When the Word Isn't Preached Fully or Correctly

I'm sure there are scads of true stories about sad and horrible things that happened in people's lives because the Scriptures were either not taught accurately or practically not at all. For me, growing up in a liberal Protestant church where we never heard the gospel, delayed my conversion since I simply didn't know I was supposed to get "born again." Thankfully, a college classmate told me the true gospel and I had to sense to responded.

Here is a somewhat bizarre story (true) of what happens when church members do not get the full Word of God preached. It has happened frequently historically and will continue to happen again, sadly.

The following was told to me by an elderly friend of mine. It happened to her and her classmates in the 1930s and early 40s right here in the United States (before the communist hysteria of the 1950's).

"The principal of our High school was a member of our church. He thought it would be a good idea to invite Miss N and Miss A to our Baptist church. They were civics and economics teachers. They were also communists, right out of the local secret commune.

Somehow, Miss A was offered the job of teaching the adult sunday school class. My parents went to the church; every adult that age I knew was there. The first thing she had them learning was some mighty strange scriptures. She twisted them ever so slightly but those people had not read the scriptures very much. The church had slipped and slid sideways through iffy preaching and lack of knowledge of the Word on the part of the members. Some of the adults would even jokingly call each other "Comrade."

After a while, Miss A was teaching them simple communism, very much like my civics book in high school. I told my mother after a year sitting under Miss A that I was a communist. My parents and everyone else was so ignorant of the Word, even communism could come in. Later I was saved in a youth for Christ meeting at age 19. Then I left that church immediately because I saw it all clearly."

Quotes of the Day

You may mark my words, the spiritual venom once injected into the Body of Christ through the cult of liberal theology killed the mainline denominations just the same as the emergent mystical toxin currently being infused into our Lord's Church through this new liberalism is going to kill the Evangelical churches.

Source: Ken Silva at http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/archives/emergent_church/index.php


In discussing how the Apostles evangelized in the book of Acts, Greg Koukl writes:

The love of God is never mentioned a single time in the entire book of Acts.

Source: Greg Koukl at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5089

The Larger Issue of B. Wilkinson's Africa "Fiasco"

Many in the blogosphere ae writing about Bruce (Prayer of Jabez) Wilkinson's "fiasco" in Africa. I think it's important to know WHY he didn't succeed. To me it's a bit discouraging, as it's always the same 'ole, same 'ole with many Western "missionaries." Fortunately, most missionaries today are very sensitive to the culture in which they are ministering. But we still have the "others." For many years I've believed Africa is in it's mess today because the missionaries of yesteryear--for about three centuries--basically made the same mistakes Wilkinson made.


From Prof. Johan Malan, University of Limpopo, South Africa

A Clash of Cultures

The dream of Bruce, as well as the methods used by him to realise his Dream for Africa, were in direct conflict with Swazi culture. The following are the main mistakes that he made:

Ignorance about Africa’s own dream
The emerging African renaissance constitutes a return to Africa’s cultural roots, and is also a call to Africa to take responsibility for its own fate by cooperating towards the greater good for all. Africa has its own visionaries, politicians and philosophers who are determining national objectives and showing the way to a new future. It is very obvious why they wouldn’t be enthusiastic about an American millionaire’s dream for Africa. They would regard it as arrogance on the side of the overseas dreamer, as that would imply that they don’t have a dream and a plan of their own. Africa wishes to solve its own problems in its own way. Assistance is welcomed but not independent programmes in which the credit for achievements will go to foreign entrepreneurs and their international sponsors. That is one of the reasons why the dream of Bruce was so quickly rejected.

Ignorance about the nature of African politics
The national consciousness in most African countries is very strong. There is a new sense of pride in the attaining of full independence, and an absolute aversion against any form of neo-colonialism. Even though most countries desperately need some form of development assistance from rich countries, they are very sensitive to high-profile projects initiated and run by outsiders. The latter may claim the credit for certain achievements on a national level, thereby asserting unacceptable control over society. They may take the credit for achieving what the local government couldn’t do. In the African approach, large development projects must be executed under the auspices of the national government, thereby ensuring black empowerment in whatever development projects are initiated. Bruce was not seeking to collaborate with the Swazi government on their terms, but intended to impose American-style social engineering on the Swazi people.

Ignoring the principles of NEPAD
The development model chosen by African leaders is that of NEPAD--New Partnership for Africa’s Development. NEPAD is basically a pledge by African leaders to eradicate poverty and to place their countries on a path of sustainable growth and development. They are looking for partners to tackle the problems already identified by them. They are not looking for people to tell them what to do, or to do things independently of them. Bruce faltered in that he did not actively seek partnerships with African leaders and government departments; neither did he consult them about the feasibility of his dream. This dream definitely contained aspects that were unacceptable to them.

Demands for land
Bruce asked for large tracts of land, and that really infuriated the Swazi government and public. Land is seen as a national asset in Africa. Traditionally, no provision was made for private ownership. A traditional leader is the trustee of the tribal land under his jurisdiction and he only grants occupation rights to individual families. The grazing areas are communal land. In most African countries there are still many farms and other patches of land that are possessed by private persons who are regarded as foreigners. Much pressure is exerted by black citizens on their governments to redistribute land on a more equitable basis. Under these circumstances, it was unwise of Bruce to ask for a large piece of land, including control over a game reserve. Many people were angry because of these demands.

Inevitable clash with African social institutions
The orphanages (dream villages) that Bruce wanted to establish are at variance with African systems of kinship and the caring for their members. Traditionally, there were no orphanages and old age homes in Africa as every family is responsible for the care of its own members. In African cultures, a much more extensive system of kinship obligations is observed than in individualistic Western societies, thereby ensuring that members do not become estranged from their families. Even though the parents of orphans have died, there are usually other members of their extended families, e.g. the brothers and sisters of the deceased, or even the grandparents, who will take care of the children. Bruce was not aware of this fact and wanted to bundle 10 000 orphans from different communities and tribal groups into a singe home. This was quite unacceptable to the Swazi public and government, and they also indicated that the future land rights of such children would be in jeopardy if they were removed from their homesteads and extended families. In Africa, the caring for orphans should be done on a smaller scale in every community without estranging the kids from their communities of origin.

