could even get a few people out of their wheelchairs. Do ya think....maybe?
Friday, July 27, 2007
A NEW Type of Faith Teacher
If you've been reading this blog for some time, you will have noticed that I've talked about the Word of Faith teaching from time to time. And, I have been mostly favorable about some of this teaching, but quite unfavorable to other parts of it.
We need to get the good parts into churches. Most churches and msot Christians are sick of the crazy parts of faith teaching and aren't very open to ANY of it seeping into their churches. So, we need another type of Word of Faith teacher. Here is what I think this teacher will look like.
1) Instead of asking for donations to your "ministry," the new faith teacher will be self supporting. This could be through working a great part-time job, being retired, your spouse working, or owning a business and having others run it most of the time.
2) You refuse any honorariums because you don't need them. You don't need them because, remember, you are self-supporting.
3) You pay for your own hotel if you can. If not, you insist the host church putting you up in a low-priced hotel, motel or bed & breakfast.
4) You pay for your own transportation if you can. If not, you ask the host church to fly you in coach class.
Theology
-->The new type of faith teacher would keep the following faith distinctives:
*What faith is and how it comes
*Healing in the Atonement
*Meeting you needs and the giving heart
*Authority of the believer, prayer and correct spiritual warfare
-->They would balance the above with other Pentecostal distinctives
-->The would further balance out with a touch of Reformational theology especially a theology of the cross and why Jesus went there.
Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine, has hd some very good hard hitting articles lately. In today's he tells what one evangelist requires if you want her to speak at your church or event. I will put that in the first column and in the second I put what the NEW faith evangelist would ask for. In fact I've prayed that maybe I could be one of these.
THE OLD EVANGELIST___________________ME (The NEW FAITH EVANGELIST TEACHER)
*a five-figure honorarium ___________________No honorarium. I support myself
*a $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane__Coach class at less than $500.00
*a manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker___I do my own hair and nails
*a suite in a five-star hotel___________________A Radisson or Holiday Inn is fine
*a new luxury car from the airport to the hotel_I pay for own transportation
*room-temperature Perrier____________Just point me to the ice machine and tap water
We need to get the good parts into churches. Most churches and msot Christians are sick of the crazy parts of faith teaching and aren't very open to ANY of it seeping into their churches. So, we need another type of Word of Faith teacher. Here is what I think this teacher will look like.
1) Instead of asking for donations to your "ministry," the new faith teacher will be self supporting. This could be through working a great part-time job, being retired, your spouse working, or owning a business and having others run it most of the time.
2) You refuse any honorariums because you don't need them. You don't need them because, remember, you are self-supporting.
3) You pay for your own hotel if you can. If not, you insist the host church putting you up in a low-priced hotel, motel or bed & breakfast.
4) You pay for your own transportation if you can. If not, you ask the host church to fly you in coach class.
Theology
-->The new type of faith teacher would keep the following faith distinctives:
*What faith is and how it comes
*Healing in the Atonement
*Meeting you needs and the giving heart
*Authority of the believer, prayer and correct spiritual warfare
-->They would balance the above with other Pentecostal distinctives
-->The would further balance out with a touch of Reformational theology especially a theology of the cross and why Jesus went there.
Lee Grady, the editor of Charisma magazine, has hd some very good hard hitting articles lately. In today's he tells what one evangelist requires if you want her to speak at your church or event. I will put that in the first column and in the second I put what the NEW faith evangelist would ask for. In fact I've prayed that maybe I could be one of these.
THE OLD EVANGELIST___________________ME (The NEW FAITH EVANGELIST TEACHER)
*a five-figure honorarium ___________________No honorarium. I support myself
*a $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane__Coach class at less than $500.00
*a manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker___I do my own hair and nails
*a suite in a five-star hotel___________________A Radisson or Holiday Inn is fine
*a new luxury car from the airport to the hotel_I pay for own transportation
*room-temperature Perrier____________Just point me to the ice machine and tap water
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Christian Carnival is Coming--Here
Guess what?
I am hosting the very next Christian Carnival that will come out next Wednesday, Aug, 1. The Christian Carnival is made up of posts by Christian bloggers. They pick one of their posts from the preceding week and send it in. If you are a Christian blogger and wish to participate, just go to the following link, fill it out (put your blog post URL, your name and your email), and then click the SUBMIT button.
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_1551.html
I am hosting the very next Christian Carnival that will come out next Wednesday, Aug, 1. The Christian Carnival is made up of posts by Christian bloggers. They pick one of their posts from the preceding week and send it in. If you are a Christian blogger and wish to participate, just go to the following link, fill it out (put your blog post URL, your name and your email), and then click the SUBMIT button.
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_1551.html
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Time Again to Defend the WOF'ers - sort of
Well, it's that time again. TIme to defend some of the Word of Faith teaching. I realize I am going to get pilloried on this post, but here goes nothing....or everything.
I watched a video by John Piper on how much he hates the prosperity message. That is what he said--"I hate it!" While I understand the gist of his message it made me a bit perturbed. Here's why. It's not my intention to defend the Word of Faith teachers. But frankly, I get tired of people attacking their message without understanding the totality, not giving people any alternative, and rarely naming the people they are talking about. Do you mean Hagin? Copeland and Savelle and Price? Or someone else who probably has little connection to these original teachers? Who are you talking about???
Let me take these points one at a time.
1) The Culprits
*Hagin rarely presented this message and in fact wrote a book a few years before his death against most of the excesses (The Midas Touch). I have never heard his son, Hagin, Jr. talk about any extreme prosperity message.
*Copeland, Price and their disciples took the faith message and hyped it to an extreme concerning prosperity. I agree with that assessment. However, the first part of the prosperity message is excellent and should be taught in every church as it closely follows chapters 8 and 9 of II Corinthians. I wonder what Piper thinks of Savelle who received $1000 as a gift once. When he found out a friend of his family couldn't pay his mortgage and was literally being evicted, Savelle ran over to the man's house and gave him the $1000.
Or the time Savelle was in line at the market and the elderly lady in front of him was in tears because she didn't quite have enough money to pay for her groceries. Savelle gave her the money. Or maybe Copeland who gave his plane away as a gift to another ministry. And on and on it goes. Then there is Fred Price whose congregation bought a college campus here in Los Angeles and built a brand new church on the property. Only 10% was borrowed from banks and that was paid shortly thereafter. By the way, this church is in the inner city, not far from where the 1992 Los Angeles riots began in South-Central Los Angeles. He did a "pay-as-you-go" program and when they moved in they had no debt. I do disagree with his expensive house and Bentley because it seems to have backfired and caused considerable damage to the movement.
*One thing the Word of Faith teachers did for me, besides teaching me how to stand on the Word of God no matter what, was to give me a heart for the poor that I hadn't had before. Jerry Savelle especially seemed to do that for me through his messages.
2) Their Problematic theologies
Many of these WOF teachers have gone over a line. Copeland, for example, needs to pull back from the "every Christian should be extremely rich" position. People should have what they need with some left over for every good work as it says in II Corinthians 9:8. Those called to live in the upper classes need more, and those called to identify with the poor need fewer resources unless they are starting a ministry of housing, food, jobs, etc. in those areas. Where Copeland and the others miss it is not asking the question, "What does God want me to do and where does He want me to do it?" Answering that question will determine how much we need.
Other problematic areas with Copeland include the Ransom theory of Atonement and his kenosis is off. In other words, Jesus in Copeland and Price's world is too much "human" IMO. On the other hand, these teachers are very cross centered, Christ centered and Scripture centered. The seekers, purpose-driven, Third Wave Charismatics, and emergents, as I've written many times before here, don't seem to be. And that is what sets apart the WOF teachers from the other four categories.
What I really want you to see is the BIBLICAL PROCESS the faith teachers teach as to how to pray. That is what we need to see. And in doing this, we don't need to adopt the ultra-extreme prosperity message.
Do Others Have the Answers?
Here's what raises my hackles. These people who preach against the faith teachers have no other answers. Their only answer is to suffer. Period. They offer no answers in the suffering. Let me say that again. They offer no answers as to how to get through the suffering. Their teaching usually states the faith teachers say we shouldn't suffer. This tells me they don't listen to them or read them because I have never in almost 30 years of following the WOF'ers have ever heard this. If anything, they say certainly you will certainly suffer if you stand on the Word in faith. And this is where the fruit of patience comes in. I was reading an article by Kenneth Hagin Jr. this morning and he devoted most of the article to this. BUT they tell us how to stand and get some answers. I realize too that not every prayer in faith is answered. But I rather like Hagin's observation that it isn't God who is the problem; the problem is on our end. In other words, we're not understanding something. God tells us in Matthew to 7:7 to ASK, SEEK and KNOCK. The "suffering" pastors don't want us to do that. They want us to codependently "accept" everything as God's will and somehow get through it the best we can. This is why we so desperately need to craft a hearing ear to God's voice through the Spirit and through the Word.
I watched a video by John Piper on how much he hates the prosperity message. That is what he said--"I hate it!" While I understand the gist of his message it made me a bit perturbed. Here's why. It's not my intention to defend the Word of Faith teachers. But frankly, I get tired of people attacking their message without understanding the totality, not giving people any alternative, and rarely naming the people they are talking about. Do you mean Hagin? Copeland and Savelle and Price? Or someone else who probably has little connection to these original teachers? Who are you talking about???
Let me take these points one at a time.
1) The Culprits
*Hagin rarely presented this message and in fact wrote a book a few years before his death against most of the excesses (The Midas Touch). I have never heard his son, Hagin, Jr. talk about any extreme prosperity message.
