Dory over at Wittenburg Gate is writing some very good posts about control in the church. This happens to be an interest of mine that I've been studying for about 25 years now, so I think I know a thing or two about it. She has hit some nails squarely on the head, so I hope you will go on over there and read the two posts she has already put up. As more in the series appear, I will keep you updated.
Part 1 of the series is Controlling Personalities in the Church.
Part 2 is Controlling Personalities in the Church:The Warning Signs.
And for further reference, my own website--covering control and codependency in the home, the workplace, the church and in governments-- is The Faustian Covenant. Each page has reading lists at the bottom divided into General reading, much of which you can obtain from your local library; and Christian reading.
The page on church control is Control and Codependency in the Church.
Actually I had already planned to do a series on this topic later in the summer after my revival series, so stay tuned.
My research showed me that the major reason for too much control in churches is what is called the set man structure. This is where the pastor--one person--basically runs the church. But it isn't Biblical as the first century church wasn't run by one person; but by a group of elders, one of which was called pastor-teacher. Adrian Warnock has a good post about this problem, Churches Lead by Teams of Very Different People Change the World.
Too much control and the resulting abuse is one major reason (but certainly not the only one) that many are leaving the church. What do these church expatriates do after leaving? Bob at TotemtoTemple takes this subject on in his post, Which Church Will YOu Flee To Next?.
Sunday, May 29, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
More on the "Anointed Ones"
I can't seem to get away from that post that Bob wrote over at TotemtoTemple about some in the ministry who think they are way above others in a sort of Darwinian social evolutionary mode.
Well, I found an interesting post at Rob Wilkerson's blog, mymiscellanies, entilted, "Seeing Jesus Christ as the One God Anointed, and Not Man."
Actually, ALL Christians, have the anointing (see I John 2:27). Some Bible commentators and Greek word studies folks, like Kenneth Wuest for example, believe the anointing spoken about in this I John passage is the Holy Spirit put within us at the time of conversion. If that is true, then the playing field is really leveled. Either that or we must say that some people have more Holy Spirit than others. Yes, I understand the concept of being filled as to not being completely filled, but how far do we take that? Do we say the filled ones are "better" and "more anointed" with the connotation of being more perfect?
Getting back to Rob's post, I really like the title of his post because it directs our eyes to Christ instead of the "ministers." In fact, Christ, as in Jesus CHRIST, is Greek for "anointed one."
This is one of my BIG gripes with the Charismatic Revival Third Wave movement. They have this non-Biblical hierarchy that Bob (TotemtoTemple) alluded to in his evolution post. But then, if one follows the Wesleyan holiness sanctification theory as many of Third Wavers do (i.e. the Head apostle, Dr. C. Peter Wagner, says he now believes this), I believe firmly that we will then embark on another terrible period of legalism in the church. We just got out of that beginning in the late 1960's; we certainly don't want to go back into it, do we?
Postnote: By the way, Rob's post is about seeing God as sending Christ, not man making up this fact. He goes on to say this will help us immensely in our evangelism efforts.
Well, I found an interesting post at Rob Wilkerson's blog, mymiscellanies, entilted, "Seeing Jesus Christ as the One God Anointed, and Not Man."
Actually, ALL Christians, have the anointing (see I John 2:27). Some Bible commentators and Greek word studies folks, like Kenneth Wuest for example, believe the anointing spoken about in this I John passage is the Holy Spirit put within us at the time of conversion. If that is true, then the playing field is really leveled. Either that or we must say that some people have more Holy Spirit than others. Yes, I understand the concept of being filled as to not being completely filled, but how far do we take that? Do we say the filled ones are "better" and "more anointed" with the connotation of being more perfect?
Getting back to Rob's post, I really like the title of his post because it directs our eyes to Christ instead of the "ministers." In fact, Christ, as in Jesus CHRIST, is Greek for "anointed one."
This is one of my BIG gripes with the Charismatic Revival Third Wave movement. They have this non-Biblical hierarchy that Bob (TotemtoTemple) alluded to in his evolution post. But then, if one follows the Wesleyan holiness sanctification theory as many of Third Wavers do (i.e. the Head apostle, Dr. C. Peter Wagner, says he now believes this), I believe firmly that we will then embark on another terrible period of legalism in the church. We just got out of that beginning in the late 1960's; we certainly don't want to go back into it, do we?
Postnote: By the way, Rob's post is about seeing God as sending Christ, not man making up this fact. He goes on to say this will help us immensely in our evangelism efforts.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Conversations With Andrea-2
Yesterday I posted a recent discussion I had with my New Zealand chat friend, Andrea. We started by discussing a post from TotemtoTemple, and then went from there. Part 1 of the discussion is here. Today is Part 2 of that conversation.
Diane: I am currently immersing myself in the history of American Revivals and I am very interested in WHAT they taught. And frankly, most of the revivalists, except for Jonathan Edwards and a few others during what is called here The First Great Awakening (early 18th century) preached a Wesleyan Holiness message after our American Revolution around 1799-1805.
Andrea: Which was?
Diane: This is when the theology began to go over to the Arminian and Holiness side. And if you go too much to that side, you can easily fall into manipulating people to accept Christ instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to draw them. Lots of show business type of stuff was happening in these revivals. One well-known revivalist at that time would practice the rising and falling of his voice so when he preached, he could achieve an effect. Others "whooped and hollered."
Andrea: Who really does the converting per se?
Diane: Exactly. You have a certain an evangelist in the Third Wave [so-called] revivals today, who on video..I saw this myself..said,
"You there..the lady in the green dress (I cannot remember the exact color...but that was the idea) come here right now...right now! (pointing at her) You! Come here and accept Christ!"
That is about the most horrible thing I've seen.
Andrea: Oh that is horrible. It has all turned into rules and regulations and methods but salvation isn't like that.
Diane: Yes, I was in shock when I saw that video. This wasn't just some rumor I heard, this is something I saw myself. I am reading Finney's Lectures on Revival and he does have some good things to say but some of his theology is whack. He got people all excited because he really felt that the Holy Spirit could work better to bring them to Christ that way.
Well, getting back to what Bob wrote. The reason what Bob describes is not God is because of the fruit it produces. The evolution he is describing I think is truly a more social Darwinian type.
Andrea: Yes, that would make sense but I think it is very insightful what he has to say; that this evolution in the church ala these new doctrines etc. and is related to the idea of the survival of the fittest and tends to weed out ones as it evolves. But where is it evolving to? I personally do not see this type of evolution or survival of the fittest mentality in scripture.
Diane: The apostles were taught a type of opposite--being a servant to be a leader.
Andrea: God takes the weak things of this world to confound the wise.
Diane: Absolutely.
Andrea: God's ways are so different from man's. I am seeing this more and more, and know I have to get my thinking in line with His ways not the world's. Even the world is in the church, which of course IMO it has permeated, so that the gospel and importance of scripture generally has been shoved to one side.
Diane: Yes, sigh; I agree with you on that completely.
The End
Diane: I am currently immersing myself in the history of American Revivals and I am very interested in WHAT they taught. And frankly, most of the revivalists, except for Jonathan Edwards and a few others during what is called here The First Great Awakening (early 18th century) preached a Wesleyan Holiness message after our American Revolution around 1799-1805.
Andrea: Which was?
Diane: This is when the theology began to go over to the Arminian and Holiness side. And if you go too much to that side, you can easily fall into manipulating people to accept Christ instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to draw them. Lots of show business type of stuff was happening in these revivals. One well-known revivalist at that time would practice the rising and falling of his voice so when he preached, he could achieve an effect. Others "whooped and hollered."
Andrea: Who really does the converting per se?