A wrong approach to development
The correct approach to development in Africa under the prevailing circumstances is an indirect approach aimed at grassroots development. Bruce should have followed this approach by training and empowering local (Swazi) pastors and other community leaders to take initiative in the development of their own communities. This would have averted the pains associated with efforts towards direct involvement in national projects. The collapse of Bruce’s dream and the abandoning of his development projects have been experienced in a highly traumatic way by the pastors in Swaziland with whom he had already established a working relationship. They feel that they have been left in the lurch by Bruce after his grand scheme has failed to gain public approval.

Religious Failure

Apart from the wrong approach and methods followed by Bruce there are also serious objections by evangelical Christians against his biblical views, priorities and methods. The following matters have been raised:

Humanitarian rather than Christian programmes
In terms of the Great Commission, evangelistic work and discipleship must always take precedence over humanitarian aid and social welfare. If evangelists get bogged down in social welfare projects such as gardening, healthcare, poverty relief and the running of orphanages, evangelistic outreaches will be relegated to low-priority positions on their agenda. Bruce clearly relies more on socio-economic upliftment and sexual abstinence programmes than on evangelisation. As witnesses of Christ we are first and foremost called to evangelise the world. The unsaved must repent (Acts 17:30) and the saved must be sanctified and trained as disciples to go into Africa’s remotest villages to preach the gospel of salvation to the lost. Then, and then alone, will the lifestyles and morality of people change in such a way that they will not expose themselves to contamination due to immoral, sinful behaviour.

Reconstructionism
Since his arrival in South Africa, Bruce has actively engaged in the annual transformations rallies. These rallies are ecumenical in nature and aimed at reconstructing society in accordance with certain Christian and moral principles, as well as promoting a buoyant economy which will ensure a high employment rate. This is a kingdom vision for the world and therefore part of dominion theology. There must, according to this movement, be visible manifestations of God’s kingdom on earth, which means that entire nations must be discipled to become part of the kingdom. This is contrary to the biblical nature of the church dispensation, and therefore a man-made vision that cannot work. We are strangers and sojourners in an evil word that lies in the sway of the devil (1 John 5:19). In this dispensation, only a minority of people will be saved (Matt. 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24). This scenario is not compatible with grandiose kingdom programmes with their non-offensive message and popular appeal, and rather calls for intensive evangelisation in small group contexts.

Deceptive Jabez prayers
Bruce popularised an Old Testament prosperity prayer in which the Name of Jesus obviously does not appear, and taught people to recite this 33-word prayer in 1 Chronicles 4:10 every day to receive great blessings in their lives. Bruce recited the prayer regularly during the past 35 years and credits this practice for the 22 million copies of his books that were sold worldwide. But he now says that he tries to come to grips with the miracle that didn’t materialise in Swaziland despite his unceasing recitation of the Jabez prayer. Did it take him that long to discover the truth of Matthew 6:7?
"But when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think they will be heard for their many words."
A New Testament prayer must be prayed in the Name of the Lord Jesus and in accordance with God’s will (John 14:13; 1 John 5:14).

Association with Robert Schuller
It is disturbing to many Christians that Bruce participates in meetings of Robert Schuller’s Institute for Successful Church Leadership. Schuller relies on psychological self-esteem programmes to change people’s lives, rather than the gospel message which tells us that lost people must first be under the conviction of their sins, failures and lost state before God (the opposite of self-esteem) before they can be forgiven and saved. Positive thinking is of no value in evangelisation as it keeps the preacher from proclaiming God’s judgements upon the wicked, and also induces him to neglect the very real danger of spiritual deception. Positive thing also breeds arrogance and pride. Even outwardly successful Christians must humble themselves before the Lord, clearly follow His instructions on how to win the lost for His kingdom which is not of this world, and always refrain from boasting of their own achievements (cf. (Rev. 3:17).


Source:http://herescope.blogspot.com/2005/12/wilkinsons-dream-for-africa-is.html

More Elderly Matters

Since I joined the ranks of the elderly a couple of years ago (not by choice...but having yearly birthdays will do that to you eventually..if you live long enough...LOL), I've become interested in how society, and especially the church, treats its elderly. Unfortunately, not all is well on the eldrly front.

Here is a great article along these lines over at Slice of Laodicea.

The Botox Church
"Until America exported its youth worshiping media swill the world over, most cultures had a high regard for the elders in their midst. Note that I said "elders", not "elderly". Elderly brings forth images of frailty and physical impotence. The noun "elder" speaks of life experience and wisdom. When tribes had a dispute, it was brought before the "elders" of the village. There was an assumption that the elders of the village would wisely be able to decide these issues because they had lived for so many years. Not only has this thinking been blown sky high in America and in most Western countries today, it has been destroyed even in Asian countries where there was, at one time, great respect for parents and grandparents. Now, the gray heads that were once revered and honored are now lampooned and looked down on."

To read the rest of the post, go to The Botox Church

Then after you read that, come back here and read a funny post, Rock-Away Rest Home about the elderly---that is, if you missed it a couple of days ago.

More Christmas--His Birth and Our New Birth

God has been impressing upon me lately that Christ was a historical event. And as a historical event, it is reliable. This is why John said in (I John 1) that he and the other disciples saw Jesus and even handled (touched) Him. He was a real person..but also God Incarnate.

I received the following in my email. And IMO^, I think it is one of the best things I've read lately. It stresses the historial perspective but even goes further and talks about "outside of history."

His Birth and Our New Birth

"Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated, ’God with us.’
Matthew 1:23

His Birth in History

That Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God ( Luke 1:35 ). Jesus Christ was born into this world, not from it. He did not emerge out of history; He came into history from the outside. Jesus Christ is not the best human being the human race can boast of. He is a Being for whom the human race can take no credit at all. He is not man becoming God, but God Incarnate God coming into human flesh from outside it. His life is the highest and the holiest entering through the most humble of doors. Our Lord’s birth was an advent of the appearance of God in human form.