*Copeland, Price and their disciples took the faith message and hyped it to an extreme concerning prosperity. I agree with that assessment. However, the first part of the prosperity message is excellent and should be taught in every church as it closely follows chapters 8 and 9 of II Corinthians. I wonder what Piper thinks of Savelle who received $1000 as a gift once. When he found out a friend of his family couldn't pay his mortgage and was literally being evicted, Savelle ran over to the man's house and gave him the $1000.
Or the time Savelle was in line at the market and the elderly lady in front of him was in tears because she didn't quite have enough money to pay for her groceries. Savelle gave her the money. Or maybe Copeland who gave his plane away as a gift to another ministry. And on and on it goes. Then there is Fred Price whose congregation bought a college campus here in Los Angeles and built a brand new church on the property. Only 10% was borrowed from banks and that was paid shortly thereafter. By the way, this church is in the inner city, not far from where the 1992 Los Angeles riots began in South-Central Los Angeles. He did a "pay-as-you-go" program and when they moved in they had no debt. I do disagree with his expensive house and Bentley because it seems to have backfired and caused considerable damage to the movement.
*One thing the Word of Faith teachers did for me, besides teaching me how to stand on the Word of God no matter what, was to give me a heart for the poor that I hadn't had before. Jerry Savelle especially seemed to do that for me through his messages.
2) Their Problematic theologies
Many of these WOF teachers have gone over a line. Copeland, for example, needs to pull back from the "every Christian should be extremely rich" position. People should have what they need with some left over for every good work as it says in II Corinthians 9:8. Those called to live in the upper classes need more, and those called to identify with the poor need fewer resources unless they are starting a ministry of housing, food, jobs, etc. in those areas. Where Copeland and the others miss it is not asking the question, "What does God want me to do and where does He want me to do it?" Answering that question will determine how much we need.
Other problematic areas with Copeland include the Ransom theory of Atonement and his kenosis is off. In other words, Jesus in Copeland and Price's world is too much "human" IMO. On the other hand, these teachers are very cross centered, Christ centered and Scripture centered. The seekers, purpose-driven, Third Wave Charismatics, and emergents, as I've written many times before here, don't seem to be. And that is what sets apart the WOF teachers from the other four categories.
What I really want you to see is the BIBLICAL PROCESS the faith teachers teach as to how to pray. That is what we need to see. And in doing this, we don't need to adopt the ultra-extreme prosperity message.
Do Others Have the Answers?
Here's what raises my hackles. These people who preach against the faith teachers have no other answers. Their only answer is to suffer. Period. They offer no answers in the suffering. Let me say that again. They offer no answers as to how to get through the suffering. Their teaching usually states the faith teachers say we shouldn't suffer. This tells me they don't listen to them or read them because I have never in almost 30 years of following the WOF'ers have ever heard this. If anything, they say certainly you will certainly suffer if you stand on the Word in faith. And this is where the fruit of patience comes in. I was reading an article by Kenneth Hagin Jr. this morning and he devoted most of the article to this. BUT they tell us how to stand and get some answers. I realize too that not every prayer in faith is answered. But I rather like Hagin's observation that it isn't God who is the problem; the problem is on our end. In other words, we're not understanding something. God tells us in Matthew to 7:7 to ASK, SEEK and KNOCK. The "suffering" pastors don't want us to do that. They want us to codependently "accept" everything as God's will and somehow get through it the best we can. This is why we so desperately need to craft a hearing ear to God's voice through the Spirit and through the Word.
Monday, July 23, 2007
My Poor Right-Brain
Yesterday I was folding table cloths at my church. The reason for this was because I volunteered to help with the church potluck. So, after the lunch, we cleared the tablecloths off of the tables and I volunteered to fold them. I usually would never do this type of thing because I am very right-brained challenged.
You see, I am an extreme left-brainer. Or I should say, I was.
In my post of July 16, I wrote that our society was changing from a left-brained analytical, logical one over to a right-brain intuitive artistic one. I also said this is beginning to affect the church and how the younger members think as they are a product of this change. The older members are a product of a more left-brained modernistic society. The Boomers (born 1946-1964) and younger Gappers (born around 1941-1945) are the generations that were in the beginning of this transition from left to right.
Is it possible to cross over the "bridge" to the other brain type especially if you are at the extreme end of the other type? I've found it might be, at least to a certain extent. In the late 80's I purchased a book on whole brain thinking which deals with the right-left brain phenomena. In the book they had a test which helped you to find out if you were more left-brained, right-brained or bilateral (in the middle between right and left). The book had a scale of 0-10, 0 being the most left brained and 10 being the most right-brained. The scale looked somewhat like this:
-----------0_________________5______________10
extreme left______________bilateral___________extreme right
-------------1.2_________4.5
---------my 1st score--my 2nd score
After I first bought the book I scored around 1.2. About 10 years later I took it again. Before I took it I erased all of my previous answers and then waited a week so I wouldn't remember what I had answered. This time when I took it I scored 4.5, almost to the center. What had happened? I had prayed that God would help me more on the right side of the brain as I began to understand that it was the intuitive side and I might be able to hear God better if I developed it more. And, actually that is exactly what happened.
I believe God led me to certain jobs and activities to strengthen this right side of my brain. I am very art-challenged. This is modern-speak for --- I can't draw my way out of a box. That is how weak my right-brain was. I still cannot draw but I can tell the right side functions better. First, God plunked me into a job where I had to train teachers on a program called Logo. They were going to teach this to their elementary and middle school students. When training people it helps to be able to do the task....)
I couldn't do Logo if my life depended on it. For those of you under 35 you might know what I am talking about. It's that computer program you did sometime in the 3rd to 6th grade with that turtle in the middle of the screen. To draw a geometric figure and later actual pictures using geometrical drawings, you had to tell the turtle where to go, how many degrees to turn and also how many steps to take. After you did that it moved and left a line trail. I simply could not picture where that darn turtle should go in order to complete certain tasks. And here I am the one who is supposed to teach this to the teachers. So every day for about 1/2 hour for 4 years I went home and did Logo on my computer. Finally I was able to do fairly well, although I never could do really complex activities.
Also about that time I discovered Flight Simulator. I hated flying so I thought perhaps if I understood what pilots do and how planes fly I would feel more peaceful about traveling. No, it didn't help that much for that, but it was a program I liked. But it was much like that darn turtle, positioned on an invisible 360 degree circle and you had to "imagine" where the turtle or the plane was going on that circle.
After years of Flight Simulator I was making progress with my right brain. Then I got a computer with Microsoft Windows and discovered Free Cell. This solitaire game has the same thinking process as that turtle and that plane. You have to picture a few steps ahead what will happen. I play Free Cell almost every day to keep my right brain functioning even at the bare level it does function.
Back to the table cloths. I actually was able to do a kind of credible folding job. Seven years ago, the folding would have been pitiful and 15 years ago they wouldn't be folded. The table cloths are round you see. I can barely cope with square ones but circular ones? Help!
They don't look great and I sure hope the lady in charge of the kitchen forgets who folded them, but for me, it was progress and a victory. Can we then through practice, strengthen the "other" side of our brain if we tend to be at the extreme ends on the right-left brain scale? I believe we can and I am proof of it. How would we strengthen the left brain then? Crossword puzzles, forcing yourself to outline the sermon perhaps? Activities like these?
And now for my grand conclusion ------ The exegesis method of preaching will probably apeal to people like me, fairly left-brained types. And the emergent conversation will appeal to mainly right-brained types. Now the BIG question is this:
How do we appeal to everyone? Or can we? That is the question I am trying to answer.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
You see, I am an extreme left-brainer. Or I should say, I was.
In my post of July 16, I wrote that our society was changing from a left-brained analytical, logical one over to a right-brain intuitive artistic one. I also said this is beginning to affect the church and how the younger members think as they are a product of this change. The older members are a product of a more left-brained modernistic society. The Boomers (born 1946-1964) and younger Gappers (born around 1941-1945) are the generations that were in the beginning of this transition from left to right.
Is it possible to cross over the "bridge" to the other brain type especially if you are at the extreme end of the other type? I've found it might be, at least to a certain extent. In the late 80's I purchased a book on whole brain thinking which deals with the right-left brain phenomena. In the book they had a test which helped you to find out if you were more left-brained, right-brained or bilateral (in the middle between right and left). The book had a scale of 0-10, 0 being the most left brained and 10 being the most right-brained. The scale looked somewhat like this:
-----------0_________________5______________10
extreme left______________bilateral___________extreme right
-------------1.2_________4.5
---------my 1st score--my 2nd score
After I first bought the book I scored around 1.2. About 10 years later I took it again. Before I took it I erased all of my previous answers and then waited a week so I wouldn't remember what I had answered. This time when I took it I scored 4.5, almost to the center. What had happened? I had prayed that God would help me more on the right side of the brain as I began to understand that it was the intuitive side and I might be able to hear God better if I developed it more. And, actually that is exactly what happened.
I believe God led me to certain jobs and activities to strengthen this right side of my brain. I am very art-challenged. This is modern-speak for --- I can't draw my way out of a box. That is how weak my right-brain was. I still cannot draw but I can tell the right side functions better. First, God plunked me into a job where I had to train teachers on a program called Logo. They were going to teach this to their elementary and middle school students. When training people it helps to be able to do the task....)