Diane: Exactly. You have a certain an evangelist in the Third Wave [so-called] revivals today, who on video..I saw this myself..said,
"You there..the lady in the green dress (I cannot remember the exact color...but that was the idea) come here right now...right now! (pointing at her) You! Come here and accept Christ!"
That is about the most horrible thing I've seen.
Andrea: Oh that is horrible. It has all turned into rules and regulations and methods but salvation isn't like that.
Diane: Yes, I was in shock when I saw that video. This wasn't just some rumor I heard, this is something I saw myself. I am reading Finney's Lectures on Revival and he does have some good things to say but some of his theology is whack. He got people all excited because he really felt that the Holy Spirit could work better to bring them to Christ that way.
Well, getting back to what Bob wrote. The reason what Bob describes is not God is because of the fruit it produces. The evolution he is describing I think is truly a more social Darwinian type.
Andrea: Yes, that would make sense but I think it is very insightful what he has to say; that this evolution in the church ala these new doctrines etc. and is related to the idea of the survival of the fittest and tends to weed out ones as it evolves. But where is it evolving to? I personally do not see this type of evolution or survival of the fittest mentality in scripture.
Diane: The apostles were taught a type of opposite--being a servant to be a leader.
Andrea: God takes the weak things of this world to confound the wise.
Diane: Absolutely.
Andrea: God's ways are so different from man's. I am seeing this more and more, and know I have to get my thinking in line with His ways not the world's. Even the world is in the church, which of course IMO it has permeated, so that the gospel and importance of scripture generally has been shoved to one side.
Diane: Yes, sigh; I agree with you on that completely.
The End
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Conversations With Andrea-1
Bob at TotemtoTemple has written a fascinating post in which he asks if there is a sort of spiritual "evolution" of certain Christian leaders who have "arrived." I asked my good chat friend, Andrea, to read his post and tell me her observations. So here are snippets from the conversation we had on Instant Messaging. As you can see, Bob's post was just a jumping off point as we began to cover similar points.
Diane: Did you read Bob's post about evolution?
Andrea: Yes, I did read it and I thought he made some amazing points in it. I had never seen it that way before but it made sense to me, the spiritualizing of the survival of the fittest into the church. I can see what he is saying and how it has happened. BUT is this the Lord? In other words, is God into the survival of the fittest in the church?
Diane: He is almost describing a social Darwinism; that is the survival of the fittest, but socially. The head Christian honchos not only survive, but get the glory while the lowest peon Christians sort of fall by the wayside.
Andrea: So do you think what Bob has said has merit then? That there is this survival of the fittest (most spiritual) in the church today? That it is evolving that way?
Diane: Well, after reading his post as well as reading and hearing some things from Andrew Strom, I felt I had to begin to study Wesleyan holiness theology a little more since that seems to be a part of it.
I remember Dr. Peter Wagner, a Third Waver, saying that he believes certain Christians are sinless..that they arrive into a sinless state during their lifetime.
I do see the sanctification process as sort of an evolutionary process, if you define the primitive meaning of that word as going to a higher level. In other words, as the Spirit crucifies our flesh, we "evolve" to a more sanctified life. But I think Wesley and Finney went too far, as now Dr. Wagner seems to be doing.
I did a search at Google on what the Wesleys really taught on this and frankly, I found it to be confusing. At first it did seem to be that J. Wesley said he believed in a perfectness for some but then he seemed to backtrack. He says that mistakes are all right. Mistakes don't interfere with one being made perfect in love. He stresses being made perfect in love. In other words, if your love is perfect, you are perfect. My question would be, let's really define "mistakes."
Andrea: So then, do some reach this state of sinlessness in this life? And if they do, do they know it? For surely the closer you get to the Lord Himself the more sinful you must see yourself. His light would show up the darkness and sin in us.
Diane: I think you are making an excellent point. I certainly don't believe sin is completely wiped out as long as we are alive. But Wesley said, and I am quoting him, "All inward sin is taken away in a perfected Christian." I wondered what John Wesley would do with I John 1:8 where it says if we say we have no sin we lie. So here is his explanation. He uses vs. 10 of that chapter to say that it is talking about when a perfected one USED to sin. Obviously, I do not agree with that interpretation.
Andrea: Are you talking about the ability to sin, or 'sin' the inherent nature in us because of the Fall?
Diane: I don't personally think anyone is without sin. It is inherent.
Andrea: No, I don't either. I don't think we can escape the inherent sin nature we were conceived with; the depths of depravity of the human heart.
Diane: Yes, that is the classic Reformed view and I tend to agree. However, do we ever improve?
Andrea: Well I don't think we do improve per say. I think what happens as we die to self (decrease), Christ increases in us and it is HIS life that comes forth from us, not our goodness or whatever.
Christ in us not we ourselves. We cannot claim any credit for being holy or righteous. It is all His. And I only think any 'improvement' to use your word is from death to self. Not self controlling whatever with external rules.
Diane: Well then, can Christ shine through us 100%?
Andrea: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if we can ever be 100% dead to self. As Paul said, "It is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me."
Diane: I do know I have changed.
Andrea: Oh I know I have changed too. But I believe that has been changes that Christ and Christ alone has wrought in me and not something I have done as a result of self-improvement. I cannot claim the credit for the changes. But know they have happened. I know they would not have happened without Christ.
Diane: Oh I quite agree. It isn't through self-improvement. If there is any improvement; that is "evolution," it is God through His Spirit who has wrought it.
Andrea: But there is still sin, rebellion and I think it must be an ongoing lifetime process and involves repentance and obedience.
Diane: I agree
Andrea: But does anyone ever achieve 100% death to self? I do not know.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Diane: Did you read Bob's post about evolution?
Andrea: Yes, I did read it and I thought he made some amazing points in it. I had never seen it that way before but it made sense to me, the spiritualizing of the survival of the fittest into the church. I can see what he is saying and how it has happened. BUT is this the Lord? In other words, is God into the survival of the fittest in the church?
Diane: He is almost describing a social Darwinism; that is the survival of the fittest, but socially. The head Christian honchos not only survive, but get the glory while the lowest peon Christians sort of fall by the wayside.
Andrea: So do you think what Bob has said has merit then? That there is this survival of the fittest (most spiritual) in the church today? That it is evolving that way?
Diane: Well, after reading his post as well as reading and hearing some things from Andrew Strom, I felt I had to begin to study Wesleyan holiness theology a little more since that seems to be a part of it.
I remember Dr. Peter Wagner, a Third Waver, saying that he believes certain Christians are sinless..that they arrive into a sinless state during their lifetime.
I do see the sanctification process as sort of an evolutionary process, if you define the primitive meaning of that word as going to a higher level. In other words, as the Spirit crucifies our flesh, we "evolve" to a more sanctified life. But I think Wesley and Finney went too far, as now Dr. Wagner seems to be doing.
I did a search at Google on what the Wesleys really taught on this and frankly, I found it to be confusing. At first it did seem to be that J. Wesley said he believed in a perfectness for some but then he seemed to backtrack. He says that mistakes are all right. Mistakes don't interfere with one being made perfect in love. He stresses being made perfect in love. In other words, if your love is perfect, you are perfect. My question would be, let's really define "mistakes."
Andrea: So then, do some reach this state of sinlessness in this life? And if they do, do they know it? For surely the closer you get to the Lord Himself the more sinful you must see yourself. His light would show up the darkness and sin in us.
Diane: I think you are making an excellent point. I certainly don't believe sin is completely wiped out as long as we are alive. But Wesley said, and I am quoting him, "All inward sin is taken away in a perfected Christian." I wondered what John Wesley would do with I John 1:8 where it says if we say we have no sin we lie. So here is his explanation. He uses vs. 10 of that chapter to say that it is talking about when a perfected one USED to sin. Obviously, I do not agree with that interpretation.