His Birth in Me

"My little children, for whom I labor in birth again until Christ is formed in you . . ."
( Galatians 4:19 ).
Just as our Lord came into human history from outside it, He must also come into me from outside. Have I allowed my personal human life to become a "Bethlehem" for the Son of God? I cannot enter the realm of the kingdom of God unless I am born again from above by a birth totally unlike physical birth. "You must be born again" ( John 3:7 ). This is not a command, but a fact based on the authority of God. The evidence of the new birth is that I yield myself so completely to God that "Christ is formed" in me. And once "Christ is formed" in me, His nature immediately begins to work through me.

God Evident in the Flesh

This is what is made so profoundly possible for you and for me through the redemption of man by Jesus Christ.

^IMO=In MY Opinion (in Internet lingo)

Christmas-1914

MERRY CHRISTMAS Everbody! I just loved this short WWI story and I wanted to share it with you. It truly makes the point that only in Christ can there ever be peace.


Christmas Carols were involved in one of the most unique Christmas celebrations ever recorded. Parade Magazine once carried a story of a unique experience that occurred during World War I. There was a brief truce when enemies behaved like brothers.

On Christmas Eve in 1914, all was quiet on France's western front, from the English Channel to the Swiss Alps. The war was only 5 months old and approximately 800,000 men had been wounded or killed.

Every soldier was wondering whether Christmas Day would bring another round of fighting and killing, but something unique happened.

The British soldiers raised "Merry Christmas" signs. Soon carols were heard from the German and British trenches alike.

Christmas dawned. Unarmed soldiers began leaving their trenches. Officers of both sides tried unsuccessfully to stop their troops from meeting the enemy in the middle of no-man's land. The soldiers sang songs and talked. They exchanged small gifts - mostly sweets and cigars. They celebrated Christmas Day peacefully along miles of the front. At one point, the British played soccer with the Germans, and won 3 to 2!

In some places the spontaneous truce continued the next day, neither side willing to fire the first shot. Finally the war resumed when fresh troops arrived and the high command of both armies ordered that further informal understandings with the enemy would be punished as treason.

Rock-Away Rest Home

Today, the day before Christmas, we'll have a little fun at the expense of us older folks. Note that I said "us." I think I am among the oldest of the Christian bloggers, and perhaps the oldest woman one. Any blogger out there over 60?

Tomorrow, on Christmas Day itself, I will post a short, but really wonderful Christmas story. If you are a history buff I think you'll really enjoy it.

ROCK-AWAY CHRISTMAS

'Twas the night before Christmas at Rock-Away Rest,
and all of us seniors were looking our best.
Our glasses, how sparkly, our wrinkles, how merry,
our punchbowl held prune juice plus three drops of sherry.

A bed sock was taped to each walker, in hope
that Santa would bring us soft candy and soap.
We surely were lucky to be there with friends,
secure in this residence and in our Depends.

Our grandkids had sent us some Christmasy crafts,
like angels in snowsuits and penguins on rafts.
The dental assistant had borrowed our teeth,
and from them she'd crafted a holiday wreath.

The bed pans, so shiny, all stood in a row,
reflecting our candle's magnificent glow.
Our supper so festive, the joy wouldn't stop,
was creamy warm oatmeal with sprinkles on top.

Our salad was Jell-O, so jiggly and great,
then puree of fruitcake was spooned on each plate.
The social director then had us play games,
like "Where Are You Living?" and "What Are Your Names?"

Old Grandfather Looper was feeling his oats,
proclaiming that reindeer were nothing but goats.
Our resident wanderer was tied to her chair,
in hopes that at bedtime she still would be there.

Security lights on the new fallen snow,
made outdoors seem noon to the old folks below.
Then out on the porch there arose quite a clatter,
but we are so deaf that it just didn't matter.

A strange little fellow flew in through the door,
then tripped on the sill and fell flat on the floor.
'Twas just our director, all togged out in red,
he jiggled and chuckled and patted each head.

We knew from the way that he strutted and jived,
our Social Security checks had just arrived.
We sang, how we sang, in our monotone croak,
till the clock tinkled out its soft eight PM stroke.

And soon we were snuggling deep in our beds,
while nurses distributed nocturnal meds.
And so ends our Christmas at Rock-Away Rest,
very soon you'll be with us, we wish you the best

Satan's Meeting

Satan called a worldwide convention of demons.

In his opening address he said,

"We can't keep Christians from going to church."

"We can't keep them from reading their Bibles and knowing the truth."

"We can't even keep them from forming an intimate relationship with their saviour."

"Once they gain that connection with Jesus, our power over them is broken."

"So let them go to their churches; let them have their covered dish dinners, BUT steal their time, so they don't have time to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ.."

"This is what I want you to do," said the devil:

"Distract them from gaining hold of their Saviour and maintaining that vital connection throughout their day!"

"How shall we do this?" his demons shouted.

"Keep them busy in the non-essentials of life and invent innumerable schemes to occupy their minds," he answered.

"Tempt them to spend, spend, spend, and borrow, borrow, borrow."

"Persuade the wives to go to work for long hours and the husbands to work 6-7 days each week, 10-12 hours a day, so they can afford their empty lifestyles."

"Keep them from spending time with their children."


"As their families fragment, soon, their homes will offer no escape from the pressures of work!"

"Over-stimulate their minds so that they cannot hear that still, small voice

"Entice them to play the radio or cassette player whenever they drive." To keep the TV, VCR, CDs and their PCs going constantly in their home and see to it that every store and restaurant in the world plays non-biblical music constantly."

"This will jam their minds and break that union with Christ."

"Fill the coffee tables with magazines and newspapers."

"Pound their minds with the news 24 hours a day."

"Invade their driving moments with billboards."

"Flood their mailboxes with junk mail, mail order catalogs, sweepstakes, and every kind of newsletter and promotional offering free products, services and false hopes.."