I couldn't do Logo if my life depended on it. For those of you under 35 you might know what I am talking about. It's that computer program you did sometime in the 3rd to 6th grade with that turtle in the middle of the screen. To draw a geometric figure and later actual pictures using geometrical drawings, you had to tell the turtle where to go, how many degrees to turn and also how many steps to take. After you did that it moved and left a line trail. I simply could not picture where that darn turtle should go in order to complete certain tasks. And here I am the one who is supposed to teach this to the teachers. So every day for about 1/2 hour for 4 years I went home and did Logo on my computer. Finally I was able to do fairly well, although I never could do really complex activities.
Also about that time I discovered Flight Simulator. I hated flying so I thought perhaps if I understood what pilots do and how planes fly I would feel more peaceful about traveling. No, it didn't help that much for that, but it was a program I liked. But it was much like that darn turtle, positioned on an invisible 360 degree circle and you had to "imagine" where the turtle or the plane was going on that circle.
After years of Flight Simulator I was making progress with my right brain. Then I got a computer with Microsoft Windows and discovered Free Cell. This solitaire game has the same thinking process as that turtle and that plane. You have to picture a few steps ahead what will happen. I play Free Cell almost every day to keep my right brain functioning even at the bare level it does function.
Back to the table cloths. I actually was able to do a kind of credible folding job. Seven years ago, the folding would have been pitiful and 15 years ago they wouldn't be folded. The table cloths are round you see. I can barely cope with square ones but circular ones? Help!
They don't look great and I sure hope the lady in charge of the kitchen forgets who folded them, but for me, it was progress and a victory. Can we then through practice, strengthen the "other" side of our brain if we tend to be at the extreme ends on the right-left brain scale? I believe we can and I am proof of it. How would we strengthen the left brain then? Crossword puzzles, forcing yourself to outline the sermon perhaps? Activities like these?
And now for my grand conclusion ------ The exegesis method of preaching will probably apeal to people like me, fairly left-brained types. And the emergent conversation will appeal to mainly right-brained types. Now the BIG question is this:
How do we appeal to everyone? Or can we? That is the question I am trying to answer.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
Is the Holy Spirit Incompetent?
I was reading my Los Angeles Times today and there on the first page, left-hand column was a story about the Time's Orange County Religion writer. Seems he "accepted Christ" a few years ago after attending a Christian men's conference in the mountains where they were sleep deprived so they could "get real with each other." Then they built a fire and urged everyone to accept Jesus. Hmmmmm. Years after that he decided to become a Roman Catholic. I can understand why because it didn't seem that he got much of a foundational understanding what he was doing in the mountains. But now that the priest molestation scandal has broken, he has decided to leave that Catholicism too. He is now in a sort-of-kind-of evangelical PCUSA (the liberal Presbyterian denomination) church.
On another note but I will thread them together in a moment, more and more are opting for the seeker-sensitive (purpose-driven) or emergent way of doing church. The common practice in both of these movements seems to be bringing people in through interesting programs, ways of doing church, and post-modern philosophies.
I am wondering how in the world the Welsh Revival managed. Every night Evan Roberts would preach INSIDE the church he belonged to and the Holy Spirit would go OUTSIDE and bring the sinners IN. The hard-drinking miners would be going down the street home from the bars and house of prostitution and they would be zapped by the Holy Spirit. They would be under such conviction they would go inside the church tears steaming down their coal-stained faces. There they would receive Christ and what He did for them at the cross.
Today, churches seem to think the Holy Spirit is incompetent to do this. I wonder what it would take to replicate the Welsh revival. Remember, to be like the Welsh revival, churches have to do more than get double the number into church and then a few years later drop off to below where they started without any change in the surrounding city or country. That seems to leave out much of the Third Wave Charismatic revival/renewal (some in that movement have decided it wasn’t a revival after all but a church renewal).
As for me, I vote for the Holy Spirit and how He does things - not how man does things.
On another note but I will thread them together in a moment, more and more are opting for the seeker-sensitive (purpose-driven) or emergent way of doing church. The common practice in both of these movements seems to be bringing people in through interesting programs, ways of doing church, and post-modern philosophies.
I am wondering how in the world the Welsh Revival managed. Every night Evan Roberts would preach INSIDE the church he belonged to and the Holy Spirit would go OUTSIDE and bring the sinners IN. The hard-drinking miners would be going down the street home from the bars and house of prostitution and they would be zapped by the Holy Spirit. They would be under such conviction they would go inside the church tears steaming down their coal-stained faces. There they would receive Christ and what He did for them at the cross.
Today, churches seem to think the Holy Spirit is incompetent to do this. I wonder what it would take to replicate the Welsh revival. Remember, to be like the Welsh revival, churches have to do more than get double the number into church and then a few years later drop off to below where they started without any change in the surrounding city or country. That seems to leave out much of the Third Wave Charismatic revival/renewal (some in that movement have decided it wasn’t a revival after all but a church renewal).
As for me, I vote for the Holy Spirit and how He does things - not how man does things.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Tozer on What the Real Problem Is
I think this great quote by A. W. Tozer, an old time saint, really neatly sums up the central problem of both seeker-sensitive churches and emergent ones.
"There is a great decision that every denomination has to make sometime in the development of its history. Every church also has to make it either at its beginning or a little later–usually a little later. Eventually every board is faced with the decision and has to keep making it, not by one great decision made once for all, but by a series of little decisions adding up to one great big one. Every pastor has to face it and keep renewing his decision on his knees before God. Finally, every church member, every evangelist, every Christian has to make this decision. It is a matter of judgment upon that denomination, that church, that board, that pastor, that leader and upon their descendants and spiritual children.
The question is this: Shall we modify the truth in doctrine or practice to gain more adherents? Or shall we preserve the truth in doctrine and practice and take the consequences?…"
A. W. Tozer
Source: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=2583
"There is a great decision that every denomination has to make sometime in the development of its history. Every church also has to make it either at its beginning or a little later–usually a little later. Eventually every board is faced with the decision and has to keep making it, not by one great decision made once for all, but by a series of little decisions adding up to one great big one. Every pastor has to face it and keep renewing his decision on his knees before God. Finally, every church member, every evangelist, every Christian has to make this decision. It is a matter of judgment upon that denomination, that church, that board, that pastor, that leader and upon their descendants and spiritual children.
The question is this: Shall we modify the truth in doctrine or practice to gain more adherents? Or shall we preserve the truth in doctrine and practice and take the consequences?…"
A. W. Tozer
Source: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=2583
Thursday, July 19, 2007
How Many Christians a Day?
From the today's Christianity Today News,
Seventy-five thousand people a day become Christians, according to some estimates, and two-thirds of them live in Africa. These buoyant new believers....experience the gospel as Good News and celebrate it in new and creative forms.
Seventy-five thousand people a day become Christians, according to some estimates, and two-thirds of them live in Africa. These buoyant new believers....experience the gospel as Good News and celebrate it in new and creative forms.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Becoming a Right-Brain Church
I would like to follow up yesterday's post about how our society and eventually the church is changing from left-brained oriented to right-brained oriented entities. Today's Cerulean Sanctum referred its readers to the adversaria blog. There is a paragraph on that blog I would like to quote. While I don't agree with some of what he writes, the following paragraph is worth the read. He's of the Reformed faith, but try substituting the broader term, "evangelical" in place of "Reformed" and "Reformation," as I believe what he writes will apply with evangelicals too.
The Reformed faith centres on slogans (e.g. justification by faith alone, TULIP, the solas, etc.), rather than stories. We focus on a doctrine of justification, often at expense of a story of justification. Our worship does not convey a vision of the world, or even a powerful narrative so much as a mere disembodied set of ideas. Practically every part of Reformed worship is addressed to the mind. Even the sacraments are treated as if they were pictures of ideas. When the Eucharist is celebrated, great effort is often expended to ensure that people know what the rite means and, more importantly, what it doesn’t mean. In most Reformed churches the congregant doesn’t participate much with their body. There is no kneeling, no kiss of peace, no walking, etc. The body is treated as if it were primarily a mind-container.
Welcome to the postmodern church. As I wrote yesterday, as long as we don't compromise the message, we need to be open to this more right-brained way of thinking. While I am very left-brained and like grandma's church with it's outlined sermons of 1, 2, 3 and A, B, C, I am also a realist and understand this isn't going to fly in the postmodern world. Let me give an example of a well-known ministry as to how they could change their format while keeping the central message of substitutionary atonement with it's Reformational - by grace alone, by faith alone and by Christ alone message.
Campus Crusade for Christ still has their Four Spiritual Laws and they haven't changed the wording or the presentation. But soon, they might need to completely change the basically modernist method of outline and propositions into a more narrative style but keeping their basic message. Modern and classic art might illustrate the booklet.
In future posts I want to explore this more and hope you, my readers, will give me any example of where you have seen, read or experienced a more postmodern right-brained approach BUT keeping the three points I've made all week - keeping the - 1) message of substitutionary atonement and receiving Christ by faith alone; 2) sanctification (progressive walk in holiness) through the Holy Spirit, not through legalism; and, 3) missional outreach to both church members and the community.
Looking forward to hearing from you either in the comment section or by email to me (fcov.geo@yahoo.com).
The Reformed faith centres on slogans (e.g. justification by faith alone, TULIP, the solas, etc.), rather than stories. We focus on a doctrine of justification, often at expense of a story of justification. Our worship does not convey a vision of the world, or even a powerful narrative so much as a mere disembodied set of ideas. Practically every part of Reformed worship is addressed to the mind. Even the sacraments are treated as if they were pictures of ideas. When the Eucharist is celebrated, great effort is often expended to ensure that people know what the rite means and, more importantly, what it doesn’t mean. In most Reformed churches the congregant doesn’t participate much with their body. There is no kneeling, no kiss of peace, no walking, etc. The body is treated as if it were primarily a mind-container.