Andrea: Are you talking about the ability to sin, or 'sin' the inherent nature in us because of the Fall?
Diane: I don't personally think anyone is without sin. It is inherent.
Andrea: No, I don't either. I don't think we can escape the inherent sin nature we were conceived with; the depths of depravity of the human heart.
Diane: Yes, that is the classic Reformed view and I tend to agree. However, do we ever improve?
Andrea: Well I don't think we do improve per say. I think what happens as we die to self (decrease), Christ increases in us and it is HIS life that comes forth from us, not our goodness or whatever.
Christ in us not we ourselves. We cannot claim any credit for being holy or righteous. It is all His. And I only think any 'improvement' to use your word is from death to self. Not self controlling whatever with external rules.
Diane: Well then, can Christ shine through us 100%?
Andrea: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't know if we can ever be 100% dead to self. As Paul said, "It is no longer I that liveth but Christ that liveth in me."
Diane: I do know I have changed.
Andrea: Oh I know I have changed too. But I believe that has been changes that Christ and Christ alone has wrought in me and not something I have done as a result of self-improvement. I cannot claim the credit for the changes. But know they have happened. I know they would not have happened without Christ.
Diane: Oh I quite agree. It isn't through self-improvement. If there is any improvement; that is "evolution," it is God through His Spirit who has wrought it.
Andrea: But there is still sin, rebellion and I think it must be an ongoing lifetime process and involves repentance and obedience.
Diane: I agree
Andrea: But does anyone ever achieve 100% death to self? I do not know.
(To be continued tomorrow)
Monday, May 23, 2005
One to Change a Village
My missionary friend had a large comment to make about my previous post, Change Through Salvation. I particularly liked the clever last three sentences of her comment.
She and her husband were missionaries to Indonesian Borneo for 11 years, from 1954 to 1965.
She writes,
"When we were in Kalimantan Barat, a teenager came to our school, and somehow, whether my husband spoke to him or whether he learned about the Lord in school, he came to faith in Christ. He was just a cute little Dayak fellow named Leyoon. Nothing special about him that we could see. He went back to his village and some time later came to visit us again and told us that the entire village, all but the Chinese storekeeper, had believed in the Lord. He just told them what just what had been told to him about the Lord Jesus Christ. He told us they were all waiting to be baptized and he said he wanted my husband to come and teach them what to do next. When we went there, we found the village clean and the people smiling at us. We usually found people smiling at us, but only until they discovered that we had something new to tell them that would change their lives and save their souls. If they did not wish to change from their animistic beliefs, then there were no more smiles. But these people gave us the best bed in Leyoon's house, complete with bedbugs, they cooked delicious food for us, and they wanted to be baptized; my husband complied.
There was a school house in a clear area between the houses that was just perfect for meetings of the new church, so my husband began to teach them. That same young man, now approaching 70 years of age, is still evangelizing villages. We send him some monetary help from time to time. He told us when he went to one of his villages, he was having to walk about twelve hours on Saturday to be at the village to teach them on Sunday Mornings. Then on Monday, he would start back home again. He has a bike with a motor on it now.
Hillary Clinton said, 'It takes a village to raise a child.' In this case, it took just one teenager to raise a village. Even several villages. "
She and her husband were missionaries to Indonesian Borneo for 11 years, from 1954 to 1965.
She writes,
"When we were in Kalimantan Barat, a teenager came to our school, and somehow, whether my husband spoke to him or whether he learned about the Lord in school, he came to faith in Christ. He was just a cute little Dayak fellow named Leyoon. Nothing special about him that we could see. He went back to his village and some time later came to visit us again and told us that the entire village, all but the Chinese storekeeper, had believed in the Lord. He just told them what just what had been told to him about the Lord Jesus Christ. He told us they were all waiting to be baptized and he said he wanted my husband to come and teach them what to do next. When we went there, we found the village clean and the people smiling at us. We usually found people smiling at us, but only until they discovered that we had something new to tell them that would change their lives and save their souls. If they did not wish to change from their animistic beliefs, then there were no more smiles. But these people gave us the best bed in Leyoon's house, complete with bedbugs, they cooked delicious food for us, and they wanted to be baptized; my husband complied.
There was a school house in a clear area between the houses that was just perfect for meetings of the new church, so my husband began to teach them. That same young man, now approaching 70 years of age, is still evangelizing villages. We send him some monetary help from time to time. He told us when he went to one of his villages, he was having to walk about twelve hours on Saturday to be at the village to teach them on Sunday Mornings. Then on Monday, he would start back home again. He has a bike with a motor on it now.
Hillary Clinton said, 'It takes a village to raise a child.' In this case, it took just one teenager to raise a village. Even several villages. "
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Change Through Salvation
I once heard a Christian speaker say that if one person gets saved, then perhaps other members of their family would be saved and change will occur. And if families get saved, then neighborhoods will change. If neighborhoods change, towns will change. If towns change, states/provinces will change. If states/provinces change, then the country will change. If countries change, the world changes. You get the idea.
Peter at Stronger Church has the right idea IMO. If we preach the true [mostly Reformed] gospel, it will produce. Will it cause revival? Was the Reformation a revival? I think it was. Here is a testimony from a woman in Peter's church who certainly had her own revival. Now if we could duplicate that many times over, there would be a truly transforming experience in our churches, which eventually would certainly spread to our city or town.
Peter relates,
I had the neatest experience this week. There is a young woman in our small group who has been attending our church since December. She and her husband are new to the Christian faith within the last year. As we discussed the meaning of Romans 3:21-26, it was so cool to hear her articulate - not in perfect theology-text language - the meaning of justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and her realization that in order to be right with God she needed to do nothing but wholly embrace Christ by faith as her hope of righteousness. Those of you who minister will understand it when I say that I had a profound sense of joy - not in me, but in the power of the Word in the hands of the Spirit.
Peter at Stronger Church has the right idea IMO. If we preach the true [mostly Reformed] gospel, it will produce. Will it cause revival? Was the Reformation a revival? I think it was. Here is a testimony from a woman in Peter's church who certainly had her own revival. Now if we could duplicate that many times over, there would be a truly transforming experience in our churches, which eventually would certainly spread to our city or town.
Peter relates,
I had the neatest experience this week. There is a young woman in our small group who has been attending our church since December. She and her husband are new to the Christian faith within the last year. As we discussed the meaning of Romans 3:21-26, it was so cool to hear her articulate - not in perfect theology-text language - the meaning of justification and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and her realization that in order to be right with God she needed to do nothing but wholly embrace Christ by faith as her hope of righteousness. Those of you who minister will understand it when I say that I had a profound sense of joy - not in me, but in the power of the Word in the hands of the Spirit.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Revival-Serious Business
As you have gathered by now, I am a huge fan of the Slice of Laodicea blog hosted by Ingrid Schlueter. The following is the end of her post on Christian comedians in which she asks the very important question:
Should we use levity to bring in unbelievers to the fold? Or perhaps, should we begin to get really serious? She then quotes a part of a sermon given by the famed Scottish preacher, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, which by the way is very reflective of what the early American revivalists were preaching.
Ingrid writes,
This was a sermon he preached on hell. He would spend hours weeping over the list of names on his church roll, praying for all of those under his care. In this sermon, I see no humor employed as he pleads for souls to turn to Christ.