"Keep skinny, beautiful models on the magazines and TV so their husbands will believe that outward beauty is what's important, and they'll become dissatisfied with their wives. "

"Keep the wives too tired to love their husbands at night."

"Give them headaches too! "

"If they don't give their husbands the love they need, they will begin to look elsewhere."

"That will fragment their families quickly!"

"Give them Santa Claus to distract them from teaching their children the real meaning of Christmas."

"Give them an Easter bunny so they won't talk about his resurrection and power over sin and death."

"Even in their recreation, let them be excessive."

"Have them return from their recreation exhausted."

"Keep them too busy to go out in nature and reflect on God's creation. Send them to amusement parks, sporting events, plays, concerts, and movies instead."

"Keep them busy, busy, busy!"

"And when they meet for spiritual fellowship, involve them in gossip and small talk so that they leave with troubled consciences."

"Crowd their lives with so many good causes they have no time to seek power from Jesus."

"Soon they will be working in their own strength, sacrificing their health and family for the good of the cause."

"It will work!"

"It will work!"

It was quite a plan!

The demons went eagerly to their assignments causing Christians everywhere to get busier and more rushed, going here and there.

Having little time for their God or their families.

Having no time to tell others about the power of Jesus to change lives.

I guess the question is, has the devil been successful in his schemes?

Does "BUSY" mean: B-eing U-nder S-atan's Y-oke?

Bizarre--Half-Ape/Half-Man

This is Darwinism gone amok. In 1926 the following really did occur:

"THE Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ordered the creation of Planet of the Apes-style warriors by crossing humans with apes, according to recently uncovered secret documents.

Moscow archives show that in the mid-1920s Russia's top animal breeding scientist, Ilya Ivanov, was ordered to turn his skills from horse and animal work to the quest for a super-warrior.


According to Moscow newspapers, Stalin told the scientist: "I want a new invincible human being, insensitive to pain, resistant and indifferent about the quality of food they eat."


Fortunately, the experiment injecting monkey and ape sperm into humans and vice-versa failed.

Source: The Scotsman.com

Interesting but Disturbing Facts on What Influences Our Society

In his book, Revolution, George Barna lists three tiers of spheres of infuence in the United States.

First Tier
The first seven dominant spheres of influence are:
movies, music, television, books, the Internet, law and family.

Second Tier
Schools, peers, newspapers, radio and businesses.

Third Tier--The Least Influential
Among the least influential on society is the church which Barna says has little or no influence.

And this I believe is why he wrote this latest book.

The Legalistic Guilt Trip

Bob at TotemtoTemple has written a post entitled, Penteparanoia.

In this post he laments about all the things he missed and the guilt heaped up on him--all because he happened to grow up in a fundamentalist Pentecostal church.
Bob writes,

Worse was at Christmas time when the toys the pastor’s meager salary could not afford suddendly became preached from the pulpit as ’sin’ to make his kids appear to be more equal to their Sunday school counterparts and to not feel bad for not getting the toy. This was added to the fact that there was some Pentecostal in some remote part of the world that did not have it and we needed to be more greatful (and give them the money used to purchase the toys) to teach us humility and that it really was better to give than to receive. To have a nice gift from Santa or gift wrapped made me feel very guilty and undeserving and I never told my fellow church goers what I got for fear of getting ‘the speech’ that I saw others ‘endure’ to become ‘the super special chosen ones’.

I've had many friends who grew up in these type of churches and frankly, most of them are a mess (Bob excepted--he seems to be handling it fairly well). But almost all of my friends have ended up in the Christian psychologists' office. Of course some of that could be because we are in Southern California where Christians going to the Chrisitan psychologist is more "in" and normative.
But, I've seen first-hand the awful residue of guilt that legalism produces.

Bob continues,

Why am I writing this? Because to this day, I still feel this anxiety and paranoia when I want purchase something nice for myself just because I want or need it. I purchased a new computer to continue the webpage and learn computer stuff a year ago and felt the anxiety of purchasing it. I held out for days and months because I feared some wrath of judgement if I purchased it. I went through the anxiety, paranoia, and hysteria when I finally purchased it fearing loss of income leading to credit card debt, the computer be broken or shipped wrong as ‘the sign’ for getting something nice. I even questioned this again when after five months of owning the computer, the computer died and had to be fixed under warranty followed by the near impossible task to schedule the on-site warranty service man to come over and perform the warranty work and having to go on a short notive business trip to Florida at the same time.

The church has finally combatted this legalism but not in a good way. They have gone to the other extreme where anything goes and the moral boundaries, EVEN IN THE CHURCH, have become fuzzy. Can't we hit the perfect middle? Or what Aristotle called "The Golden Mean?" That is, the exact point between two finite extremes.

Let me suggest what should have happened, and, hopefully, will happen in the future.

I had the opposite experience. I grew up in a liberal Protestant church that was moral, but certainly not legalistic. Frankly, I never heard that some people couldn't go to movies, dance, or even drink moderately. It wasn't until I became a Christian in college that I was introduced to this "other weird world." And thankfully, I followed the Scriptures, but not the legalism. Also, I basically avoided the most extreme legalistic churches. So thankfully, I wasn't saddled with this "religious" guilt trip. As a result, I never thought about not buying something useful that I wanted or needed because it was "sinful." So I was more at the other end of this spectrum. Now I am finally getting to the middle. And what does that look like?

Here is what should be happening in the church. We should be getting to the point where this "stuff"--the material things--really don't matter that much. In other words, who cares if we still have our old TV since now we have been liberated by Christ to not keep up with the Joneses. And at the other end of the spectrum, we have been liberated by Christ to understand that we could buy a new TV. BUT when we think of our poor Christian brother or sister (or non-Christian neighbor), we choose freely to use that money for them. We freely choose NOT to buy a new TV. But if we want one, we could buy it. No guilt.

THAT is what our goal should be. And THAT is right in the middle--or, we could say--right on the money.