Welcome to the postmodern church. As I wrote yesterday, as long as we don't compromise the message, we need to be open to this more right-brained way of thinking. While I am very left-brained and like grandma's church with it's outlined sermons of 1, 2, 3 and A, B, C, I am also a realist and understand this isn't going to fly in the postmodern world. Let me give an example of a well-known ministry as to how they could change their format while keeping the central message of substitutionary atonement with it's Reformational - by grace alone, by faith alone and by Christ alone message.
Campus Crusade for Christ still has their Four Spiritual Laws and they haven't changed the wording or the presentation. But soon, they might need to completely change the basically modernist method of outline and propositions into a more narrative style but keeping their basic message. Modern and classic art might illustrate the booklet.
In future posts I want to explore this more and hope you, my readers, will give me any example of where you have seen, read or experienced a more postmodern right-brained approach BUT keeping the three points I've made all week - keeping the - 1) message of substitutionary atonement and receiving Christ by faith alone; 2) sanctification (progressive walk in holiness) through the Holy Spirit, not through legalism; and, 3) missional outreach to both church members and the community.
Looking forward to hearing from you either in the comment section or by email to me (fcov.geo@yahoo.com).
Monday, July 16, 2007
Thinking Postmodernly
I think we must understand that the postmodern generation (roughly between 18 and 30 - or 35 - whoever you talk to) isn't asking us to change the music or the seating or add some candles and art and poetry to the church environment. It encompasses much more than that. The postmoderns have a whole different way of thinking. Instead of modernity as most of us above 40 are used to, these young people are thinking in a whole differenet way - a postmodern way. One element I'm seeing is something I've studied now for a long time, called whole brain thinking. You may know it by the term right-brain/left-brain thinking.
Here is a chart illustrating each type of thinking:
Left-Brain
analytical and logical
mental
creative (logical)
good at act of reading
good at math computation
good at geometry
good at memorizing facts
likes to communicate through outline
Right-Brain
intuitive
visual
creative (artsy)
good at reading comprehension
good at math word problems
good at algebra
good at visualizing situations and stories
likes to communicate through stories
Those that are can function equal in the right and left brain are called bi-lateral thinkers.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our society as a whole is undergoing a huge shift from a left-brained one over to a right-brained one. Look at your local public school and you will see many examples of this. In the modernity school those of us above 35 attended, we found a lot of lecture and memorization with an emphasis on the "core" subjects of language arts/literature, history, mathematics and science.
In the postmodern schools we see less emphasis on memorization and more emphasis on simulation. For example, instead of memorizing facts and dates about the Constitutional Convention, students today might act out the convention with various students assigned as the actual representatives to that convention and their position. The students would then hold their own "convention" and try to sustain the original arguments of the people they represent. Or, they might write a story (often illustrated) about the Convention.
In science class, the inquiry approach might be used. Instead of memorizing facts, students are asked an open ended question and are asked for what they think the possible answer or answers might be. For example, third graders might be asked, "If you were an ant, what would you do all day?" After offering their ideas, the students then would do research to find out if they were correct .
Students today are not working alone at individual desks as it was when I was in school. Today they are engaged in what educators call cooperative learning. This means students are in teams and the team do projects or even the regular school work, helping each other. A classroom that is too quiet (except when taking a test) would probably be a concern for the principal when visiting it.
On a higher level, a few years ago many companies went to some of the best graduate business schools in our country (USA) and pleaded with them to stop putting out the left-brained number crunchers. They found that intuitive right brainers did a lot better in today's business environment of marketing. So, schools like Wharton and Stanford among others began to add right-brain courses which involved much New Age practice. In fact, the New Agers saw this and found a gold mine for their ideas.
So now these students are grown up and in their 20's and early thirties. And they are trying to acclimate themselves to the church as it is today. But the church, mostly led by modernists, don't get it. That is the rub. As I said in my three previous posts, I strongly believe that the emergent conversation is not the way the church should go. But, as I said in yesterday's post, grandma's church isn't going to do it either. This is why the current evangelical church MUST find how to think postmodernly WITHOUT sacrificing the three important points I discussed yesterday: keeping the gospel of substitutionary atonement intact, a holiness based on the work of Holy Spirit sanctification and not legalism, and a missional approach to convert and help society to the best of our ability.
Although I don't agree with some of his emergent practices and ideas, I would recommend Dan Kimball's book, The Emerging Church as an excellent illustration of where we need to be headed. His book illustrates a typical emergent church service and what is involved.
Here is a chart illustrating each type of thinking:
Left-Brain
analytical and logical
mental
creative (logical)
good at act of reading
good at math computation
good at geometry
good at memorizing facts
likes to communicate through outline
Right-Brain
intuitive
visual
creative (artsy)
good at reading comprehension
good at math word problems
good at algebra
good at visualizing situations and stories
likes to communicate through stories
Those that are can function equal in the right and left brain are called bi-lateral thinkers.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Our society as a whole is undergoing a huge shift from a left-brained one over to a right-brained one. Look at your local public school and you will see many examples of this. In the modernity school those of us above 35 attended, we found a lot of lecture and memorization with an emphasis on the "core" subjects of language arts/literature, history, mathematics and science.
In the postmodern schools we see less emphasis on memorization and more emphasis on simulation. For example, instead of memorizing facts and dates about the Constitutional Convention, students today might act out the convention with various students assigned as the actual representatives to that convention and their position. The students would then hold their own "convention" and try to sustain the original arguments of the people they represent. Or, they might write a story (often illustrated) about the Convention.
In science class, the inquiry approach might be used. Instead of memorizing facts, students are asked an open ended question and are asked for what they think the possible answer or answers might be. For example, third graders might be asked, "If you were an ant, what would you do all day?" After offering their ideas, the students then would do research to find out if they were correct .
Students today are not working alone at individual desks as it was when I was in school. Today they are engaged in what educators call cooperative learning. This means students are in teams and the team do projects or even the regular school work, helping each other. A classroom that is too quiet (except when taking a test) would probably be a concern for the principal when visiting it.
On a higher level, a few years ago many companies went to some of the best graduate business schools in our country (USA) and pleaded with them to stop putting out the left-brained number crunchers. They found that intuitive right brainers did a lot better in today's business environment of marketing. So, schools like Wharton and Stanford among others began to add right-brain courses which involved much New Age practice. In fact, the New Agers saw this and found a gold mine for their ideas.
So now these students are grown up and in their 20's and early thirties. And they are trying to acclimate themselves to the church as it is today. But the church, mostly led by modernists, don't get it. That is the rub. As I said in my three previous posts, I strongly believe that the emergent conversation is not the way the church should go. But, as I said in yesterday's post, grandma's church isn't going to do it either. This is why the current evangelical church MUST find how to think postmodernly WITHOUT sacrificing the three important points I discussed yesterday: keeping the gospel of substitutionary atonement intact, a holiness based on the work of Holy Spirit sanctification and not legalism, and a missional approach to convert and help society to the best of our ability.
Although I don't agree with some of his emergent practices and ideas, I would recommend Dan Kimball's book, The Emerging Church as an excellent illustration of where we need to be headed. His book illustrates a typical emergent church service and what is involved.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
These Three Bases Must Be Covered
In yesterday's post in response to a commenter, I gave the reason why I wrote a quote in another of my posts. In those two posts I brought up serious problems I was having with the emergent conversation. However, most critics of that movement stop there. I have immersed myself in emergent writings, blogs and books as well as in postmodern philosophy from which emergent emanates for about a year now. And the one question I believe is important to answer but I'm not hearing from other critics of emergent is this:
Is there anyone out there answering the question as to how we get the 91%* of evangelicals much less the 96%* of everybody else between the ages of 18 and 30 into the church?
(*stats are from George Barna)
I’m not hearing a good answer from the critics and I don't believe the emergents for the most part are answering it well either. So i've been searching for some role models for us. And I think I've found at least three.
To qualify as those I would recommend they must have three bases covered well. The three are,
*A good overall as well as specific presentation of the gospel including substitutionary atonement. No moral influence theory or process conversion or Hegelian synthesis of Christianity with other religions and disciplines.
*A holiness practiced as a result of sanctification through the Holy Spirit. These leaves out both the extremes of a legalistic false holiness program of rules and laws foisted upon people (with the exception of a few outlined in the epistles), and on the other extreme the cussing and worldly talk/actions coming from many in the emergent conversation.
*A missional church not only helping people in their town but certainly those in their church. I don't want to hear how this is the social gospel. It doesn't need to be IF the gospel is preached clearly with it. And on the other extreme I don't want the hypocrisy of churches bragging how they are helping the poor when some of their elderly church members are eating dog food.
First, let me say this - all emergents are missional but not all missionals are emergent. So, I think we should understand which are emergent and which are missional and which overlap. The reason for this is because missional churches will anser the three above questions as well if not better as emergent ones. Here then are three pastors, one emergent and two missional whom I have found to be three that might give us a good model for a postmodern church.
1. New York City - David Wilkerson of Times Square Church. Here is a Pentecostal missional who has been doing the missional thing for decades. No hypocrisy here as he has been doing this for decades. He draws both rich and poor and in-between; and young and old and in-between. Website is www.tscnyc.org.
2. New York City - Tim Keller of the Reedemer Presbyterian Church. This is a Calvinist PCA church with a very old Reformation-style church service. However it is more emergenty-missional. This church also draws all ages and socio-economic groups. Web site is www.reedemer.com.