"...To you that are seeking Christ anxiously. I know some of you are. Dear soul, what a mercy in God to awaken you to flee from this fiery furnace! Oh, what a mercy to be awakened to flee, to be in earnest! Ah! your unconverted friends will tell you there is no need of being so anxious. Oh, is there no need to flee from the wrath to come? Oh learn, dear soul, how precious Christ is; he is a hiding place from the wind, and covert from the tempest. All the things in the world are like speck of dust, all is lost for Jesus. He is all in all. He is free to you, beloved; take no rest till you can say, 'He is mine.'
Thirdly, to you that are unconverted. Ah! you are fools and you think you are wise; but oh I beseech you, search the Scriptures. Do not take my word about an eternal hell; it is the testimony of God, when he spoke about it. Oh if it be true - if there be a furnace of fire, if there be a second death, if it is not annihilation, but an eternal hell - oh is it reasonable to go on living in sin? You think you are wise, that you are no fanatic, that you are no hypocrite; but you will soon gnash your teeth in pain; it will come; and the bitterest thought will be, that you heard about hell, and yet rejected Christ. 0 then, turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die? Amen."
And I say amen to both Mr. M'Cheyne and to Ingrid.
Should we use levity to bring in unbelievers to the fold? Or perhaps, should we begin to get really serious? She then quotes a part of a sermon given by the famed Scottish preacher, Robert Murray M'Cheyne, which by the way is very reflective of what the early American revivalists were preaching.
Ingrid writes,
This was a sermon he preached on hell. He would spend hours weeping over the list of names on his church roll, praying for all of those under his care. In this sermon, I see no humor employed as he pleads for souls to turn to Christ.
"...To you that are seeking Christ anxiously. I know some of you are. Dear soul, what a mercy in God to awaken you to flee from this fiery furnace! Oh, what a mercy to be awakened to flee, to be in earnest! Ah! your unconverted friends will tell you there is no need of being so anxious. Oh, is there no need to flee from the wrath to come? Oh learn, dear soul, how precious Christ is; he is a hiding place from the wind, and covert from the tempest. All the things in the world are like speck of dust, all is lost for Jesus. He is all in all. He is free to you, beloved; take no rest till you can say, 'He is mine.'
Thirdly, to you that are unconverted. Ah! you are fools and you think you are wise; but oh I beseech you, search the Scriptures. Do not take my word about an eternal hell; it is the testimony of God, when he spoke about it. Oh if it be true - if there be a furnace of fire, if there be a second death, if it is not annihilation, but an eternal hell - oh is it reasonable to go on living in sin? You think you are wise, that you are no fanatic, that you are no hypocrite; but you will soon gnash your teeth in pain; it will come; and the bitterest thought will be, that you heard about hell, and yet rejected Christ. 0 then, turn ye, turn ye, why will ye die? Amen."
And I say amen to both Mr. M'Cheyne and to Ingrid.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Revival: McGready
I want to know what a true revival is. So I am reading this summer about the historical revivals here in the USA. Over the next few months, from time to time here, I will be reporting on my study of these revivals which occurred in three time periods: the middle 18th century in New England and the middle colonies; the late 18th-early 19th centuries in the Kentucky-Tennessee-Carolinas areas; the Finney revivals of the early 19th century; and, the revivals of the late 19th-early 20th centuries, including Moody and the Pentecostal ones. I also want to study the Welsh revival of the early 20th century.
I am particularly interested in WHAT the revivalists taught. Was it the Reformed message? Or was it a Wesleyan-Holiness message? Or, perhaps a combination of both?
So to begin, James McGready, a Presbyterian pastor (how about that--a Presbyterian revivalist...:)--felt called to what was in 1796 the frontier--namely the Kentucky-Tennessee Cumberland area. He asked his parishioners--those who wished to--if they would sign a covenant to pray for a revival of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit over that area. The result seemed to be the famous Cane Ridge, Kentucky revivals coming about in 1801. Here is the McGready covenant:
"When we consider the word and promises of a compassionate God, to the poor lost family of Adam, we find the strongest encouragement for Christians to pray in faith--to ask in the name of Jesus for the conversion of their fellow-men. None ever went to Christ, when on earth, with the case of their friends that were denied, and although the days of His humiliation are ended, yet for the encouragement of His people, He has left it on record, that when two or three agree upon the earth, to ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done. Again, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. With these promises before us we feel encouraged to unite our supplications to a prayer-hearing God, for the out-pouring of His Spirit, that His people may be quickened and comforted, and that our children and sinners, generally, may be converted.
Therefore we bind ourselves to observe the third Saturday of each month, for one year, as a day of fasting and prayer, for the conversion of sinners in Logan County, and throughout the world. We also engage to spend one-half hour every Saturday evening, beginning at the setting of the sun, and one-half hour every Sabbath morning, at the rising of the sun, in pleading with God to revive His work."
(from Great Revival in the West: 1997-1805 by Catharine C. Cleveland)
I am particularly interested in WHAT the revivalists taught. Was it the Reformed message? Or was it a Wesleyan-Holiness message? Or, perhaps a combination of both?
So to begin, James McGready, a Presbyterian pastor (how about that--a Presbyterian revivalist...:)--felt called to what was in 1796 the frontier--namely the Kentucky-Tennessee Cumberland area. He asked his parishioners--those who wished to--if they would sign a covenant to pray for a revival of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit over that area. The result seemed to be the famous Cane Ridge, Kentucky revivals coming about in 1801. Here is the McGready covenant:
"When we consider the word and promises of a compassionate God, to the poor lost family of Adam, we find the strongest encouragement for Christians to pray in faith--to ask in the name of Jesus for the conversion of their fellow-men. None ever went to Christ, when on earth, with the case of their friends that were denied, and although the days of His humiliation are ended, yet for the encouragement of His people, He has left it on record, that when two or three agree upon the earth, to ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done. Again, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. With these promises before us we feel encouraged to unite our supplications to a prayer-hearing God, for the out-pouring of His Spirit, that His people may be quickened and comforted, and that our children and sinners, generally, may be converted.
Therefore we bind ourselves to observe the third Saturday of each month, for one year, as a day of fasting and prayer, for the conversion of sinners in Logan County, and throughout the world. We also engage to spend one-half hour every Saturday evening, beginning at the setting of the sun, and one-half hour every Sabbath morning, at the rising of the sun, in pleading with God to revive His work."
(from Great Revival in the West: 1997-1805 by Catharine C. Cleveland)
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Preaching to Believers or Non-Believers?
Blogotional and Adrian Warnock are asking who the targeted audience should be in our preaching? In other words, do we preach to a Christian orientation only? Or to a non-Christian orientation? Or perhaps both as Jolyblogger suggests.
This will probably be a minority view on the subject but I have always firmly believe that church is for Christians, not essentially for non-Christians. The Greek word for church, eklesia, means "called out ones." That means Christians. The epistles of the New Testament for example, are all written TO believers.
So let's run down every aspect of the church's programs.
Worship Time (music): Does God accept the worship of nonbelievers OUTSIDE of Christ who do NOT have the Holy Spirit within? Interesting question isn't it?
Prayer Time: Does God accept non-Christians' prayers outside of the prayer of repentance for salvation?
Preaching/ Teaching Time: Should Christians sit week after week listening to sermons for non-Christians or even watered-down teachings so as to not "offend" the sensibilities of non-believers?
Small Group Time: Should small groups have non-Christians discussing and praying for and dispensing advice to Christians ala the Saddleback method?
Evangelism time: Should non-Christians be evangelizing themselves?
Blogotional asks how we answer this question in relation to Hebrews 6:1,2 which says,
"1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
Well, the central question should be--is it written to Christians or to non-Christians?
The answer is--To Christians. this is evident throughout the entire epistle.
So, then how are nonbelievers reached?
Two key scriptures will tell us.
