I want to continue the discussion I started with the post about a lot of confusion in presenting the gospel to youth in the Young Calvinist's camp. Today, the evangelical movement seems to be splitting into two theological outlooks at opposite ends of the spectrum. But are there "other sides?" Thankfully there are, and in future posts I would like us to explore those together.

One major theme fueling these two opposites is the question of
who is in and who is out? In other words, who is really a Christian and who isn't?
The emergent church has greatly expanded the definition of who is a Christian because many of them are in a process theology of process conversion. In other words, they don't especially like the "Can you tell me the date when you were born again?" They say it's a "process." I've tried to find back-up for this but am having some trouble. It seems that in the book of Acts when people received (notice the tense) Christ, it was at a certain time....period. Again, like liberal Protestants, who really don't have a justification theology--only a sanctification one; and like Roman Catholics as well as evangelical holiness folks who confuse justification with sanctification, the emergents seem to be doing likewise.

This explains the mystery of why many emergent pastors don't have trouble with outright practicing sinners joining their "community" and even getting baptized and in some churches becoming members. By outright sinners I mean repentance is an unknown concept. Particularly thorny to many mainstream evangelicals is the emergents' acceptance of practicing homosexuals into their "community." By this they don't mean, "Hey, gay person-we want you to come and that's fine, but you just cannot sit there year after year practicing your stuff." Most emergents (Mark Driscoll et. al. excluded) don't seem to have a problem with what people do as long as they love people and help the poor (and added in today-the environment). Oh, shades of the liberal Protestant church I grew up in. We heard this "theology" all the time (excluding the gay thing since that wasn't in vogue back when).

But on the other end of the spectrum, and somewhat disappointing to me as to how they are at times presenting their view, is the Young Calvinists. I've already mentioned two audio teachings that I believe were somewhat confusing in their view of justification and sanctification. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not an extreme "Arminian," but I am not an extreme Calvinist either. And, I do believe that all Christians should read Reformational doctrine to really understand the importance of the cross, the Bible and what justification and sanctification really are. But it isn't helpful, especially to our youth, to confuse these two. Saying things like, "Only 90% of evangelical youth are saved" is really over the top. How do they know this?

I am giving you a teaser in this post for my hopefully upcoming podcast. I bought the book, Podcasting for Dummies and hope to get this done after my vacation...so hope to do it in late April. Until then I will just keep the teasers coming and the discussion ongoing......:)

This is Just TOOOO Confusing

A while back I wrote a controversial post, (the link is here), about a man who gave a talk to a Southern Baptist Youth Group. Now I am hearing some of the same things by some others.

This has disturbed me because listening to these people, it was confusing as to who is saved and who is not saved. The speaker to the youth said that if you dressed like Brittany Spears you were going to hell. He was making the point that there is too much easy believism among evangelicals today. That may be true and I don't have a problem with people teaching that. However, is it helpful to make these type of very generalistic statements when you really don't know the people? I believe this is reflecting a growing movement of what I would call "hyper-Calvinism." I am not against some of Calvinism per se, but let's "unconfuse it."
Here are two hypothetical scenarios, whoch could actually be real ones.

Scenario #1: A girl dresses like current pop stars--in other words, lots shows. But the girl is truly a Christian. In other words, she has truly been converted. How could this be according to the hyper-Calvinists?
Well, perhaps she hasn't been converted that long. The Sanctification process hasn't gotten around to the way she looks. God has been busy changing other things first. With some people, how they look is very tied into their mindset and until that mindset is changed, their outer appearance won't change much. However, should she be a leader in the church? No, not yet.

Scenario #2: A girl dresses modestly and is very moral and ethical, kind and good. When asked if she knows Jesus is Saviour she says "yes." When asked if she follows Him she replies "yes."
However, let's say this person is NOT a Christian yet; she is not converted. I know this isn't a far fetched example because I was that person before I was born again (when I was growing up in my liberal Protestant they-never-told-us-the-gospel church). Here is the scary thing. These people I am hearing lately might very well think this person in scenario #2 IS a Christian.

We have to be careful making generalized statements about people's salvation to specific groups and especially young people. These statements might be confusing and frankly, heartbreaking and abusive if the person was truly a Christian. And the statement would be null and void if the person appeared good but was not a Christian.