The Future of the Church--a la G. Barna

I am reading the book, Revolution by the Christian pollster, George Barna. He describes a Revolutionary (which he always capitalizes interestingly enough) as a Christian who doesn't want to just sit in a dead church service, but wants to get out and as John Wimber (Vineyard founder) used to say--"do the stuff."

Here are some of Barna's thoughts about the future of this Revolution, especially as it will impact the American church and also the culture at large. The following summaries are taken from chapter 12, "Why the Revolution Matters."

He writes,
Existing churches have a historic decision to make:
(1) to ignore the Revolution and continue business as usual.
(2) to invest energy in fighting the revolution as an unbiblical advance.
(3) or, to look for ways of retaining their identity while cooperating with the Revolution as a mark of unity and genuine ministry.

Then he drops the bomb! He says,
"My current research suggests the latter approach will be the LEAST common (emphasis mine).

He says for those churches doing the first two, their membership will decrease significantly and along with it their finances. He further states that the United States will see a reduction in the number of churches, "as presently configured (i.e. congregational-formatted ministries)."

He notes that the political and cultural influence that churches' already have will diminish and be replaced with Christians exerting greater influence through other means. He says that fewer church programs will be sustained in favor of more communal experiences among Christians. He points out that many clergymen and denominational executives will also be cut back as church attendance and financial support drops dramatically.

Next, he goes into how the Revolution will affect American culture.

He writes,
New types of organizations will replace the inert stalwarts. Seminaries will be challenged to become relevant or move over. Christian colleges, secondary schools, and elementary schools will be challenged to be more overtly and pragmatically Christian in their endeavors. A more diverse continuum of service entities will blossom as believers seek ways to use their skills, money, and time in an effective and life-changing manner.

...the typical charicatures of Christian people will vanish as the skeptics and critics recognize a wave of change through which true love for others has replaced hypocrisy and infighting.

Even the economy will be impacted. Revolutionaries will move their peers with their commitment to hard work and excellence. The Protestant work ethic, which has been replaced in recent years by a more lackadaisical, postmodern lifestyle ethic, will return.

He answers the question, "Will this be Utopia then?" No, the world will still remain a war zone as some [non-Christians] will not want to get on board with this. Barna also points out that the Revolutionaries are human and they will mess up at times.

As I said in the beginning, this is THE book that everyone is and will be talking about. At my Christian bookstore it was $17.99. At Amazon.com it is currently going for $12.23.

Another other BIG book along these lines is Megashift by Rutz which I am reading now and will be reporting on to you, in I imagine about another week or so.

Happy Reading...:)

Jack Hayford on Christmas Day Church Closings

Many megachurches will be closed on Christmas Day. Jack Hayford, pastor emeritus of the Church on the Way (First Foursquare of Van Nuys, California), was recently interviewed on this topic.

FOURSQUARE PRESIDENT JACK HAYFORD ADDRESSES MEGACHURCH CHRISTMAS CLOSURES

Q: What are your thoughts in view of the announcement many find surprising, that some Christian churches are closing their doors on Christmas Day?

A: Foremost, my thoughts are of being equally surprised, although I am not unsympathetic with the dynamics that have tempted some church leaders to make this choice. Having pastored for over 40 years, I’ve faced the decision the peculiar timing of this year's calendar brings to the Christmas weekend. When Christmas comes on Sunday, at least in our tradition, the majority of worshippers by far prefer a Christmas Eve occasion. Though the weekend is well attended, the Sunday morning attendance at a church which also offers Christmas Eve gatherings will pale by comparison.

Q: Then you have utilized this schedule before and closed the church on Sunday?

A: No. In fact, there are several reasons I wouldn't consider that. As a megachurch we would reduce the number of Christmas Sunday worship times, balancing with the increase of Saturday's Christmas Eve services.

Q: Megachurch leaders have explained that staffing Sunday morning events was impractical seeing a reduced number of volunteers would be available.

A: I understand completely. But a reduction in the scope or structure of a service is not difficult where creative leaders are involved. I can’t see anything that would make a "chapel-style" service either less worthy or less meaningful - and it would certainly be far simpler to offer...in fact, affording a simplicity not inconsistent with the remarkable simplicity with which Christ entered the world in the first place. Just yesterday I heard of a pastor who at first was going to cancel Christmas Day services, but changed his mind, saying, "As I reconsidered, I decided to simply have a single guitar, invite the singing of both traditional and contemporary songs of the season, encourage worshippers who would to share expressions of gratitude to God for the gift of Christ - and then read the Scriptures along with a brief meditation.

Q: Would you see this as preferable?

A: Quite frankly, I see our responsibility to provide Christmas Sunday services as infinitely more than "preferable." I see it as a mandate - especially this year 2005!

Q: Please explain.

A: First, I have pastored too long to not be aware of the fact that there are always people who want to worship on Christmas Sunday and who cannot attend Christmas Eve services. Further, I also have learned that no matter how thoroughly we may announce a schedule change, there are always people who have not heard or registered those facts. Consequently, referencing the question at hand, I guarantee there will be people who arrive at the megachurches mentioned and who will be disappointed - if not dismayed - to discover closed doors. There may not be many, but - and I can't express myself strongly enough in this regard - the Church doesn’t exist to serve a given quantity of people, nor to serve its own convenience of schedule or program. We exist to serve people - individuals, each of whom are of value and each having personal and spiritual need for shepherding.

Q: What did you mean by "a mandate - especially this year"?

A: In America, Christmastime 2005 has underscored a national debate on the question of how we designate the holiday season. The issue of "political correctness" has, to the view of hosts of social observers, reached a point of ludicrousness when "Merry Christmas" is challenged or disallowed as a fitting greeting. I have been refreshed to see the rise of increasing numbers of non-Christians who have risen to defend the legitimacy of our Christian traditions, as well as their willingness to support the propriety of "Merry Christmas" remaining acceptable, respectable and appropriate to the season - everywhere. Thus, given this issue’s prominence, it seems short-sighted to me that any church would not be open on Christmas Sunday. It certainly doesn't seem to be a time for Church leadership to appear to waffle on the Day's importance in the eyes of today's society.