First, in Acts 1:8 it says we shall BE witnesses. Note that it doesn't say "will witness" (active voice) but rather "WILL BE" (passive voice). This doesn't mean we are to do nothing, but rather we are to allow the Holy Spirit to bring to us those, and those to us, to whom we will be witnesses. Then, after that another verse kicks in-Col. 4:6,
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
I will relent a tad. I had a pastor who explained at the end of each service what Warnock calls "the Simple Gospel." Then he invited people who wanted to receive Christ to raise their hands while everyone was praying. Those that received Christ were invited to come up at the end of the service for prayer and instruction. This is a good way to extend the grace of Christ to those outside the fold.
I will even relent a tad further. At times during the year, perhaps during the Christmas and Easter seasons, the pastor certainly should review the gospel for the entire congregation, thus picking up any non-believers present.
However, most churches today present a watered down teaching because they don't wish to offend both the Christians and non-Christians present; or, they want to reach the unsaved; or, they don't think Christians can fulfill Hebrews 6:1,2; and a myriad of other reasons. I call churches to buckle down and get serious about lifting up their teaching to the next level. And along the way, the unbeliever will be able to come into the understanding too as we also preach the gospel to them at appropriate times.
This will probably be a minority view on the subject but I have always firmly believe that church is for Christians, not essentially for non-Christians. The Greek word for church, eklesia, means "called out ones." That means Christians. The epistles of the New Testament for example, are all written TO believers.
So let's run down every aspect of the church's programs.
Worship Time (music): Does God accept the worship of nonbelievers OUTSIDE of Christ who do NOT have the Holy Spirit within? Interesting question isn't it?
Prayer Time: Does God accept non-Christians' prayers outside of the prayer of repentance for salvation?
Preaching/ Teaching Time: Should Christians sit week after week listening to sermons for non-Christians or even watered-down teachings so as to not "offend" the sensibilities of non-believers?
Small Group Time: Should small groups have non-Christians discussing and praying for and dispensing advice to Christians ala the Saddleback method?
Evangelism time: Should non-Christians be evangelizing themselves?
Blogotional asks how we answer this question in relation to Hebrews 6:1,2 which says,
"1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
Well, the central question should be--is it written to Christians or to non-Christians?
The answer is--To Christians. this is evident throughout the entire epistle.
So, then how are nonbelievers reached?
Two key scriptures will tell us.
First, in Acts 1:8 it says we shall BE witnesses. Note that it doesn't say "will witness" (active voice) but rather "WILL BE" (passive voice). This doesn't mean we are to do nothing, but rather we are to allow the Holy Spirit to bring to us those, and those to us, to whom we will be witnesses. Then, after that another verse kicks in-Col. 4:6,
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
I will relent a tad. I had a pastor who explained at the end of each service what Warnock calls "the Simple Gospel." Then he invited people who wanted to receive Christ to raise their hands while everyone was praying. Those that received Christ were invited to come up at the end of the service for prayer and instruction. This is a good way to extend the grace of Christ to those outside the fold.
I will even relent a tad further. At times during the year, perhaps during the Christmas and Easter seasons, the pastor certainly should review the gospel for the entire congregation, thus picking up any non-believers present.
However, most churches today present a watered down teaching because they don't wish to offend both the Christians and non-Christians present; or, they want to reach the unsaved; or, they don't think Christians can fulfill Hebrews 6:1,2; and a myriad of other reasons. I call churches to buckle down and get serious about lifting up their teaching to the next level. And along the way, the unbeliever will be able to come into the understanding too as we also preach the gospel to them at appropriate times.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Africa Earned Its Debt
"Eat all your dinner. Remember the starving children in China."
These words were spoken to many children in the era in which I grew up. Today, the words are almost the same except Africa is often substituted for China.
As Christians I'm sure we are all appalled and sickened by the constant famine, disease (AIDS especially comes to mind) and the continual war and genocides. In keeping with this blog, in which I present both sides of many issues instead of taking the most "Christian politically correct side," I want to present to you readers an Op/Ed article in the New York Times, October 6, 2004 issue by Robert Guest, Africa editor for The Economist. Mr. Guest essentially says that no matter how much money either our government or non-government agencies send to Africa, most of it never finds its way to the people because of graft and bribery, and corruption.
He writes,
"Nigeria, like much of Africa, ought to be rich but is miserably poor. The main reason is that rather than striving to create an environment in which their people can freely seek prosperity and happiness, most African governments have chosen instead to rob them. This culture
of criminality has spread throughout the ruling class, down to the Nigerian border guard who threatened to beat up my driver last month if I didn't give him a dollar, to the bribe-hungry Cameroonian police officers who stopped a truck I was riding in 47 times in 300 miles."
He continues,
"This corruption makes it hard to do business in Africa.
Manufacturers need smooth roads, reliable electricity and
efficient ports. But too often in Africa, the roads are
craterous because someone has looted the maintenance
budget, the power fails because the state monopoly utility
company is staffed with politicians' idiot cousins, and the
customs officers hang onto your goods for weeks in the hope
that you will bribe them to hurry up. In only two African
countries - South Africa and Botswana - is it relatively
easy to do business, a recent World Bank study found. For
bright, energetic Africans, it is often easier to get rich
by joining the government than by creating honest wealth."
Mr. Guest's solution?
"Outsiders cannot fundamentally change the way Africa is
governed. That is a task for Africans themselves, and some
are rising to the challenge. In Nigeria, President Obasanjo
has hired a team of technocrats to curb corruption by
making the public accounts more transparent. They are doing
their best, but one of them told me that probably no more
than one powerful Nigerian in 20 supports the clean-up.
That in a nutshell is why Africans are poor: their leaders
keep them that way."
And so there you have it? How are Christian agencies responding and how do they get around this corruption and mismanagement? Or do they? Are we contributors just throwing our money away? I think it's a very important question to ask.
These words were spoken to many children in the era in which I grew up. Today, the words are almost the same except Africa is often substituted for China.
As Christians I'm sure we are all appalled and sickened by the constant famine, disease (AIDS especially comes to mind) and the continual war and genocides. In keeping with this blog, in which I present both sides of many issues instead of taking the most "Christian politically correct side," I want to present to you readers an Op/Ed article in the New York Times, October 6, 2004 issue by Robert Guest, Africa editor for The Economist. Mr. Guest essentially says that no matter how much money either our government or non-government agencies send to Africa, most of it never finds its way to the people because of graft and bribery, and corruption.
He writes,
"Nigeria, like much of Africa, ought to be rich but is miserably poor. The main reason is that rather than striving to create an environment in which their people can freely seek prosperity and happiness, most African governments have chosen instead to rob them. This culture
of criminality has spread throughout the ruling class, down to the Nigerian border guard who threatened to beat up my driver last month if I didn't give him a dollar, to the bribe-hungry Cameroonian police officers who stopped a truck I was riding in 47 times in 300 miles."
He continues,
"This corruption makes it hard to do business in Africa.
Manufacturers need smooth roads, reliable electricity and
efficient ports. But too often in Africa, the roads are
craterous because someone has looted the maintenance
budget, the power fails because the state monopoly utility
company is staffed with politicians' idiot cousins, and the
customs officers hang onto your goods for weeks in the hope
that you will bribe them to hurry up. In only two African
countries - South Africa and Botswana - is it relatively
easy to do business, a recent World Bank study found. For
bright, energetic Africans, it is often easier to get rich
by joining the government than by creating honest wealth."
Mr. Guest's solution?
"Outsiders cannot fundamentally change the way Africa is
governed. That is a task for Africans themselves, and some
are rising to the challenge. In Nigeria, President Obasanjo
has hired a team of technocrats to curb corruption by
making the public accounts more transparent. They are doing
their best, but one of them told me that probably no more
than one powerful Nigerian in 20 supports the clean-up.