Two of the above talks were geared to youth. One of the speakers did go into the fact that many church youth groups are not feeding strong enough meat to them. I'm glad at least one person said this because you really cannot blame the youth for all of this. Churches who do not disciple their converts must share the blame. I guess I was lucky in a way because after I became a Christian (I converted in college) I was discipled systematically by a parachurch campus ministry. But after finishing college, in the churches I attended, so many I met who converted when they were children or teens, were rarely discipled in any systematic way by their churches, and their lives often reflected that fact. Most of them were depressed, confused and guilt-ridden. Observing my friends gave me a strong belief that defining the difference between justification and sanctification; AND HOW sanctification happens, is really, really important.

So, before we go charging into youth groups and conferences telling evangelical church young people 90% of them are going to hell (two of the above speakers gave these stats), maybe we should talk to them and see if they are truly converted and maybe are not being discipled well. Or, perhaps they aren't converted. So, then leave the unconverted alone since they are not among the predestined. Why make their lives any more miserable than continually reminding them of that fact? Or are people trying to scare people in heaven, including the non-predestined? Isn't that as bad as manipulating with an easy believing altar call? I think it is.

What do you think about this phenomenon that is going on? Isn't there a better way to counter easy believism and the altar call where everyone goes up to pray? What are your thoughts on this?

Quote of the Week

From Internet Monk,

"American young people are part of a cuture that values individualism, comfort, consumerism, conspicuous consumption and the narrative of prosperity without character or cost. This culture promises a meaningful life by participation in relativist ethics, economic and technological prosperity and the omission of a transcendently meaningful life purpose. This narrative is largely unrelated to education. If the compnents of a "meaningful life" do not relate to education in eays that students will understand, then they will become increasingly detached from education in any normative or coherent way."

It might be interesting substituting the word "church" wherever the word "education" occurs.

I Have a Question about the Non-Pre-Selected

I have a question. If one believes that people are predestined (I call them pre-selected) by God, why would a pastor or evangelist (i.e. like Jonathan Edwards as well as some Calvinists today) tell people they are going to hell? The predestined aren't going there, and the non-predestined are anyway. Isn't this cruel and abusive to the non-predestined? Why not just preach the gospel and the predestined will accept it and get saved. And the non-predestined won't. If you preach hell, maybe some of the non-predestined will try to accept Christ in order to avoid it.

By the way, I do believe in hell. I just don't understand why we tell the unsaved, who will never be saved anyway, that they are going there. Isn't that rubbing the salt into the wound?

Who's Narcissistic?

In the May 7, 2006 issue of the San Diego Post, staff writer Jennifer Goodwin writes about the postmodern generation (18 to around 30+) who seem to be fascinated with their self esteem. She calls them Generation Me. She also writes,

Baby boomers have a reputation for self-absorption, but their offspring have perfected the art.

But guess what Goodwin found out? The emphasis on ME doesn't bring them happiness.

She also interviewed Jean Twenge, a San Diego State associate professor of psychology who wrote a book entitled Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled – and More Miserable Than Ever.

Twenge said in a 2003 study, 29 percent of teens – and 36 percent of girls – described themselves as feeling sad and hopeless. The number of teens ages 14 to 16 who agreed that “Life is a strain for me much of the time” quadrupled between the early 1950s and 1989. The average college student in the 1990s scored in the 85th percentile on anxiety tests compared to the 50th percentile for 1950s students. This data according came from 40,000 students Twenge gathered as part of her doctoral dissertation at the University of Michigan.

In the early 1950s, 12 percent of teens ages 14 to 16 agreed with the statement: “I am an important person.” By the late '80s, 80 percent did.

It's sad that both their Baby Boomer parents and they themselves aren't getting the fact that God seems to think Christ is very improtant. At least that is what the Bible indicates. We are important but the world doesn't revolve around us. I find these generations difficult to deal with at times because of this view they have. Like the people of old thinking everything revolved around the earth, it was a shock for them to learn most things in our solar system revolved around the sun.

Twenge contines,
"In the late 1950s, 30 percent of young people approved of sex before marriage. Now, 75 percent approve. The shift among women is even greater. Only 12 percent of 1950's young women approved of premarital sex, compared with 80 percent now."

In a recent poll, 84 percent of single, college-educated women said it was “common . . . to have sex just for fun and not expect any commitment.”