3. Long Grove, Illinois - David E. Fitch of Life on the Vine Church. He wrote the marvelous book, The Great Giveaway which I recommend. This is an emergent church, but at least in his book he qualifies because he seems to do well in all three of the above areas of gospel, holiness and missional thrust. I don't know anything about his church but I am assuming it is run the way he describes in his book. His blog site is www.reclaimingthemission.com and the church site is www.lifeonthevine.org.
Do any of you know any more emergent or missional or emergenty-missional churches that fill all three of the above three criteria? If so, I would like to hear about them. I am realizing that grandma's church will not meet the postmodern thinking, so instead of getting all bent out of shape about it, let's find those churches that are thinking that way without compromising the gospel or holiness.
Is there anyone out there answering the question as to how we get the 91%* of evangelicals much less the 96%* of everybody else between the ages of 18 and 30 into the church?
(*stats are from George Barna)
I’m not hearing a good answer from the critics and I don't believe the emergents for the most part are answering it well either. So i've been searching for some role models for us. And I think I've found at least three.
To qualify as those I would recommend they must have three bases covered well. The three are,
*A good overall as well as specific presentation of the gospel including substitutionary atonement. No moral influence theory or process conversion or Hegelian synthesis of Christianity with other religions and disciplines.
*A holiness practiced as a result of sanctification through the Holy Spirit. These leaves out both the extremes of a legalistic false holiness program of rules and laws foisted upon people (with the exception of a few outlined in the epistles), and on the other extreme the cussing and worldly talk/actions coming from many in the emergent conversation.
*A missional church not only helping people in their town but certainly those in their church. I don't want to hear how this is the social gospel. It doesn't need to be IF the gospel is preached clearly with it. And on the other extreme I don't want the hypocrisy of churches bragging how they are helping the poor when some of their elderly church members are eating dog food.
First, let me say this - all emergents are missional but not all missionals are emergent. So, I think we should understand which are emergent and which are missional and which overlap. The reason for this is because missional churches will anser the three above questions as well if not better as emergent ones. Here then are three pastors, one emergent and two missional whom I have found to be three that might give us a good model for a postmodern church.
1. New York City - David Wilkerson of Times Square Church. Here is a Pentecostal missional who has been doing the missional thing for decades. No hypocrisy here as he has been doing this for decades. He draws both rich and poor and in-between; and young and old and in-between. Website is www.tscnyc.org.
2. New York City - Tim Keller of the Reedemer Presbyterian Church. This is a Calvinist PCA church with a very old Reformation-style church service. However it is more emergenty-missional. This church also draws all ages and socio-economic groups. Web site is www.reedemer.com.
3. Long Grove, Illinois - David E. Fitch of Life on the Vine Church. He wrote the marvelous book, The Great Giveaway which I recommend. This is an emergent church, but at least in his book he qualifies because he seems to do well in all three of the above areas of gospel, holiness and missional thrust. I don't know anything about his church but I am assuming it is run the way he describes in his book. His blog site is www.reclaimingthemission.com and the church site is www.lifeonthevine.org.
Do any of you know any more emergent or missional or emergenty-missional churches that fill all three of the above three criteria? If so, I would like to hear about them. I am realizing that grandma's church will not meet the postmodern thinking, so instead of getting all bent out of shape about it, let's find those churches that are thinking that way without compromising the gospel or holiness.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Response to Yesterday's Comment
In yesterday's post there was a comment that I would like to respond to here. The reason I am blogging an answer instead of leaving my response in yesterday's comment section is because of the length of my answer.
Yesterday I quoted from a post from Slice of Laodicea about a video of an emergent-type church's baptism ceremony. In the video the pastor was cussing and people were jumping into the pool laughing. Remember, this was a baptism ceremony. The quote I used was from a commenter to that post (comment #15). I thought it summed up nicely the confusion between discipleship replacing conversion. Notice that I emphasized the word "replacing." I don't mean discipleship following conversion. I am saying in the emergent theology it precedes conversion (if there is any conversion at all). This is part of the "process conversion" theology that is sweeping many evangelical churches right now (i.e. N.T. Wright and the NPP teaching, et. al).
To answer the commenter's comment on my blog, which was why I am criticizing this and not suggesting ways to reach out to the community as the emergents are doing, here is my response.
The emergents are asking the right questions, But IMO they are getting the wrong answers. I say this after emerging myself in both emergent writings and post modern philosophy for the past year. Most of these leaders (but not all), according to their bios, grew up in evangelistic churches where they HEARD the gospel intact. By gospel I mean the historical event of the cross and why Christ went there, meaning a substitutionary atonement, NOT a moral influence atonement. For some reason, many of these emergent leaders do not agree with this belief anymore and are basically going down the liberal Protestant road.
I, on the other hand, have come out of a far different background of liberal Protestantism and know first hand where that road leads---NOWHERE!
So, when I see a whole movement flooding into the evangelical churches with little questioning and following what is basically liberal Protestant theology, I get very nervous.
EVERYONE has the right to hear about the substitutionary atonement IMO. To hide this in a Christian church IMO is abusive and cruel. What people do with it is their affair (or God's if you are a Calvinist). People cannot change through the Protestant liberal social gospel as we've seen now for the past 70 years as American society spirals downward, some as a result of their influence.
Most bloggers who are opposed to the emergent conversation stop here.
However, I won't. I won't because the questions they raise must be answered. Tomorrow I will offer three pastors I've found who I think are answering the questions well, including my commenter's questions, without compromising the true gospel of Christ.
Stay tuned.......
Yesterday I quoted from a post from Slice of Laodicea about a video of an emergent-type church's baptism ceremony. In the video the pastor was cussing and people were jumping into the pool laughing. Remember, this was a baptism ceremony. The quote I used was from a commenter to that post (comment #15). I thought it summed up nicely the confusion between discipleship replacing conversion. Notice that I emphasized the word "replacing." I don't mean discipleship following conversion. I am saying in the emergent theology it precedes conversion (if there is any conversion at all). This is part of the "process conversion" theology that is sweeping many evangelical churches right now (i.e. N.T. Wright and the NPP teaching, et. al).
To answer the commenter's comment on my blog, which was why I am criticizing this and not suggesting ways to reach out to the community as the emergents are doing, here is my response.
The emergents are asking the right questions, But IMO they are getting the wrong answers. I say this after emerging myself in both emergent writings and post modern philosophy for the past year. Most of these leaders (but not all), according to their bios, grew up in evangelistic churches where they HEARD the gospel intact. By gospel I mean the historical event of the cross and why Christ went there, meaning a substitutionary atonement, NOT a moral influence atonement. For some reason, many of these emergent leaders do not agree with this belief anymore and are basically going down the liberal Protestant road.
I, on the other hand, have come out of a far different background of liberal Protestantism and know first hand where that road leads---NOWHERE!
So, when I see a whole movement flooding into the evangelical churches with little questioning and following what is basically liberal Protestant theology, I get very nervous.
EVERYONE has the right to hear about the substitutionary atonement IMO. To hide this in a Christian church IMO is abusive and cruel. What people do with it is their affair (or God's if you are a Calvinist). People cannot change through the Protestant liberal social gospel as we've seen now for the past 70 years as American society spirals downward, some as a result of their influence.
Most bloggers who are opposed to the emergent conversation stop here.
However, I won't. I won't because the questions they raise must be answered. Tomorrow I will offer three pastors I've found who I think are answering the questions well, including my commenter's questions, without compromising the true gospel of Christ.
Stay tuned.......
Friday, July 13, 2007
Converts? Disciples? Or what?
This is such a trueism of "how" the emergents "convert" people.
You know, this seems to me very similar to that brewery church guy talking about converting “pre-disciples” into “disciples.” They take unregenerate people who don’t want to “follow” Christ, and through cool music and videos and fun events like this, make them want to “follow” Christ for a while. Of course, I question whether their concept of “following” Christ is anything recognizably Biblical.
Source: Slice of Laodicea
You know, this seems to me very similar to that brewery church guy talking about converting “pre-disciples” into “disciples.” They take unregenerate people who don’t want to “follow” Christ, and through cool music and videos and fun events like this, make them want to “follow” Christ for a while. Of course, I question whether their concept of “following” Christ is anything recognizably Biblical.
Source: Slice of Laodicea
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Christless Christianity is the New Christianity
Michael Horton is someone who introduced me to Reformation theology. Although I only have one foot over the Calvinistic line, I had no feet over that line before I read Horton. He is professor of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary, Southern California campus (Escondido, CA). He is also one of the hosts of the radio program, The White Horse Inn, and a contributor each month to Modern Reformation magazine. In the May/June issue of that magazine, Horton has written a masterpiece article entitled, Christless Christianity: Getting Into Christ's Way. You can read the entire article in the link below. I would like to share some ideas he presents in this article. Horton is right on top of what the emergents are all about. In fact, he was one of the first I read that confirmed the emergents were basically warmed-over Protestant liberals from 100 years ago.
Here are some great ideas from the article, but do read the entire article at the link below.
Much of his article is based on an idea of the philospher Kant. Horton writes,
"Kant distinguished [these in terms of] pure religion and ecclesiastical faith."
By this he means that pure religion is translated as moral faith and the cross as a moral influence. Ecclesiastical faith is the doctrine of Christ and the cross. He also talks a lot about outside and inside Christianity. The emergents and Protestant liberals want to turn Christianity into an inside religion where YOU do good works as a Jesus follower instead of doing the works because of an outside work of God in history - the cross. I've noticed that lately, some Christian philosophers, including philosopher professor James K.A. Smith of Calvin College (a fan of some emergent trends), as well as Horton in this article, is challenging the idea that emergent is postmodern only. These philosophers and theologians are arguing that it really comes straight out of the Romantic era. Horton agrees with this and also traces it back to Anabaptist-type group beginnings. While I agree with the early Anabaptists, I do understand that they got off the beam later, including the Quakers.