That in a nutshell is why Africans are poor: their leaders
keep them that way."
And so there you have it? How are Christian agencies responding and how do they get around this corruption and mismanagement? Or do they? Are we contributors just throwing our money away? I think it's a very important question to ask.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
1974 vs. 2004
Before I go into heavy, heavy blog topics next week, here is some levty for us old folks.
1974: Long hair
2004: Longing for hair
1974: KEG
2004: EKG
1974: Acid rock
2004: Acid reflux
1974: Moving to California because it's cool
2004: Moving to California because it's warm
1974: Trying to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor
2004: Trying NOT to look like Marlon
Brando or Liz Taylor
1974: Seeds and stems
2004: Roughage
1974: Hoping for a BMW
2004: Hoping for a BM
1974: The Grateful Dead
2004: Dr. Kevorkian
1974: Going to a new, hip joint
2004: Receiving a new hip joint
1974: Rolling Stones
2004: Kidney Stones
1974: Being called into the principal's office
2004: Calling the principal's office
1974: Screw the system
2004: Upgrade the system
1974: Disco
2004: Costco
1974: Parents begging you to get your hair cut
2004: Children begging you to get their heads shaved
1974: Passing the drivers test
2004: Passing the vision test
1974: Whatever
2004: Depends
Just in case you weren't feeling too old today, this will certainly change
things.
The people who are starting college this fall across the nation were born
in 1986.
They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.
Their lifetime has always included AIDS.
Bottle caps have always been screw off and plastic.
The CD was introduced the year they were born.
They have always had an answering machine.
They have always had cable.
They cannot fathom not having a remote control.
Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight
Show.
Popcorn has always been cooked in the
microwave.
They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
They can't imagine what hard contact lenses are.
They don't know who Mork was or where he was from.
They never heard: "Where's the Beef?", "I'd ! walk a mile for a Camel", or
"de plane, Boss, de plane".
They do not care who shot J. R. and have no idea who J. R. even is.
McDonald's never came in Styrofoam containers.
They don't have a clue how to use a typewriter.
1974: Long hair
2004: Longing for hair
1974: KEG
2004: EKG
1974: Acid rock
2004: Acid reflux
1974: Moving to California because it's cool
2004: Moving to California because it's warm
1974: Trying to look like Marlon Brando or Liz Taylor
2004: Trying NOT to look like Marlon
Brando or Liz Taylor
1974: Seeds and stems
2004: Roughage
1974: Hoping for a BMW
2004: Hoping for a BM
1974: The Grateful Dead
2004: Dr. Kevorkian
1974: Going to a new, hip joint
2004: Receiving a new hip joint
1974: Rolling Stones
2004: Kidney Stones
1974: Being called into the principal's office
2004: Calling the principal's office
1974: Screw the system
2004: Upgrade the system
1974: Disco
2004: Costco
1974: Parents begging you to get your hair cut
2004: Children begging you to get their heads shaved
1974: Passing the drivers test
2004: Passing the vision test
1974: Whatever
2004: Depends
Just in case you weren't feeling too old today, this will certainly change
things.
The people who are starting college this fall across the nation were born
in 1986.
They are too young to remember the space shuttle blowing up.
Their lifetime has always included AIDS.
Bottle caps have always been screw off and plastic.
The CD was introduced the year they were born.
They have always had an answering machine.
They have always had cable.
They cannot fathom not having a remote control.
Jay Leno has always been on the Tonight
Show.
Popcorn has always been cooked in the
microwave.
They never took a swim and thought about Jaws.
They can't imagine what hard contact lenses are.
They don't know who Mork was or where he was from.
They never heard: "Where's the Beef?", "I'd ! walk a mile for a Camel", or
"de plane, Boss, de plane".
They do not care who shot J. R. and have no idea who J. R. even is.
McDonald's never came in Styrofoam containers.
They don't have a clue how to use a typewriter.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
How About That
Tim Challies tells us at Pornography Driving Technology a most interesting fact. I never knew this and I bet most of you didn't either. He says that most of our technology today was devised for one purpose:
To allow the pornography industry more access to more people. You absolutely must read Tim's post. My mouth fell open the entire time I was reading it. I bet yours will too.
Dan E. has written about the one thing that is ever present but is not talked about in "polite" church company........demons. Uh oh.
Read it at The Chthonic Unmentionable. No, that isn't a typo; that is the actual title--and it's a real word too. Thanks to Colleen who decided that she had to look it up in the dictionary to see if it was a real word.
Reminder: do check out Slice of Laodicea often. I think Ingrid and I must be on the same wave length.
To allow the pornography industry more access to more people. You absolutely must read Tim's post. My mouth fell open the entire time I was reading it. I bet yours will too.
Dan E. has written about the one thing that is ever present but is not talked about in "polite" church company........demons. Uh oh.
Read it at The Chthonic Unmentionable. No, that isn't a typo; that is the actual title--and it's a real word too. Thanks to Colleen who decided that she had to look it up in the dictionary to see if it was a real word.
Reminder: do check out Slice of Laodicea often. I think Ingrid and I must be on the same wave length.
Friday, May 13, 2005
Christian Carnival LXIX
At this week's Christian Carnival, found at Semicolon, the following posts were of utmost interest to moi.
1.The Laodicea Chronicles-Christian media.
A good post about how the Christian media is willing to sell its soul for a buck.
2.
Cover Yourselves
The thing I love about this post is the three-pronged approach to teenage Christian girls dressing more modestly. The blogger doesn't just talk to the teens but some other people too.
3.Rick Warren is Right....and Wrong
OK....I am going to be fair and allow both sides to be presented. Seriously, even I must admit that this blogger did a good job of objectivity.
1.The Laodicea Chronicles-Christian media.
A good post about how the Christian media is willing to sell its soul for a buck.
2.
Cover Yourselves
The thing I love about this post is the three-pronged approach to teenage Christian girls dressing more modestly. The blogger doesn't just talk to the teens but some other people too.
3.Rick Warren is Right....and Wrong
OK....I am going to be fair and allow both sides to be presented. Seriously, even I must admit that this blogger did a good job of objectivity.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Deconstructionism
When I turned the page in my Jan. 2005 issue of Bon Apetit magazine, I really couldn't figure out what was pictured there. On one plate was what looked like a small round of chocolate cake. On another plate it looked like cooked cherries swimming in their sauce; in a small bowl was chocolate syrup or icing; a small dollop of whipped cream was on another small plate; and then the remaining ingredient was a clear liquid in a small glass.
To eat this concoction--one takes a bite of cake, dips it into the chocolate syrup, then the whipped cream, spear a cherry or cherries on the fork and then dip the whole thing into the kirsch (the clear liquid in the glass). Kirsch for the uninitiated is a cherry liqueur.
You have just eaten Deconstructed Black Forest Cake. You can see it HERE.
Deconstructionism has been in the news a lot lately since the death of it's prime philosopher, Jacques Derrida. It originally applied to language--writing if you will. Take each word and give it all the meanings you can think of that relates to that word. If the word and/or related words imply sexism or racism, then have a fit over it. That is essentially Deconstructionism. However, lately, it's being applied to all types of subject areas....including food....and.....even evangelical Christianity.
To take it a step further, some are deconstructing and then reconstructing using the elements another way, or simply using some of them.
In the cake example, let's say you took the kirsch, whipped cream, chocolate sauce and cherries, and left out the cake. What would that be? Black Forest Whipped Cream perhaps?
In Christianity it works like this. Deconstruct (take apart) the essential beliefs of the Bible (and especially the Reformers' theology) and then reconstruct them, leaving out key points and perhaps even putting in others taken from other contexts.