Welcome to the postmodern generation. Now the BIG question is---just what is the best way to minister to them? Emergent? Seeker-sensitive? Hard core Calvinist? Way to the other extreme psuedo-Arminian Finneyism? Other?

I vote for Other. In the following weeks I want to explore what our message should be - and shouldn't be--to everyone, including the postmoderns.

Quality Control and Your Doggy

I grew up when "Made in Japan" meant something falling apart. That was in the 1950's. By the late 1970's "Made in Japan" meant quality stuff and "Made in America" was now the stuff that was falling apart. In that time period NBC had a program now and then called "The White Paper." This was the forerunner to current news magazines like 60 minutes. In 1980 they had a White Paper entitled, If Japan Can . . . Why Can't We? Some of you might remember the long gas lines during that time and how the Japanese cars were selling like hot cakes both for mileage and quality. One of the startling discoveries on this program was the story about Dr. W. Edwards Deming. Deming, a statistician, was called by the U.S. government to go over to post war Japan and help Gen. MacARTHUR, who was in charge of putting Japan back together. Deming had a secret. He knew that the only reason much of American industry had done so well was because of the war demand (WWII). But now he surmised, their "holes" would begin to show. In his free time, he visited Japanese engineers who asked Deming to tell them why the American technology during the war was so good. The engineers understood that much of the war was won through this technology. But isnstead of telling the Japanese engineers what the American companies were doing, because he knew that would lead the Japanese into the same dead end he foresaw for their American counterparts, he taught them his system. And what was his system? His emphasis was on superior quality control. Reduce the number of defective products as much as possible. To do this, he said that the managers had to get off their duffs and come on down to the factory floor to learn what was going on. He also said the workers needed to have more input as to how to improve operations since they were the ones working with the product day in and day out. The Japanese followed Deming's methods exactly and by 1980 we saw the result.

Meanwhile, the arrogant American companies still "didn't get it." Deming had gone to some of the big companies with his ideas right after the war and they simply laughed him out of their offices. But when 1980 rolled around and the car and copier and TV manufacturers as well as others were falling way behind in sales and being laughed at and scorned at the same time by the public, a few companies like Ford and Xerox thought they had better get Dr. Deming to give some seminars. It's interesting that Ford adn Xerox and the better sales of their products than their competitors.

Oh, did I mention that Dr. Deming was a Christian and in his seminars he often gave Bible quotes?

Fast forward to today and we are once again seeing quality control suffer because of the "bottom line." However, this time IMO the reason isn't necessarily because the American companies are failing in their inspections and corrections, but they are offshoring to other countries who frankly might have lower standards than we do.

Case in point--I bought a computer last year and 10 months later the whole off-on button had caved in. Cost me $almsot 200. Want to bet the parts were NOT made here? I bought a TV/DVD combo last year and 7 months later the DVD had broken down. Want to bet that wasn't made in Japan (it was a Japanese superior brand), but somewhere in Southeast Asia or China?

Think India, China, Singapore, Vietnam, and so forth.

BIG case in point-the wheat gluten found in Menufoods dog and cat food was made in...guess where....China. Rat poison anyone?

What happened to Dr. Deming's quality control?

Bishop Gilbert E. Patterson: 1939-2007

I was very sorry to read today that Bishop Patterson, the head of the large African-American Pentecostal denomination, Church of God in Christ, died. He was only 67. A couple of months ago his doctors told him he had cancer and probably had about two years to live. I guess he didn't even half make it to that point. Although he had little time, his denomination asked him to keep leading it for as much time as he could. And why would they do that? I watched Bishop Patterson's service many weeks on TBN. He understood Pentecostalism and how it should work. He didn't apologize for preaching the "full" gospel (read that Holy Spirit a-workin' with tongues and everything) or healing in the atonement. I have felt for some time that he should be the standard bearer for what Pentcostals, many of whom, IMO, have lost their way, should be preaching.

Here is what Dr. Jack Hayford, President of the Pentecostal denomination, The Foursquare Church, said about Bishop Patterson upon learning of his death today.

I know of no man who has demonstrated greater devotion to his pastorate as well as to fidelity in leadership among those in his denomination than this great man,” said Foursquare President Jack Hayford. “His contribution to the body of Christ has been marked by a generosity of spirit and sacrificial service, and it is difficult to imagine the future ministry of the Church at large without him.