Q: Would you have any comments regarding your own denomination's stand on this?

A: It isn't my prerogative to make official statements on such matters, in behalf of all our faithful, local church pastors. At the time I heard the news report on this peculiar choice by some megachurches, I will confess to thinking, "What a waste of the huge influence they have." While not feeling critical of friends I have pastoring in such venues, I do feel the decision is, as I said, short-sighted. Insofar as my hopes are concerned, however, I would hope two things concerning our Foursquare Churches - and for that matter, for any church anywhere:
(1) That if an announced closure has been made that a reconsideration will result in, at least, the chapel-service type offering creatively developed by the pastor mentioned above; and,
(2) That for all time, a Foursquare Church would as a general rule, never be closed on a Sunday, short of any reason less than a natural disaster or impossible weather circumstances.

Source: Foursquare Communications

The Emergent Church: Some Observations

1. All emergent churches are missional; but not all missional churches are emergent.

For example, it seems to me that Kimball is missional-emergent, but Keller and Driscoll are more missional then emergent. Kimball has a whole different church service and environment, an emergent one. This includes mostly the 18-30-years.

2. A missional church seems to be:
-finding ways to reach the community
-tells the gospel in narrative style
-does the church service much the same as always but may use some variations
-attracts all ages--and many attract all socio-economic groups


3. An emergent church:
-does the first two of the missional church--plus:
-attracts the 18-30 age group only (usually)
-does a different church service where the teaching is short and there is discussion among other events.
-There may be many things going on the platform at the same time; and, there also may be stations to do various things at the same time

To me, Keller and Driscoll are more missional and Kimball is definately emergent. I would vote for the missional as it is my belief that church should be for all age groups, not a specific one. Also, too many emergents seem to be going the way of the same liberal path we saw 100 years ago in the formerly evangelical chruches (i.e. many of the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Congregational, Lutheran and Methodist churches). And we've seen how they've ended up.

It's a generational problem that IMO is of the most magnitude this country has ever seen church-wise. May God give us the wisdom to know how to resolve it and at the same time keep the gospel intact.

The Emergent Church: Dan Kimball

In the last few posts we have been looking at those pastors who are doing a missional-emergent church WITHOUT compromising the gospel.

Dan Kimball pastors the Vintage Church in way-out liberal Santa Cruz, CA. There is also a way-out-whacko-liberal-to-the-extreme University of California campus there. I imagine he must get some students from the university.

Kimball, IMO, bridges the gap between a Tim Keller and a Brian McClaren, but perhaps being more like McClaren and friends. However, there ARE some redeeming qualities with Kimball...:)

In his book The Emerging Church, which I've actually read, he outlines the church service in an emergent church right down to prayer stations, candles and seating arrangements.
This book really helped me understand the "PROBLEM." And what is that?

Postmoderns will NOT come to your father's or grandfather's church anymore. They just are not interested in the way it's done. They ARE seeking a spirituality however, but not in either the more formal churches OR even the baby boomers seeker-sensitive type of church.

In fact, Kimball calls himself and this new generation (18-35) "Post-Seeker-Sensitive."

But the most fascinating part of the book to me was the Appendix. Here the reader finds outlines of his theology of gospel. And, of course, it is in typical emergent storytelling fashion...oops..I mean narrative.....But at least it's there.

I have to admit I had difficulty in finding the gospel in the two Brian Mcclaren books I read. I am also having trouble finding it in the blogs and church pages of some of the other emergent leaders.

Next post I want to explain what I see is the difference between Kimball (and McClaren et.al.) vs. Keller/Driscoll as well as wrap up the emergent series with some observations from moi.

Kimball's church's website can be found here:
http://www.vintagefaith.com/

*Note: Kimball has also written a newer book, "Emerging Worship: Creating Worship Gatherings for New Generations."

The Emergent Church: Mark Driscoll

Mark Driscoll is the pastor of the Mars Hill Church in the Seattle, Washington area. Like Keller, his theology is more Reformed and his church is missional. The emergent-missional churches are asking, "How do we effectively reach our community for Christ?" And specifically, "How do we reach the postmodern generation for Christ?"

In the last post we looked at how Dr. Tim Keller does it in Manhattan. So, how does Driscoll do it in Seattle?
Beliefwise, their doctrinal statement looks like the typical Reformational church. But to see how they change the gospel from statements into story-mode, see What We Believe-The Gospel.

And what exactly is Mars Hill Church all about? Here is what they say about themselves:
Mars Hill is not 'church' the way our society defines it. Mars Hill is a family, a family with members of all ages, with members who are students and software designers and retail clerks and parents and construction workers. A family with members who skate and snowboard and who do cross-stitch and who play in punk rock bands and who read mystery novels. A family with members who have an intimate relationship with God, others who desire to know Him better and still others who don't know Him at all. A family with members who gather on Sunday nights to worship God, to pray, to learn, and for some, to just hang out.

One thing I saw that is probably a little different than most churches is the variety of small groups. Of course Rick Warren and other seeker-sensitives are also doing this. There are small groups according to where one lives (geographical home groups), singles' groups, hobby groups such as hiking, bicycling and other hobbies, service-to-the-community groups, andn so forth.

Driscoll has written a book entitled, The Radical Reformission : Reaching Out without Selling Out. Unfortunately, I haven't yet read it although I am planning to do so shortly.

Source:http://lite.marshillchurch.org

The Emergent Church: Dr. Tim Keller

Many of us have problems with the emergent church. It seems the main one is what we perceive to be a repeat of the same liberalism that raced through the formerly evangelical denominations 100 years ago. People like Erwin McManus and Brian McClaren among others, seem to be presenting a very watered-down gospel, weak on the historic principles of justification by grace and faith alone through Jesus Christ and His atonement for us.

Many of us understand that there may need to be a culture shift in the church, but it's imperative that we keep the foundational faith...not change it.