In the Purpose Driven Churches we see this all the time. Leave out important parts of the gospel, or downplay them, and then throw in some management techniques from business or even New Age techniques. I have no problem with running a church in a business-like manner; but I do have a prob with changing the NT organizational structure and substituting something man came up with. I think that is called a hybrid.
The emergent church is worse. It is so deconstructed that there remains almost nothing that could be called Christian (depending on the church of course). The same is similar in the Third Wave so-called revivals.
Perhaps some of these people might want to reread their New Testaments and stop deconstructing it. They might be absolutely shocked and pleasantly surprised how up-to-date the NT is. Even the postmoderns might "get" it.
So, if you go to a church social and see deconstructed Black Forest Cake, better start worrying a bit.
To eat this concoction--one takes a bite of cake, dips it into the chocolate syrup, then the whipped cream, spear a cherry or cherries on the fork and then dip the whole thing into the kirsch (the clear liquid in the glass). Kirsch for the uninitiated is a cherry liqueur.
You have just eaten Deconstructed Black Forest Cake. You can see it HERE.
Deconstructionism has been in the news a lot lately since the death of it's prime philosopher, Jacques Derrida. It originally applied to language--writing if you will. Take each word and give it all the meanings you can think of that relates to that word. If the word and/or related words imply sexism or racism, then have a fit over it. That is essentially Deconstructionism. However, lately, it's being applied to all types of subject areas....including food....and.....even evangelical Christianity.
To take it a step further, some are deconstructing and then reconstructing using the elements another way, or simply using some of them.
In the cake example, let's say you took the kirsch, whipped cream, chocolate sauce and cherries, and left out the cake. What would that be? Black Forest Whipped Cream perhaps?
In Christianity it works like this. Deconstruct (take apart) the essential beliefs of the Bible (and especially the Reformers' theology) and then reconstruct them, leaving out key points and perhaps even putting in others taken from other contexts.
In the Purpose Driven Churches we see this all the time. Leave out important parts of the gospel, or downplay them, and then throw in some management techniques from business or even New Age techniques. I have no problem with running a church in a business-like manner; but I do have a prob with changing the NT organizational structure and substituting something man came up with. I think that is called a hybrid.
The emergent church is worse. It is so deconstructed that there remains almost nothing that could be called Christian (depending on the church of course). The same is similar in the Third Wave so-called revivals.
Perhaps some of these people might want to reread their New Testaments and stop deconstructing it. They might be absolutely shocked and pleasantly surprised how up-to-date the NT is. Even the postmoderns might "get" it.
So, if you go to a church social and see deconstructed Black Forest Cake, better start worrying a bit.
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Notable Quote-3
I thought this was an absolutely fantastic description of what has happened to the evangelical movement.
The quote is from Slice of Laodicea which has become one of my all-time favorite blogsites.
"Evangelicalism now resembles the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas. Nothing but wreckage from one end of the horizon to the other, with each flaming piece trying to outdo the other in brightness before disappearing forever..."
The quote is from Slice of Laodicea which has become one of my all-time favorite blogsites.
"Evangelicalism now resembles the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas. Nothing but wreckage from one end of the horizon to the other, with each flaming piece trying to outdo the other in brightness before disappearing forever..."
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Notable Quote-2
From my missionary friend,
"Israel picked up the bad habits of the nations, too. It's why God had to deal with them as He did. He withdrew His presence, he let them go into captivity, (persecution). And at the last, they rejected and killed the son of the owner of the vineyard, their Messiah, Jesus, and that caused God to cut them off. People complain that the church services are dry, that it's not like before, when the people were "on fire," for the Lord. They don't feel the presence of God in church. Around the world, Christians are being persecuted, and it has nearly started here, and that feels like the church is going into a captivity of sorts. We are being asked now, I believe, to, "Come out from among them and be separate." How can we expect our young to be motivated to be celibate when there is such careless living in the homes, and such a casual attitude on the part of the parents. With the things seen on TV so blatant and with no guidance or control by the parents, the young WILL misbehave. And as for prayer in the home? The dinner blessing recited by a child is about all there is. As for marriage with adultery and divorce, are the pastors teaching on the sanctity of marriage? Or do the people feel that their own satisfaction is what is important? Young married friends of ours hit a big bump in the road when the man needed brain surgery for a tumor. He came out impaired, both in his movements and in his speech. She looked at the neighbor in the cottage behind their house and said, "This is my chance for happiness," so she divorced her husband and married the man who would make her "happy."
If Christians can't be different from the world, what does it mean to be Born Again? What does it mean to be a Peculiar People, and what does it mean to have been Called Out?"
"Israel picked up the bad habits of the nations, too. It's why God had to deal with them as He did. He withdrew His presence, he let them go into captivity, (persecution). And at the last, they rejected and killed the son of the owner of the vineyard, their Messiah, Jesus, and that caused God to cut them off. People complain that the church services are dry, that it's not like before, when the people were "on fire," for the Lord. They don't feel the presence of God in church. Around the world, Christians are being persecuted, and it has nearly started here, and that feels like the church is going into a captivity of sorts. We are being asked now, I believe, to, "Come out from among them and be separate." How can we expect our young to be motivated to be celibate when there is such careless living in the homes, and such a casual attitude on the part of the parents. With the things seen on TV so blatant and with no guidance or control by the parents, the young WILL misbehave. And as for prayer in the home? The dinner blessing recited by a child is about all there is. As for marriage with adultery and divorce, are the pastors teaching on the sanctity of marriage? Or do the people feel that their own satisfaction is what is important? Young married friends of ours hit a big bump in the road when the man needed brain surgery for a tumor. He came out impaired, both in his movements and in his speech. She looked at the neighbor in the cottage behind their house and said, "This is my chance for happiness," so she divorced her husband and married the man who would make her "happy."
If Christians can't be different from the world, what does it mean to be Born Again? What does it mean to be a Peculiar People, and what does it mean to have been Called Out?"
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Good Posts from the Christian Carnival
Good Posts at the Christian Carnival LXVIII
Here are/ some of the posts I really liked and found thought-provoking at this week's Christian Carnival at Kentucky Packrat.
Gladmanly delves into Proverbs 30 in the post, A Place for Faith. I found his study a help to me personally. Thanks gladman.
This post has to be one of the most interesting posts I've ever read. This blogger compares the atonement to the psychological concept of transference. I found this a fascinating concept, although I imagine a few might find it a bit heretical. You can read it here.
Free will has always been a confusing point for me, especially when looking at the Calvinistic viewpoint which I really try to understand. Team Hammer joins the fray with a sort of compromise between the Calvinist and Arminian point of views in Theology Tuesday: Free Will.
Kudos to Kim in her post, Seriously... for calling women to study theology as Carolyn Custis James in her book suggests.
Dan once again has hit a home run post in Stay-At-Home-Dads. He writes that the Chrisitan Right and many evangelical churches don't like the thought of a stay at home dad.
Here are/ some of the posts I really liked and found thought-provoking at this week's Christian Carnival at Kentucky Packrat.
Gladmanly delves into Proverbs 30 in the post, A Place for Faith. I found his study a help to me personally. Thanks gladman.
This post has to be one of the most interesting posts I've ever read. This blogger compares the atonement to the psychological concept of transference. I found this a fascinating concept, although I imagine a few might find it a bit heretical. You can read it here.
Free will has always been a confusing point for me, especially when looking at the Calvinistic viewpoint which I really try to understand. Team Hammer joins the fray with a sort of compromise between the Calvinist and Arminian point of views in Theology Tuesday: Free Will.
Kudos to Kim in her post, Seriously... for calling women to study theology as Carolyn Custis James in her book suggests.