Amen. I will be interested in seeing who the denomination will pick as their next leader. I hope it will be someone who is as sold out to the gospel as Bishop Patterson was.

The Case of the Missing Holy Spirit

Dan at Cerulean Sanctum wrote a really good post on something that is missing from most Christian blogs as well as churches - mention of the work of the Holy Spirit in our day-to-day lives. His post, The Holy Who? is worth the read. He also goes into emergent churches leaving the Spirit out. Yes, but so do other types of churches. But then as I've pointed out before, and Dan does go into this too, many, if not most Charismatic churches are either not identifying what the work of the Spirit really is, or they are ineffective. And then, there are the Pentecostals. Sadly, they seem to be lost as to where their original theology went. Many of them are caving in to the seeker-sensitive and emergent molds.

Do read Dan's post. It is getting a lot of comments - 69 at my last read.

Commenters on My Aug. 26th Post

Last August 26 I did a post on my reaction to Paul Washer's talk to a group of Southern Baptist Youth. I received three comments on Part 2 and 12 on Part 1. I'm not sure they all really read my post very well. I had said that my problem with Mr. Washer was a confusion between what I was hearing concerning justification and sanctification.

I did not say that I disagreed with him on the necessity of telling the Youth how it should be concerning holiness in their lives. But many commenters felt I wanted him to be easy on the youth. No, not necessarily. In fact in Part 2 of the series I said over and over that I felt many, if not most church groups did not demand enough nor teach the gospel well. I am a speaker, not a writer, and so it might not have been as clear as I wanted it to be. I have since made a few editing changes, mostly to the linguistics, not the content.

Some commenters said I should repent and fall on my knees and spend hours in prayer and maybe I would agree with Mr. Washer. Mr. Washer seems very sincere and a great misisonary but again, my concern was the CONFUSION I heard from him. Thanksfully at least one other commenter, who I know to be more on the Reformed side fo theology, agreed. I wished Mr. Washer had been clearer about how to get saved AND THEN very clear on how to keep it. Here are some of the statements I wrote down that he said which troubled me. I listened to this three times to make sure I was accurate.

He said great number of the youth [at the meeting] will be in hell, even many of those who profess Jesus Christ. How does he know that? He might be right but that is quite a statement.

He said, "If someone told you if you asked Christ into your heart you are saved, that isn't right. "
I understand what he is saying but again, lots of confusion can get in here. If someone understood the atonement and what they were doing, is he saying they wouldn't be a Christian because they were taught to say, "Jesus, would you come into my heart?"

These are impressionable young people and while I am very much in favor of preaching a strong gospel to them, I don't want them to be confused since that would lead many to real disaster.

He also said that those called carnal in I Cor. 3 were not Christians and are going to hell. This is one of the theological problems I had with his talk. In the beginning of that chapter the Apostle Paul addresses his readers as brothers. He doesn't call non-Christians brothers in his epistles. Then in verse 15 he says that man will be saved but his works will be burned up.

Another statement Washer made was, "Your profession of faith in Jesus Christ is worth nothing (not everyone who comes to me and say Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven)."
Again, how does he know this for everyone? This would have been a good time for him to go to James and explain the faith-works life. I noticed he mostly kept in the gospels. Perhaps this was the problem--not enough balance with the epistles, especially of Paul. He did talk about fruit as evidence of conversion but I still felt it wasn't clear.

"But if you live like all the others in high school, you are going to hell."
I understand what he is saying here but if one of his listeners had only been a Christian for a week and heard this, how would they react? Do all Christians need to change 100% by tomorrow?

I am trying to say there is a better way of getting his message across. And in the next posts I am going to take a challenge to myself and see if I can do it. I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

So you won't think I am being too harsh, here are some very good statements he made. My only prob with him is the seeming confusion between seems to be competing theologies.

"The issue isn't that you have sin. The issue is that you've never done anything BUT sin."

"You're saved because Jesus bore your sin."

Is a Christian without sin? No (he cites I John). He says if you are truly born again you will walk in righteousness. If you get off of that path of righteousness then God will deal with you to put you back onto the path." Then after this he says the part about, "But if you live like all the others in high school, you are going to hell." I wanted you to see it in context since that is only fair. But I still think the young people could have gotten confused.