Horton makes a few surprising statements about how postmoderns are actually getting under law. I didn't quite understand this at first, but as he developed this idea, I was intrigued. He writes,
"...when the church's basic message is less about who Christ is and what He has accomplished once and for all for us, and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to justify all of that expense on His part, the religion that is made 'relevant' is no longer Christianity. By not thinking that 'Christ crucified' is as relevant as 'Christ and Family Values,' or 'Christ and America,' or 'Christ and World Hunger,' we end up assimilating the gospel to law."
He further writes,
"The Greeks love wisdom so show them a Jesus who is smarter at solving the conundrums of daily living and the church will throng with supporters. Jews love signs and wonders, so tell people that Jesus can help them have their best life now, or bring in the kingdom of glory, or drive out the Romans and prove their integrity before the pagans, and Jesus will be laureled with praise. But proclaim Jesus as the Suffering Servant who laid down His life and took it back up again, and everybody wonders who changed the subject."
Horton then goes into McLaren and Hauerwas as example of emergents and how they are in reality bringing back the worst of the Anabaptist movement. He correctly states (and professor Smith does this too in his book, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?), that the emergent postmodern church is simply a product of the Enlightenment era. But don't tell emergents this. They don'’t like it and I suspect would vehemently deny it.
At the end of his article, he sadly reports what I have been reading lately in other sources - that our children really have little or no Bible literacy or understanding of the gospel of the cross. Why? Because the churches are too busy teaching values and self-esteem and a works (help the poor, take care of the environment, be nice to your neighbor) program. With the exception of the environment stuff, this is exactly what was peddled to me when I grew up in my Protestant liberal church. I never heard the gospel until a Baptist friend told me in my sophomore year fo college. And as I have stated here before, I consider a Christian church, and ESPECIALLY one that calls itself evangelical that doesn't tell people about what Jesus did for them at the cross nad doesn't tell people how to get born again to be abusive. That's right! I said ABUSIVE. I refer you to Romans 10:14.
I end the post today with a quote from Donald Grey Barnhouse who Horton quotes at the beginning of his article,
First Horton: "What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshippers dragged off to City Hall. "
Next he tells what Barnhouse wrote over a half-century ago:
"..all of the bars and pool halls would be close, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer, 'Yes, sir,' No, Ma'am,' and the churches would be full on Sunday...where Christ is not preached."
Frankly that is the picture of Nazi Germany. They really cracked down on the immorality and lots of people were int he mostly liberal Nazified Protestant or Catholic churches. Meanwhile, the REAL church organized under Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller. Bonhoeffer was put to death in front of Hitler (not because of his faith but because he was part of an assassination plot against Hitler--that should be made clear but most of the time it is not). Niemoller was put into two concentration camps but survived the war era (he was treated much better than most concentration camp inmates though).
Very sobering indeed.
Link to the entire article: Christless Christianity: Getting Into Christ's Way
Here are some great ideas from the article, but do read the entire article at the link below.
Much of his article is based on an idea of the philospher Kant. Horton writes,
"Kant distinguished [these in terms of] pure religion and ecclesiastical faith."
By this he means that pure religion is translated as moral faith and the cross as a moral influence. Ecclesiastical faith is the doctrine of Christ and the cross. He also talks a lot about outside and inside Christianity. The emergents and Protestant liberals want to turn Christianity into an inside religion where YOU do good works as a Jesus follower instead of doing the works because of an outside work of God in history - the cross. I've noticed that lately, some Christian philosophers, including philosopher professor James K.A. Smith of Calvin College (a fan of some emergent trends), as well as Horton in this article, is challenging the idea that emergent is postmodern only. These philosophers and theologians are arguing that it really comes straight out of the Romantic era. Horton agrees with this and also traces it back to Anabaptist-type group beginnings. While I agree with the early Anabaptists, I do understand that they got off the beam later, including the Quakers.
Horton makes a few surprising statements about how postmoderns are actually getting under law. I didn't quite understand this at first, but as he developed this idea, I was intrigued. He writes,
"...when the church's basic message is less about who Christ is and what He has accomplished once and for all for us, and more about who we are and what we have to do in order to justify all of that expense on His part, the religion that is made 'relevant' is no longer Christianity. By not thinking that 'Christ crucified' is as relevant as 'Christ and Family Values,' or 'Christ and America,' or 'Christ and World Hunger,' we end up assimilating the gospel to law."
He further writes,
"The Greeks love wisdom so show them a Jesus who is smarter at solving the conundrums of daily living and the church will throng with supporters. Jews love signs and wonders, so tell people that Jesus can help them have their best life now, or bring in the kingdom of glory, or drive out the Romans and prove their integrity before the pagans, and Jesus will be laureled with praise. But proclaim Jesus as the Suffering Servant who laid down His life and took it back up again, and everybody wonders who changed the subject."
Horton then goes into McLaren and Hauerwas as example of emergents and how they are in reality bringing back the worst of the Anabaptist movement. He correctly states (and professor Smith does this too in his book, Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?), that the emergent postmodern church is simply a product of the Enlightenment era. But don't tell emergents this. They don'’t like it and I suspect would vehemently deny it.
At the end of his article, he sadly reports what I have been reading lately in other sources - that our children really have little or no Bible literacy or understanding of the gospel of the cross. Why? Because the churches are too busy teaching values and self-esteem and a works (help the poor, take care of the environment, be nice to your neighbor) program. With the exception of the environment stuff, this is exactly what was peddled to me when I grew up in my Protestant liberal church. I never heard the gospel until a Baptist friend told me in my sophomore year fo college. And as I have stated here before, I consider a Christian church, and ESPECIALLY one that calls itself evangelical that doesn't tell people about what Jesus did for them at the cross nad doesn't tell people how to get born again to be abusive. That's right! I said ABUSIVE. I refer you to Romans 10:14.
I end the post today with a quote from Donald Grey Barnhouse who Horton quotes at the beginning of his article,
First Horton: "What would things look like if Satan actually took over a city? The first frames in our imaginative slide show probably depict mayhem on a massive scale: Widespread violence, deviant sexualities, pornography in every vending machine, churches closed down and worshippers dragged off to City Hall. "
Next he tells what Barnhouse wrote over a half-century ago:
"..all of the bars and pool halls would be close, pornography banished, pristine streets and sidewalks would be occupied by tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The kids would answer, 'Yes, sir,' No, Ma'am,' and the churches would be full on Sunday...where Christ is not preached."
Frankly that is the picture of Nazi Germany. They really cracked down on the immorality and lots of people were int he mostly liberal Nazified Protestant or Catholic churches. Meanwhile, the REAL church organized under Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoller. Bonhoeffer was put to death in front of Hitler (not because of his faith but because he was part of an assassination plot against Hitler--that should be made clear but most of the time it is not). Niemoller was put into two concentration camps but survived the war era (he was treated much better than most concentration camp inmates though).
Very sobering indeed.
Link to the entire article: Christless Christianity: Getting Into Christ's Way
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Just Another Christless, Crossless Day
I watched TBN's Praise the Lord program twice this week...well...for an hour one day and 20 minutes another day. I just couldn't seem to get through the whole two hours. I had predicted a few years ago that you wouldn't be seeing the Word of Faith people on that program much and that they would be supplanted by the Third Wave Charismatic revivalists/prophets/apostles. And I was right. More and more these are the people showing up. There were some major prophet folks on the other night. For one hour this is essentially what I heard.
"We are raising up creative people to infiltrate Hollywood (they are referring to the biz, as we call it here)."
I've heard this same mantra for at least the past 20 years. I guess we haven't infiltrated Hollywood yet because we still have to raise up folks to do the PG-rated so-called Christian-like movies which continually flop, with the exception of the Passion. But then the Passion was about Jesus Christ the Saviour. That is something the emergent, seeker-sensitive/purpose-driven and Charismatic third wave types don't like to talk about.
When the TBN'ers weren't talking about raising up creative types, they were talking about angel's wings and the wind they produce. I am serious. I think they spent at least 15 minutes out of the hour on that one.
As I have alluded above, there always seems to be something missing from TBN these days - Jesus the Saviour who went to a cross. I really don't know how people can get born again watching TBN unless they happen to watch programs other than Praise the Lord, like Charles Stanley's or James Kennedy's programs.
Switching the subject - but not really - - in my email the other day - on the Elijah list - was an invitation to go to Ireland and Scotland with a lady who frequently gives "words" about these and other countries. Here is what you will see if you go on the tour:
A medieval abbey, then the Valley of the Angels where this lady says, angels sing every evening. The next day they visit St. Patrick's church (that is nice actually) and after that a Catholic church dedicated to St. Patrick. And then......they get to visit St. Patrick's grave. Folks, I'm not making this up. A few days later they visit a medieval monastery. A couple of days later they will see a hill where St. Patrick lit a fire. But he wasn't supposed to do that. According to our tour guide lady, he felt he was lighting the fires of Christianity in Ireland. For a few days after that they get to sightsee nice roads and glens and that is nice.
And now finally they get to Scotland where my ancestors came from and were involved in the Second Scottish Reformation (and some might have been in the first one too). OK..now we will get to see some famous Protestant (read that Presbyterian) churches that were centers fo the two Reformations. Oops. That is, I thought we would.