Dan once again has hit a home run post in Stay-At-Home-Dads. He writes that the Chrisitan Right and many evangelical churches don't like the thought of a stay at home dad.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Anti-Semitism Declines Slightly in America
Source: ADL Survey.
There is some good news.....and some bad news on the anti-Semitism front.
The good news as reported by the ADL (Anti-Jewish Defamation League), is that Anti-Semitism is down slightly from 2002.
The bad news is.....there still is some lurking about.
For the life of me I really do not understand why people don't like Jews. I never understood it. My best friend in high school was Jewish. Her parents had to flee Austria after Hitler came in. They lost their jobs, had to wear the yellow star and were spit on. Jews in their neighborhood began to go "missing" and they got the idea. They had to leave. They left with almost nothing except the clothes on their backs.
After WWII, many ordinary Germans were asked why they allowed the Jews to lose their jobs and be physically attacked. Do you want to know what the overwhelming responses were?
"Well I thought they were taking away 'those' Jews; not the ones that were MY neighbors."
Hmmmmmmm........
Anyway, continuing with the ADL report.................
A national poll of 1,600 American adults conducted March 18 through March 25,2005, found that 14 % of Americans - or nearly 35 million adults - hold views about Jews that are "unquestionably anti-Semitic," compared to 17% in 2002;
and, in 1992--20%.
However, anti-Semitic incidents reached their highest total in nine (9) years
Three attitudes about Jews seem to prevail:
loyalty, the death of Jesus, and power.
The survey found that 33% of Americans believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than America.
Thirty percent (30%) of the American people believe Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, up from 25% in 2002.
The survey revealed that while the percentage of Americans who believe Jews have too much power has diminished, Americans who hold the most anti-Semitic views are preoccupied with the perceptions of Jewish power.
"Too much power in the US"--15%, down from 20% in 2002
"Too much power in the Business world"--19%, down from 23% in 2002
"Too much control of Wall Street"--17%, down from 20% in 2002
Now here is an interesting statistic. Among Hispanics, living here in the United States, but born outside of it, 35% are hard-core anti-Semites.
But among Hispanics born in the United States, only 19% are hard core anti-Semites.
The number of African-Americans with strong anti-Semitic beliefs continued to remain high and stable since 1992. The 2005 survey found that 36% of African-Americans hold strong anti-Semitic beliefs, four times more than the 9% for whites.
Education - The more educated a person is, the less likely he or she is to hold anti-Semitic views: 35% of high school graduates hold strong anti-Semitic views, compared to 13% of college graduate and 5% of those who hold post graduate degrees.
Age - The older a person, the more likely he or she is to hold anti-Semitic views: 24% of adults over the age of 65 hold strong anti-Semitic views, compared to 12% of those 18-29 years old and 11% of those 30-39 years old.
On a positive note, the survey found a majority of Americans favors measures that would support and teach tolerance and support diverse student bodies:
50% agree to stopping racist and anti-Semitic groups from using the Internet.
64% are for imposing tougher sentences for hate crimes
88% say the Holocaust should be taught in schools.
75% agree that students do better when they attend schools with a racially and ethnically diverse student body.
There is some good news.....and some bad news on the anti-Semitism front.
The good news as reported by the ADL (Anti-Jewish Defamation League), is that Anti-Semitism is down slightly from 2002.
The bad news is.....there still is some lurking about.
For the life of me I really do not understand why people don't like Jews. I never understood it. My best friend in high school was Jewish. Her parents had to flee Austria after Hitler came in. They lost their jobs, had to wear the yellow star and were spit on. Jews in their neighborhood began to go "missing" and they got the idea. They had to leave. They left with almost nothing except the clothes on their backs.
After WWII, many ordinary Germans were asked why they allowed the Jews to lose their jobs and be physically attacked. Do you want to know what the overwhelming responses were?
"Well I thought they were taking away 'those' Jews; not the ones that were MY neighbors."
Hmmmmmmm........
Anyway, continuing with the ADL report.................
A national poll of 1,600 American adults conducted March 18 through March 25,2005, found that 14 % of Americans - or nearly 35 million adults - hold views about Jews that are "unquestionably anti-Semitic," compared to 17% in 2002;
and, in 1992--20%.
However, anti-Semitic incidents reached their highest total in nine (9) years
Three attitudes about Jews seem to prevail:
loyalty, the death of Jesus, and power.
The survey found that 33% of Americans believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than America.
Thirty percent (30%) of the American people believe Jews were responsible for the death of Christ, up from 25% in 2002.
The survey revealed that while the percentage of Americans who believe Jews have too much power has diminished, Americans who hold the most anti-Semitic views are preoccupied with the perceptions of Jewish power.
"Too much power in the US"--15%, down from 20% in 2002
"Too much power in the Business world"--19%, down from 23% in 2002
"Too much control of Wall Street"--17%, down from 20% in 2002
Now here is an interesting statistic. Among Hispanics, living here in the United States, but born outside of it, 35% are hard-core anti-Semites.
But among Hispanics born in the United States, only 19% are hard core anti-Semites.
The number of African-Americans with strong anti-Semitic beliefs continued to remain high and stable since 1992. The 2005 survey found that 36% of African-Americans hold strong anti-Semitic beliefs, four times more than the 9% for whites.
Education - The more educated a person is, the less likely he or she is to hold anti-Semitic views: 35% of high school graduates hold strong anti-Semitic views, compared to 13% of college graduate and 5% of those who hold post graduate degrees.
Age - The older a person, the more likely he or she is to hold anti-Semitic views: 24% of adults over the age of 65 hold strong anti-Semitic views, compared to 12% of those 18-29 years old and 11% of those 30-39 years old.
On a positive note, the survey found a majority of Americans favors measures that would support and teach tolerance and support diverse student bodies:
50% agree to stopping racist and anti-Semitic groups from using the Internet.
64% are for imposing tougher sentences for hate crimes
88% say the Holocaust should be taught in schools.
75% agree that students do better when they attend schools with a racially and ethnically diverse student body.
Monday, May 02, 2005
The Wrong Direction
As I have said many times before, the evangelical church as a whole is moving in the wrong direction (but fortunately not all of them.)
Or, as the Music Man said, "there is big trouble in River City with a capital 'T'."
Or as the characters in the comic strip Doonesbury often say, "We are in deep doo-doo."
It seems like other bloggers are saying the same thing. Here are a few examples from blogland:
Totem to Temple talks about this wrong move at The Wrong Groom.
Ingrid has a great quote at Slice of Laodicea :
"Evangelicalism now resembles the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas. Nothing but wreckage from one end of the horizon to the other, with each flaming piece trying to outdo the other in brightness before disappearing forever..."
And if you haven't read the Internet Monk post on Looking For The Jesus Connection: How did Jesus Fight the "Culture War?" , you will not want to miss this. You might also wish to read the comments for that post since at my last count there were 105 comments. Wow!
Or, as the Music Man said, "there is big trouble in River City with a capital 'T'."
Or as the characters in the comic strip Doonesbury often say, "We are in deep doo-doo."
It seems like other bloggers are saying the same thing. Here are a few examples from blogland:
Totem to Temple talks about this wrong move at The Wrong Groom.
Ingrid has a great quote at Slice of Laodicea :
"Evangelicalism now resembles the breakup of the Space Shuttle Columbia over the skies of Texas. Nothing but wreckage from one end of the horizon to the other, with each flaming piece trying to outdo the other in brightness before disappearing forever..."
And if you haven't read the Internet Monk post on Looking For The Jesus Connection: How did Jesus Fight the "Culture War?" , you will not want to miss this. You might also wish to read the comments for that post since at my last count there were 105 comments. Wow!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