There are a few who are achieving this--that is--reaching the postmodern generation as well as their neighborhoods without sacrificing propostional truths, especially in the epistles.

Tim Keller is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian church in Manhattan It is a PCA church, not PCUSA. Think Dr. James Kennedy, the late James Boice and Jollyblogger.

Their vision statement: "Redeemer Presbyterian Church Seeks to Renew the City Socially, Spiritually & Culturally."

Redeemer Vision Campaign
Serving Our Neighbors. Changing the World.
Redeemer's vision is to build a great city for all people through a gospel movement that brings about personal conversion, community formation, social justice and cultural renewal in New York and throughout the world. A new campaign has been launched to invite more of Redeemer's congregation to be an active participant in this vision.

And here is what is happening this week at Redeemer Presbyterian Church:

Dec. 4
AfterService Meal
Prayer for Redeemer services
Volunteer Advent Choir
New Faith and Work class: East Side
Help For Street Boys in Mexico City
East Asia Jazz Missions Trip
New Faith & Work Class: West Side

Dec. 6
East Side Volunteers Christmas Party
Open Forum: Christmas of Peace 7--this is the seeker series

Dec. 7
Pakistan Earthquake -- Help Needed
Open Forum: Christmas of Peace
Midweek New Testament Introduction Class

Dec. 8
West Side Volunteers Christmas Party
Open Forum: Christmas of Peace

Dec. 9
Arts Ministry/InterArts Fellowship Christmas Party

Dec. 10
Academy for Christian Thought: Areopagus Seminars
Vision Campaign Art Exhibition
Bowery Mission Women's Center
Praise Night
Open Forum: Christmas of Peace


As you can see, this LOOKS like an emergent-type church with it's emphasis on the poor and helping the community. But look at what they BELIEVE and TEACH--surprisingly, the service is a typical PCA church one with the hymns, communion every Sunday and the confessions as well as a Reformational dedication to the gospel.

Dr. Keller believes in networking as the way to evangelize. He says that networking incorporates every church member, not simply a few "specialists." He says that door-to-door evangelism or any other form from strangers just isn't effective. I certainly say an amen to that, although at times God can lead a stranger to another stranger to share the gospel.

Keller writes (I needed to summarize for sake of brevity):
A networking church is developed primarily through cultivating a mindset, a collective attitude--and only secondarily through setting up programs.
1. The key to networking: a partnership between newer/"grapevined" believers and -mature believers. THE problem in evangelism is this: New believers have the connections and credibility with non-believers, but do not have the power to articulate. On the other hand, mature believers have the power to articulate but not the place in the worldly "grapevines".
2. The critical event in a networking church is when a Christian (and especially a new Christian) comes to a worship service, a small group, or some other church ministry program and says to him or herself: "I have been actively talking to my non-Christian friends about Christ, and this is exactly what I have been trying to show and say to them all along, but this does it far better than I can do it."
3. The cultivation of this "mindset" of networking.
There must be an atmosphere of expectation that every member will always have 2-4 people in the "incubator", a force field in which people that are being prayed for, given literature, brought to church or other events. How is this mindset cultivated?
a). Brainstorm with the potential bringers the needs of their non-believing friends and colleagues. Make a list of their most basic needs, interests, hopes, fears, idols, aspirations, frustrations, dilemmas, prejudices, sins, strengths.
b). Preach and present in every service and ministry so that both Christians and non-Christians are always intentionally challenged and addressed. Then be certain that the great truths of the faith are always brought into connection with the unbeliever's heart, that the gospel is used to answer the questions they are asking.
i.) First, you must preach as if skeptics, agnostics, etc.
ii.) As a result, you will be talking to more non-Christians, listening to their objections, areas of confusion, and so on. The evangelistic appointments will then,

c). Modeling by the leadership.
d). Kingdom-centered prayer. Your prayer meetings must be first of all oriented toward your "incubators", seeking to push the boundaries of the kingdom outward over your community. See C.John Miller's Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, chapter 7, on the difference between frontline prayer and maintenance prayer meetings.
e). Tools for networking evangelism should be everywhere -- handout pamphlets, books, tapes. A serious networking church would develop its own tracts and tools designed specifically for the kinds of needs and questions its "incubator" people have.
f). A constant variety of visitor-seeking events such as "Friendship Sundays". But if the networking philosophy sinks in, Friendship Sundays become obsolete.
g). Continually evaluate all programs ruthlessly: are they BOTH challenging Christians AND non-Christians? Are both kinds of people regularly present? Are they both being kept interested?
4. The modes of networking. There are four basic kinds of "web networks":
*familial,
*geographical (neighborhood),
*vocational (career/school associates),
*relational (friends not necessarily in the other networks).

In urban areas, the latter two are more important; in rural areas the first two are more important. Geographically based evening small groups are better for winning familial and geographical networks. But workday breakfast and lunch events in business districts are better for the latter two networks.
5. The process of networking. The more often a person hears the gospel before making a commitment, the better the comprehension, the less likely of "reversion" to the world. Many people simply have "process personalities" -- they will never come to faith if they are pushed. They need to come in stages.

And he also recognizes the post-modern "need" for story. He says,
"First, remember that post-everything people like narrative and story. They tend not to like the older kind of preaching that simply enunciated doctrinal principles. Neither are they excited about the newer user-friendly sermons of seeker-churches on 'How to Handle Fear,' 'How to Balance Your Life,' etc. So, do we throw overboard everything we have done? Absolutely not. We turn to Geerhardus Vos who says that every single part of the Bible is really about Jesus. If you know how to do Christ-centered preaching, then you turn every single sermon into a kind of story. The plot of the human dilemma thickens, and the hero that comes to the rescue is Jesus. Christ-centered preaching converts doctrinal lectures or little how-to talks into true sermons. Post-everythings who are interested in narrative are reached by such preaching that is deeply Reformed.