The first place they visit after getting into Glasgow is a place where a massacre took place. Then they go to Edinburgh and to Stirling where there is a University with some great theologians presently teaching. But they don't go there. They go to the castle there. A few days later they go to Lindsfarn where they look at more Catholic churches, monasteries and castles.
Not once on this trip does it mention going to any Protestant church or looking at any historic one or any of the historic places where Scottish Reformers did great things. I am disappointed but not surprised. The Third Wave does everything to avoid the cross and anything to do with the Reformation or any other evangelical history, except for the middle ages and the Celtics. On the other hand, they love Roman Catholicism.
Well, just another day at TBN and the Elijah Prophetic List. Another Christless, crossless day.
"We are raising up creative people to infiltrate Hollywood (they are referring to the biz, as we call it here)."
I've heard this same mantra for at least the past 20 years. I guess we haven't infiltrated Hollywood yet because we still have to raise up folks to do the PG-rated so-called Christian-like movies which continually flop, with the exception of the Passion. But then the Passion was about Jesus Christ the Saviour. That is something the emergent, seeker-sensitive/purpose-driven and Charismatic third wave types don't like to talk about.
When the TBN'ers weren't talking about raising up creative types, they were talking about angel's wings and the wind they produce. I am serious. I think they spent at least 15 minutes out of the hour on that one.
As I have alluded above, there always seems to be something missing from TBN these days - Jesus the Saviour who went to a cross. I really don't know how people can get born again watching TBN unless they happen to watch programs other than Praise the Lord, like Charles Stanley's or James Kennedy's programs.
Switching the subject - but not really - - in my email the other day - on the Elijah list - was an invitation to go to Ireland and Scotland with a lady who frequently gives "words" about these and other countries. Here is what you will see if you go on the tour:
A medieval abbey, then the Valley of the Angels where this lady says, angels sing every evening. The next day they visit St. Patrick's church (that is nice actually) and after that a Catholic church dedicated to St. Patrick. And then......they get to visit St. Patrick's grave. Folks, I'm not making this up. A few days later they visit a medieval monastery. A couple of days later they will see a hill where St. Patrick lit a fire. But he wasn't supposed to do that. According to our tour guide lady, he felt he was lighting the fires of Christianity in Ireland. For a few days after that they get to sightsee nice roads and glens and that is nice.
And now finally they get to Scotland where my ancestors came from and were involved in the Second Scottish Reformation (and some might have been in the first one too). OK..now we will get to see some famous Protestant (read that Presbyterian) churches that were centers fo the two Reformations. Oops. That is, I thought we would.
The first place they visit after getting into Glasgow is a place where a massacre took place. Then they go to Edinburgh and to Stirling where there is a University with some great theologians presently teaching. But they don't go there. They go to the castle there. A few days later they go to Lindsfarn where they look at more Catholic churches, monasteries and castles.
Not once on this trip does it mention going to any Protestant church or looking at any historic one or any of the historic places where Scottish Reformers did great things. I am disappointed but not surprised. The Third Wave does everything to avoid the cross and anything to do with the Reformation or any other evangelical history, except for the middle ages and the Celtics. On the other hand, they love Roman Catholicism.
Well, just another day at TBN and the Elijah Prophetic List. Another Christless, crossless day.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
It's Either All or Nothing
Here are two interesting news tidbits.
1) In a school in the San Diego area of California, school district officials have allowed a previously unscheduled 15 minute recess around 1:00 so that muslim students can pray. Everyone else plays. I wonder if Christians and Jews and other religions could get a prayer time when they wanted. Oh by the way, so far the ACLU has not filed a suit claiming separation of church and state.
2) The Department of Justice has removed hundreds of Christian books from prison libraries. The reason? Some muslim extremists were getting their literature into the prisons. Therefore all religious material had to be cut down. However, there might be some good news. The Bureau of Prisons says it will allow 100-150 books of each religion in as long as they are reviewed by the BOP.
1) In a school in the San Diego area of California, school district officials have allowed a previously unscheduled 15 minute recess around 1:00 so that muslim students can pray. Everyone else plays. I wonder if Christians and Jews and other religions could get a prayer time when they wanted. Oh by the way, so far the ACLU has not filed a suit claiming separation of church and state.
2) The Department of Justice has removed hundreds of Christian books from prison libraries. The reason? Some muslim extremists were getting their literature into the prisons. Therefore all religious material had to be cut down. However, there might be some good news. The Bureau of Prisons says it will allow 100-150 books of each religion in as long as they are reviewed by the BOP.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Youth Group vs. Youth Group
Chris Johnson in a Worldview Christian Network article points out something I think we need more of when discussing youth ministries. He asks what the ramifications of the pizza party-fun mentality is in so many youth groups today. Actually, we've had this sad phenomenon with us now for about 30 years. And how did those teens turn out? Well, check out many of our church leaders today in their 30's and early 40's and we'll find out. Emergent, seeker-sensitive, gospel-lite or even gospel-no and so forth. Of course there are some good leaders in this age group too.
Chris writes what I regard as one of the most profound and statements of truth I've ever read about this "pizza party" youth ministry stuff.
The objective of youth ministry is to call young people to genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. To direct them in the paths of righteousness that lead to life, to call them to a life of holiness and model this life in front of them. It is not to entertain and appease their sinful flesh.
Well finally! Someone said it out loud. Chris then points out some outcomes of this type of ministry. I call it clown youth church.
He says the first outcome is what happens to the unsaved visitor. It basically is deceptive because they promise him a good time and then try to sneak some gospel in. He is told he can go to heaven if he prays a prayer. The problem with this approach is the lack of information to make the prayer meaningful and to allow the Holy Spirit to work on the visitor's heart. It's very simlar to what I heard on Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life DVD series for small groups. At the end of the first session, after talking about God having a purpose for you in your life, Warren says in essence, "If you want this purpose in your life, why don't you accept Christ right now." Not enough background info IMO.
The second outcome Johnson discusses is the actual member of the youth group. He never or rarely hears from this group the message of sanctification and leading a holy life of repentance and Christian growth. Johnson hits it home when he says,
What we see is at best a malnourished young believer who will most certainly grow up to be a shallow self-centered Christian and worst of all he is still lost in his sinfulness without a clue that he is on His way to hell. I know these words are sobering but how long will we ignore what is happening to our young people?
The third outcome according to Johnson is the Youth Intern. He has learned only the "pizza party way of holding a youth group and simply repeats it to the next group. Johnson sums up what this leads to,
I have been around many young people and I have seen the tragic lives that they live - lives without any purpose except fulfilling their own desires. There is no devotion to Jesus and His purpose for their lives. There is no concern for the lost souls around them because it is possible that they too might be in the same boat.
And then he leaves us with this sobering thought,
My prayer is that we would return to real Biblical Christianity. Let us call this generation to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It is the only way. It is not old-fashioned nor out dated. If we don’t begin now to call these young people to a real walk with Christ based upon the truth found in the Bible, we will not only lose them but many generations after them. We must answer the call and stand Truth.
Source: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2186/Chris_Johnson
Chris writes what I regard as one of the most profound and statements of truth I've ever read about this "pizza party" youth ministry stuff.
The objective of youth ministry is to call young people to genuine repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. To direct them in the paths of righteousness that lead to life, to call them to a life of holiness and model this life in front of them. It is not to entertain and appease their sinful flesh.
Well finally! Someone said it out loud. Chris then points out some outcomes of this type of ministry. I call it clown youth church.
He says the first outcome is what happens to the unsaved visitor. It basically is deceptive because they promise him a good time and then try to sneak some gospel in. He is told he can go to heaven if he prays a prayer. The problem with this approach is the lack of information to make the prayer meaningful and to allow the Holy Spirit to work on the visitor's heart. It's very simlar to what I heard on Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life DVD series for small groups. At the end of the first session, after talking about God having a purpose for you in your life, Warren says in essence, "If you want this purpose in your life, why don't you accept Christ right now." Not enough background info IMO.
The second outcome Johnson discusses is the actual member of the youth group. He never or rarely hears from this group the message of sanctification and leading a holy life of repentance and Christian growth. Johnson hits it home when he says,
What we see is at best a malnourished young believer who will most certainly grow up to be a shallow self-centered Christian and worst of all he is still lost in his sinfulness without a clue that he is on His way to hell. I know these words are sobering but how long will we ignore what is happening to our young people?
The third outcome according to Johnson is the Youth Intern. He has learned only the "pizza party way of holding a youth group and simply repeats it to the next group. Johnson sums up what this leads to,
I have been around many young people and I have seen the tragic lives that they live - lives without any purpose except fulfilling their own desires. There is no devotion to Jesus and His purpose for their lives. There is no concern for the lost souls around them because it is possible that they too might be in the same boat.
And then he leaves us with this sobering thought,
My prayer is that we would return to real Biblical Christianity. Let us call this generation to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. It is the only way. It is not old-fashioned nor out dated. If we don’t begin now to call these young people to a real walk with Christ based upon the truth found in the Bible, we will not only lose them but many generations after them. We must answer the call and stand Truth.
Source: http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/2186/Chris_Johnson
Friday, July 06, 2007
Baby Sin
The concept of original sin is almost regarded as ludicrous by Western society today. But even in the evangelical church, many are secretly scoffing at the idea.
I wanted to bring to your attention an article I read online in the British paper, The Telegraph. In the July 1, 2007 online issue, science correspondent, Richard Gray, reports that babies may not be as innocent as some people think. He reports that behaviorial experts have found that babies as young as 6 months old lie. And how do they know this? The experts found that babies will actually fake crying and other attention getting tactics when they really don't need anything, just to get the attention. By two years of age they found that toddlers will bluff [lie] when threatened with punishment. Dr Reddy of the University of Portsmouth thinks children use early fibs to discover what kinds of lie work in certain situations, and also learn the negative consequences of lying too much.