"How many times do you redicate your lives over and over again? How many times to you get fired up at a church program and it lasts only a week? These aren't moves of God."

Overall, I do appreciate that someone is trying to get serious with the youth and preach the gospel. I didn't mean to attack Mr. Washer personally in my previous post and I have to admit I came across a bit testy. I am sorry. But I ached when I saw what I did consider a farily good attempt by him at preaching the REAL gospel, to youth disolve into a lot of confusion. If anyone was at that meeting I would love to know how the participants reacted. Did they understand the message correctly? Has it stuck because it was clear? I think that is the real test and if many of the youth were understanding it clearly, then I have majorly missed it.

So the next post is my test and you can hang me over the coals if I don't pass the test.

Oh, Those Comments--I Love Them!

I welcome comments on my blog.

Recently I looked at all my posts over the past 2 1/2 years since I started Crossroads. I decided to talk about and answer some of the ones that had the most comments (with the exception of the times I hosted the Christian Carnival).

My post of Oct. 10, 2005 was about sin in certain areas making those places a magnet for bad things happening,such as New Orleans or places where I live where big earthquakes have struck.
One commenter quoted Leviticus 18 where God said if we sin the land will spew you out., Another said if this is true, God's aim must be bad since the French Quarter (N.O.) was spared as well as the Castro gay district in S.F. during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Also, the earthquake in S. Cal didn't happen in Chatsworth where the porn is mostly made (the earthquake center was in nearby Northridge) and nothing bad has happened in West Hollywood, the gay city (it was formed especially to be a gay city). Actually, this commenter is right - God has given to West Hollywood the best restaurants in Los Angeles and actually some of the best in the world. Also, the big clubs you always hear about are there. And Paris Hilton frequents those clubs a lot since she lives nearby. What more could you want? Food, alcohol, drugs, dirty dancing...and....Paris Hilton to boot.

My post of Nov. 1, 2005 talked about the fine line between what is legal and what God considers ethical. In part 1 I talked about my own story. The Nov.1st post was part 2 and a continued discussion of the implications of my story. Commenters were mostly focused on the question, "It's legal for a Christian organization to pay low wages, but is it ethical from God's point of view?"

I received 15 comments (some were multiple comments from the same persons) on my Nov. 15, 2005 post. If you are interested in the fine points of recent Charismatic history, this might be fascinating reading for you. Actually the commenters were more instructive than my post....:)

The movie The End of the Spear used a gay actor to portray a Christian missionary killed by natives in Ecuador. There were 6 comments on that Jan. 21, 2006 post ranging from it was an abomination to do this to it was a good thing to do.

My post of March 24, 2006 was one that I was passionate about. But almost most of the commenters took exception with me and said the important thing was that Pentecostal and Charismatic people got together and that I should be happy about that. A few said they attended and it was a real blessing. Maybe I missed it on this one?

Getting back to the first century church organization structure was my topic on the April 14, 2006 post. Some commenters agreed with me and some had other things to say.

Evangelicals--Is This Your Future? garnered 7 comments. Some agreed with me on the emergents and some didn't.

Tomorrow I will end the topic of "posts with lots of comments"--with just ONE post. The comments saddened me because it is the only post I've written out of 583 where people attacked me personally. So, until tomorrow........

A MUST HEAR!

You absolutely have to listen to this video. And I want to go on record BOLDLY saying I absolutely agree 100% with everything he says.

Sadly, Michael Spencer at Internet Monk does not like this and thinks its silly. But I do have to thank him for letting us know about it.

Tech probs: If you have dialup or a very old, old computer and the video plays and then stops, plays and stops--do this:
Let it spurt along until the end and then drag the bar back to the beginning. It should play all the way through without the stops..hopefully.

OK..here it is..check it out NOW!

THE VIDEO

Quote of the Week

I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century [the 20th] will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.

__William Booth, founder of the Salvation Army

Just Open Up to God?

Someone named David Sheldon has written a booklet entitled Did You Really Hear and See the Gospel? He was involved, as I was also as a small group leader, in his church's 40 Days of Purpose (think Rick Warren and Saddleback Southern Baptist Church in the OC). Yes, Saddleback is a Southern Baptist church. And for those who aren't "with it," the OC is Orange County, California. It's the county just below Los Angeles County where I live.