Second, remember that post-everythings are experientially oriented. They do not just want intellectual propositions. For them life's meaning is grounded in what they experience. Of course, as Reformed Christians we are very word-centered, and we know that eternal truth is not based on our subjective experience of it. But Reformed preachers have a tremendous resource for an experience-oriented generation in Jonathan Edwards. Edwards taught that a sermon should not only make truth clear, but also should make truth real. In Edwards we find ways to preach that are Reformed, committed to objective truth and, at the same time, deeply experiential.

Third, remember that post-everythings are very much against moralism and self-righteousness. But Reformed preachers have Martin Luther to help with this concern. Traditional gospel presentations assume that the people want to be 'good.' But our kids' generation wants to be "free." Luther said, 'Look, you want to be free? Good. It's good to be free. But you're not. You are living for something and, whatever that something is, it enslaves you.' If a person lives for reputation, then he is a slave to what people think. If a person lives for achievement, then he will be a workaholic. As did Luther, we should tell such people, "You want to be free? Fine. But you're not going to be free unless Jesus is your salvation."

Fourth, take note of post-everythings' concern for social justice. They innately sense that the church is not credible without care for mercy and justice. We can address these concerns with the wisdom of Hermann Ridderbos and other Reformed theologians who stress the coming of and the presence of the Kingdom. The Reformed understanding of salvation is not simply that God is rescuing individual souls out of the material world, but rather he is also redeeming all of creation.

Fifth, recognize that post-everythings love art because they love the material world. Abraham Kuyper's understanding of Reformed theology enables us to say to post-everythings, 'Christianity is not just a way for you as an individual to get peace, love and groovy vibes in Heaven. Christianity is a comprehensive worldview. You can be a Christian artist, dancer, manager, or minister and these are all ways of living out the gospel.' When post-everythings hear that, they get extremely excited. They have never considered that Christianity embraces the whole of life. But the presuppositional apologetics of Cornelius Van Til can work with post-everythings. I think Reformed theology provides us with tools for our culture that Josh McDowell's kind of evidential apologetics does not."

People Dr. Keller recommend reading:
*C. John Miller
*Hermann Ridderbos
*Cornelius Van Til
*Geerhardus Vos
*Abraham Kuyper
*Jonathan Edwards

I will reserve my comments about all of this until I finish with the other two gentlemen we will look at in the next posts.

Source: http://www.redeemer.com

The Emergent Church: A Rocky Road

My Sunday School teacher says that whenever the church is in transition it can get messy until things are settled.

With the emergent church it certainly is "messy." In fact, to see how messy it can get, and how confusing, check out the subtitle of one of the emergent spokesman's latest book, A Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McClaren (and yes, I've read the book).

Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN.

Messy stuff indeed.

Here is where I weigh in on this. I understand that transitions won't be perfect. HOWEVER (and this is a BIG however), boundaries MUST be set down. In the case of the emergents, I don't see these boundaries in much of the wriitng of the movement's leaders.

Many times, the boundaries seem to be up for grabs with this group.
I would feel better I guess if they would declare a clear gospel and a holy life. Cussing would be out (a lot of this crowd seems to glory in it), and kewl for the sake of kewl would be out. This would include body piercings, tatoos and other assorted "paganistic" paranaphalia. And these are the Christians sporting this.

I would feel better if Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll (thanks to Scott at Exhibiting The Value of Knowing God for introducing me to Driscoll), and even Dan Kimball were the main spokespeople. And, I would feel better if ooze.com wasn't their main website.

As Ingrid of Slice of Laodicea points out, is rebellion really the root of much of the emergent church movement? I think that is a really excellent question. Are these the new "Christian hippies?"

At the other end of the spectrum, are the emergents just "re-organizing" church as usual? Should we abandon church as we know it?

Heady questions. But, as someone who really believes 100% in the established church and the fact that God wants to work through it, I want to see if we can do the emergent thing in a church setting WITHOUT sacrificing the gospel, the right boundaries and propositional truths. So the next posts will look at Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll and even Dan Kimball.

I recommend the books Revolution by George Barna and also The Emerging Churc by Dan Kimball to get a handle on the problem and what some are doing to resolve it.

The Emergent Church: What Is It?

As I previously stated in my post Seven Wrong Paths, the emergent church is rising because of something in the main evangelical churches that some think is missing. Basically, what's missing are the 18-30 year olds; or, the 18-35 year olds, depending on what logistics you are studying. This is called Generation X and the younger Baby Busters by most; and the Mosaics by George Barna in his book, Revolution.

To bring this generation group back to churches, some leaders are saying that the church must change HOW they do church. Of course we've heard this for the past 30 years..but ho-hum.
Unfortunately, many of these leaders, in the opinion of many including yours truly are also changing WHAT is being taught.

It seems that the mosaic generation doesn't like:

*anything Baby Boomer including their soft-rock praise music
*the lecture tour--i.e. listening to a teaching/sermon for even a half-hour
*church buildings that look like mall stores
*anything that looks like intolerance

So, in order to bring this generation into church, some leaders have decided to do what the seeker-sensitive Baby Boomer leaders have done--do a survey of the Mosaics and ask them what they would like in a church.

The response seems to be:
*an electic mix of music including medieval
*candles
*a short teaching followed by discussion by the congregation sitting in a circle, not rows. It's more intimate that way.
*doing Christianity, not just hearing about it. They want more done by the church in the area of the environment and for the poor in all countries.
*they don't like black and white truths (called propostional truths).
They like stories.
*they like more multi-media, the arts and technology in the church.
*they like more than one thing going on in the church at once. In other words, they are used to multi-tasking. For example, think watching TV, talking on the phone and doing homework--at the same time.

This new church is called emergent.

So, stay tuned for how emergent leaders are carrying this out. Is it working? And, is it still evangelical Christianity? Or have these emergent leaders "crossed over the line" into another realm?
(hint: think liberals 100 years ago).

Quote of the Day

This has to be the greatest antidote I have ever seen concerning how many women (and some men too) make their decisions.

It's found at the Free in Him blog:

What the Lord showed me to bring me to my senses was that I had a thinking problem. I wasn’t thinking theologically...I was thinking emotionally.