Just thought you would like to know.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/01/scibaby101.xml
I wanted to bring to your attention an article I read online in the British paper, The Telegraph. In the July 1, 2007 online issue, science correspondent, Richard Gray, reports that babies may not be as innocent as some people think. He reports that behaviorial experts have found that babies as young as 6 months old lie. And how do they know this? The experts found that babies will actually fake crying and other attention getting tactics when they really don't need anything, just to get the attention. By two years of age they found that toddlers will bluff [lie] when threatened with punishment. Dr Reddy of the University of Portsmouth thinks children use early fibs to discover what kinds of lie work in certain situations, and also learn the negative consequences of lying too much.
Just thought you would like to know.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/01/scibaby101.xml
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Quote of the Week
We're losing, in our rush for narrative preaching, relational theology, and friendship evangelism, the clarity, urgency, and simplicity of the Cross.
and,
Evangelicals in North America may be losing their passion for evangelism. Evangelical social concern has flowered in the last several decades. We need still more of that. But we also need more evangelism, not less. And we need the two done together in holistic ministry.
Source: Christianity Today Newsletter-July 5, 2007
and,
Evangelicals in North America may be losing their passion for evangelism. Evangelical social concern has flowered in the last several decades. We need still more of that. But we also need more evangelism, not less. And we need the two done together in holistic ministry.
Source: Christianity Today Newsletter-July 5, 2007
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
A Most Exciting Prayer Meeting
The Internet Monk shows us a sad part of todays evangelical emergent and seeker-sensitives, especially when it comes to attending prayer meetings.
He writes,
Sam the Seeker doesn’t want to hear it [about prayer requests for sick people]. Twenty-somethings who came to hear about sex in the Proverbs’ series [i.e. Rob Bell's 'sex God"] don’t want to know that someone’s Aunt Agatha has cancer.
I believe the antidote to this will happen when our prayers [of intercession] begin to be answered. But as long as churches are satisfied with a 10% healing rate, or a 10% answer to any other prayer request, why would anyone want to come? It's just too discouraging. Prayer's purpose primarily is to get answers. If not, why pray? Many will answer, so God can change us in the process. Frankly, I don't see that in the New Testament. Yes, we can change through prayer for others, but prayer in the NT seems to be to get answers. Now I do realize that when praying for others, their will is involved. And that may hold up or even negate receiving some answers. But for the most part, when prayers of intercession are prayed with faith, answers should be expected. If they are not answeed, instead of copping out and be presumptious, why not seek God as to why they aren't answered. Perhaps there is some component we didn't see that needed extra prayer. Or perhaps it's a timing issue. Or some other thing. But let's ask God about it.
I would like to share this thought from James 5:14-15 with my comments in brackets:
"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church [notice the plural here--not elder], and let them [the elders] pray over him [the sick one], anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of FAITH [not the prayer of hope so] shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they [his sins] shall be forgiven him."
I wonder how many elders in churches even believe this. If they did, I believe we would see many more healings. But people need to be taught this healing in the atonement theology to pray correctly. In other words, healing should rest on the foundation of Matt. 8:17 where it says Jesus took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses. Sadly, this is a very unpopular teaching today, even in many Pentecostal churches, and certainly in Third Wave churches. Also, in my conversations and reading of blogs from Sovereign Grace charismatics, I'm not sure they place their healing on the atonement. Anyone know about their stance? To me this is the only logical place to put healing. The Third Wavers want us to place our faith in transferrence of healing from their "special people." UH, no thanks.
I would say most Christians, including, sadly, many Pentecostals and CHharismatics as well as non-C/P's want to place their healing prayers on God's "sovereignty." Since one of God's redemptive names is Jehovah Rapha--the God who heals you; or perhaps more accurately, simply, God IS healing, not God HAS healing--it would seem that God just heals because that is who He is. God is light becuse that is who He is. He is love because that is who He is. And he is healing. He doesn't have light and love--he IS light and love. The same can be carried over to healing.
Perhaps this will encourage us to pres further into the prayer of faith for healings. After all, doesn't love demand that we do that for our fellow man?
He writes,
Sam the Seeker doesn’t want to hear it [about prayer requests for sick people]. Twenty-somethings who came to hear about sex in the Proverbs’ series [i.e. Rob Bell's 'sex God"] don’t want to know that someone’s Aunt Agatha has cancer.
I believe the antidote to this will happen when our prayers [of intercession] begin to be answered. But as long as churches are satisfied with a 10% healing rate, or a 10% answer to any other prayer request, why would anyone want to come? It's just too discouraging. Prayer's purpose primarily is to get answers. If not, why pray? Many will answer, so God can change us in the process. Frankly, I don't see that in the New Testament. Yes, we can change through prayer for others, but prayer in the NT seems to be to get answers. Now I do realize that when praying for others, their will is involved. And that may hold up or even negate receiving some answers. But for the most part, when prayers of intercession are prayed with faith, answers should be expected. If they are not answeed, instead of copping out and be presumptious, why not seek God as to why they aren't answered. Perhaps there is some component we didn't see that needed extra prayer. Or perhaps it's a timing issue. Or some other thing. But let's ask God about it.
I would like to share this thought from James 5:14-15 with my comments in brackets:
"Is any sick among you? Let him call for the elders of the church [notice the plural here--not elder], and let them [the elders] pray over him [the sick one], anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of FAITH [not the prayer of hope so] shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they [his sins] shall be forgiven him."
I wonder how many elders in churches even believe this. If they did, I believe we would see many more healings. But people need to be taught this healing in the atonement theology to pray correctly. In other words, healing should rest on the foundation of Matt. 8:17 where it says Jesus took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses. Sadly, this is a very unpopular teaching today, even in many Pentecostal churches, and certainly in Third Wave churches. Also, in my conversations and reading of blogs from Sovereign Grace charismatics, I'm not sure they place their healing on the atonement. Anyone know about their stance? To me this is the only logical place to put healing. The Third Wavers want us to place our faith in transferrence of healing from their "special people." UH, no thanks.
I would say most Christians, including, sadly, many Pentecostals and CHharismatics as well as non-C/P's want to place their healing prayers on God's "sovereignty." Since one of God's redemptive names is Jehovah Rapha--the God who heals you; or perhaps more accurately, simply, God IS healing, not God HAS healing--it would seem that God just heals because that is who He is. God is light becuse that is who He is. He is love because that is who He is. And he is healing. He doesn't have light and love--he IS light and love. The same can be carried over to healing.
Perhaps this will encourage us to pres further into the prayer of faith for healings. After all, doesn't love demand that we do that for our fellow man?
Monday, July 02, 2007
Sorry Missions Boards - We Are Just Too, Too Narcissistic
I started this blog in the summer of 2004 to inform lay people about what is happening in the evangelical churches today, and especially trends that are worrisome. In that vein, I want to show today how when we cater to the culture, especially with our youth, it comes back later to bite us.
A few posts back I wrote a post in which I mentioned a book by Dr. Jean Twenge, Generation Me. Her book discusses the narcissisism of this present post-modern generation (18-35) and how the self-esteem movement was a major contribution to this. This is influencing the church today, as youth leaders, pastors and other ministry leaders all scramble to "reach" this generation, mostly with entertainment. By the way, Internet Monk has a great post today on the VBS [Vacation Bible School] craziness that is increasingly getting more about entertainment than the gospel or the BIble (you can read that post, here). The monk describes this one facet, but it's what the usual is for our youth in most churches .
But specifically what I wanted to tell you today is a post I saw a while back at Oldtruth.com, entitled, Today's Missions Decline Due To Narcissism. The title pretty well tells you what it's about. But here is a snippet from the post,
It is hard to find Christians who are willing to pay full price for discipleship. In these self-absorbed, truth resistant times, many people make decisions for Christ without ever intending to offer their entire lives for His service. This unwillingness to make sacrifices is harmful to the church in many ways, but it is especially injurious to the cause of world missions. Missionary recruiters find it increasingly difficult to identify people who are willing to devote themselves to a lifetime of Christian ministry, especially if it promises to be difficult or dangerous.
Read it and weep, huh.
A few posts back I wrote a post in which I mentioned a book by Dr. Jean Twenge, Generation Me. Her book discusses the narcissisism of this present post-modern generation (18-35) and how the self-esteem movement was a major contribution to this. This is influencing the church today, as youth leaders, pastors and other ministry leaders all scramble to "reach" this generation, mostly with entertainment. By the way, Internet Monk has a great post today on the VBS [Vacation Bible School] craziness that is increasingly getting more about entertainment than the gospel or the BIble (you can read that post, here). The monk describes this one facet, but it's what the usual is for our youth in most churches .
But specifically what I wanted to tell you today is a post I saw a while back at Oldtruth.com, entitled, Today's Missions Decline Due To Narcissism. The title pretty well tells you what it's about. But here is a snippet from the post,
It is hard to find Christians who are willing to pay full price for discipleship. In these self-absorbed, truth resistant times, many people make decisions for Christ without ever intending to offer their entire lives for His service. This unwillingness to make sacrifices is harmful to the church in many ways, but it is especially injurious to the cause of world missions. Missionary recruiters find it increasingly difficult to identify people who are willing to devote themselves to a lifetime of Christian ministry, especially if it promises to be difficult or dangerous.
Read it and weep, huh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