Sheldon won't allow a reprint of excerpts of his article so I do hope you will go to the link above and read the whole thing.

The one point I want you to see is the same point I saw when I led a small 40 Days of Purpose group in my church. On the video supplied by Saddleback, Warren, in lesson #1, goes through "the God has a purpose for you" theme and then at the end he asks, "If you want this purpose in your life, why don't you ask Christ into your life now?" This was two and a half years ago so I hope I am quoting him correctly. Sheldon remembers it another way but it is similar.

Sheldon, his wife, and I, had the same reaction. Whoa there! Where is the part about the cross and repentance and the need for a substitute atoner and.....and.....and.....hmmmmmm.

Read the link. Here it is again if you don't wish to scroll up (you lazy thing...LOL).....Did You Really Hear and See the Gospel?

Bitterness of the Youth

Dan at Cerulean Sanctum in his post, Kingdoms and Biterness, writes about Ben Witherton's statements that the younger generation has more bitterness than other older generations. Dan attributes this to the "system" and it's abuses. I disagree somewhat. Actually, I think the system is better toward the poor and others than in my younger days. I have felt for some time this bitterness and disaffected attitude of gen x is attributed to two problems:

First, the rampant divorce and/or lack of parental time with their children in the home as well as activities outside the home. I reviewed some time ago here on Crossroads a book by Elizabeth Marquardt about how adult children of divorce actually feel (You'll find links to my series on this book here). Marquardt concluded that there is no "good" divorce. These chidlren feel lonely, alienated, confused and angry. In the evangelical world, statistic after stastistic is telling us Christians are also divorcing at almost the same rate as unbelievers (both stats are usually around 40-50%).

Second, the Baby Boomer parents (ages 43-61) of gen x (ages 18-35) have always had the same mantra.
--It's all about ME
--Love means little or no disciplining their children and a low commitment level
--Love is about giving you stuff, not especially spending time with you

Now I understand that not all Baby Boomer parents are like this, but certainly a great number are, even in the church.

I am beginning to wonder if God isn't saying that the grandparents have to get off their duff and start mentoring their grandchildren and other gen x'ers in the church (or outside the church too). Many are actually "raising" them while the parent or parents are at work. And beleive me, I undderstand why two parents must work. If you don't agree with this, then I invite you to come to either Northern or Southern California and see if you can even get a place to rent much less a place to buy. I guarantee that unless you are making well over $100,000 a year and have no more than two chuidlren, you will end up homeless unless you know someone here you can live with. Live in the ghetto? Unless you are making well above $25,000 I don't think so. Not here.

It is to this end that I see a ministry forming for me--to inform old folks what is happening in emergent Christianity, and postmodern philosphophy and how it affects today youth. Can us old people come up with a way to relate to this very needy postmodern generation WITHOUT losing the salvation message of the cross. That is why I wrote what I consider to be one of the most important posts here - Postmodernism for Old Folks. That link will give you all the links for the series at the bottom of that day's post.

Well, I will rest my case now and wait for your responses as well as Dan's...:)

What is the Real Truth Behind the Prosperity Teaching?

I don't quite get why people who send money to televangelists - that is the televangelists who have the multi-dollar homes and lifestyle - don't get "it." "It" refers to the massive number of non-Christians, not to mention Christians, who are fed up with this type of thing. It has given a terrible "black eye" to evangelical Christianity, and especially to the Pentecostal/Charismatic arm.

Here is what I bet those contributors don't realize.

First, what these people make each year seems to be a top secret. I have news for the supporters of these ministries. Every one of them should ask for a detailed budget at the end of the ministry's fiscal year - or STOP supporting it. These ministries are not above the law. They are nonprofits and should be held accountable. The Christian leaders aren't doing it - they play the "good 'ole boy game. But if the supporters pipe up, it would be interesting how these "prosperity" ministry heads would react.

Second, What is the motivation for these "prosperity" ministry heads (and some, but not all, mega-church - or wanna be mega-church pastors)?

Los Angeles County has over 100 towns and cities. In some years, the Los Angeles Times prints the top five wealthiest of these communities per capita*. A few years ago, Money magazine printed the top 500 wealthiest communities in the USA and the one that was L. A. County's top was also Money magazine's #1. And no, Beverly Hills wasn't that city. I grew up in one of the cities that is always on the top 5 - and no, it wasn't Beverly Hills either. In fact, Beverly Hills is never on that top 5 list. (See below for why that is if this fact intrigues you.**)

Beverly Hills is on the west side. That is what the Beverly Hills-Brentwood-Bel Air (O.J. territory)-Pacific Palisades (where the governator lives when he's not in Sacramento)-Holmby Hills area is called --simply the "west side." All the big clubs and most of the big restaurants in L.A. are in West Hollywood or somewhere else on the "west side." And what is the west side like? It's the liberal area - politically and socially. Also, it's typically been over the years the noveau riche area. In other words, the people like to flash their money. I guess it has to do with how important they think they are. And frankly, its nauseating. Think Paris Hilton.

This is what I see in most ministry heads who are living the "high life." As I study their backgrounds I see for most of them that they either grew up in poverty or in the working class. I really have thought for years that this opulence and the gospel of prosperity that goes with it is simply their inferior complexes talking. And frankly, I see it as nauseating. These people blather on how confident they are in Christ. But you would never know it. Take away their money and let's see how they fare.

There are two towns that border "old money" (conservative) Pasadena that are always on the top 5 list. I grew up in one of those. The people in these towns don't have to flash their money around because they know who they are. If a Ford Explorer would be easier to transport the kids around instead of a Jaguar, then they get the Explorer. That kind of "knowing who we are and being confident in it" is the guiding principle. You often see the society ladies wearing penny loafers because they're comfy. Sadly, so many of our ministry leaders wouldn't be caught dead in penny loafers. It's Gucci for them. And for the west side folks too.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Inteeresting facts for those who are bored:
*The five wealthiest towns per capita in Los Angeles county are (printed in the Los Angeles Times a few years ago):
1. Rolling Hills/Palos Verdes Estates (South Bay area)
2. San Marino (Pasadena area)
3. Brentwood/Bel Air (west side)
4. La Canada Flintridge (Pasadena area)
5. Pacific Pallisades (west side)

**The reason Beverly Hills (known popularly as BH) is not on the top 5 list is because the wealthy part is mostly above Wilshire Blvd. However, some of BH is below Wilshire and contains very old housing with lots of immigrants. By the way, BH has 35,000 Persians and recently the city added Farsi as a language on the ballot. The liberal bleeding heart liberal BH's went ballistic over this.
Funny....:)

Response to Feb. 24th Post

This was originally going to be a response to several comments on this recent post of Feb. 24, but I decided to make it a post here instead of a comment.

I want to take issue with this recent development of calling evangelicals "fundamentalists." This has been happening since 9/11, interestingly enought, and really does not adequately describe most evangelical Christians whose churches are not hiding in a cave, and are actually trying to relate to the culture WITHOUT compromising too points of the gospel.

I have for some time believed that many, if not most of those who are calling us "fundamentalists," grew up in those same churches. They refuse to address liberal Protestantantism and the harm those churches do by entrapping people in a church and telling them they are Christians without informing them how to be born again and what Jesus REALLY did at the cross (and no, he didn't go there to be simply an 'example' to us).

I do agree emergent is asking some of the right questions. However, I am not sure they are giving us the right answers. IN fact, most of them look and sound pretty much like liberal Protestant churches.

Are we going Medieval?

Could it be that we really going backwards instead of forwards? To me, one of the sad and discouraging trends in the evangelical church today, as well as in our society, is the trend BACK toward the medieval Middle Ages. Here are some sign posts in our society as well as in the church.

-- = society
* - the church

--Occultism guiding people instead of facts and reason.

*Some mystic elements gleaned from Eastern occultic religions and medieval Catholic mysticism presented to Christians as "contempletive spirituality instead of the Word and Spirit.


--Fascination with UFO's. Case in point:
A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments worldwide disclose and use secret alien technologies obtained in alleged UFO crashes to stem climate change. Alien spacecrafts would have traveled vast distances to reach Earth, and so must be equipped with advanced propulsion systems or used exceptional fuels. Such alien technologies could offer humanity alternatives to fossil fuels.

*Fascination by Christians with demons, as well as figures in the book of Revelations

Can you think of any more examples?