Happy R Day

No, sorry..not doing Happy Halloween today. So, instead of Halloween, let's do the 490th anniversary of the Reformation. Yes, it's Reformation Day.

I want to do a very different aspect of it as most blogs that cover this do the regular Reformational theology. But being Pentecostal in my views, I want to encourage fellow Pentecostals and Charismatics to lean over to the Reformational side a little more in order to give a good balance to your already fairly good belief system (minus that false holiness stuff with some of you and occultism with you Third Wave Charismatics). Here is my take on where various Pentecostals/Charismatics are in relation to Reformation theology:

TULIP Calvinism
Sovereign Grace

Slightly Over on the Reformational Side (surprise, surprise)
Word of Faith

Over on the Arminian Side - at Times a Touch Of Reformationalism
Traditional Pentecostal denominations (i.e. AG, 4Square)

Way Over on Arminian Side-[Extreme]Holiness
Oneness Pentecostals

Here is my suggestion. My wish is for Pentecostals and Charismatics to adopt some of the Reformational ideas such keeping the focus on what Jesus did at the cross. Pentecostals used to do this but many are getting into psycho-babble and self-esteem and even emergent and seeker-sensitive stuff. As for sin, I believe the Reformers had the right idea in an understanding that sin is who you are, not what you do. What you do comes out of who you are. Sadly, the homosexual/lesbian/transgendered community understands this theological concept better than most Christians. We could help more people if we accept this view of sin because then we wouldn't try to change them without conversion first.

As for you Sovereign Grace folks, my hope for you is to study classic Pentecostalism and "Hayford" (as in Jack) neo-Pentecostalism to get you more over to the Pentecostal/Charismatic side. I want to see more healing and more prophecy and Words of knowledge and wisdom in your churches. Oh and tongues and interpretation of tongues too. Don't be afraid of this stuff as it is in the Bible. Check out I Cor. 14 especially. Go for it!

I hope I haven't upset my purely non-Pentecostal/Charismatic readers too much.

I don't write too much of my personal life, especially after reading a recent post from Dan Edelen's blog, Cerulean Sanctum about what has happened to some bloggers who spilled too much info about themselves. But here is what I go through every year at this time. It's hell week for me because I have a black cat and I have to keep him in for two days -the day before and the day of Halloween. Out here people steal black cats just before Halloween. In fact, our city's shelter won't even allow anyone to adopt a black cat two weeks leading up to Halloween. My cat's going nuts running around the condo like a crazy guy. Poor thing. Tomorrow is relief day because he can go out all day if he wants to. Hopefully the furniture will survive his scratching jag tonight.

I am hosting the Christian Carnival next week so stay tuned for next Wednesday.

Hope you like the new blog look...the old one was really cluttered....blech.

Atonement Theories

I thought it might be a good idea to present the different atonement theories since the substitutionary atonement is coming under such attack today. I did a little of this in September (the 28th), but today I want to do a complete overview. Some of my source is an article in the May/June issue of Modern Reformation magazine.

*Substitutionary atonement theory (at times also called the penal atonement)
God's sense of justice concerning sin must be satisfied so He sent Jesus to die and bear our sin upon Himself for us. He could do this because he was perfect (sinless) and perfectly obedient to the Father.

*Christus Victor (Christ the Victor) theory of atonement
Jesus gained victory over satan at the cross, thus securing God's rule and reign over the earth and this can be done through Christians. Much of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movement is based on this. This should be seen as a complement to penal substitution though, not replace it.

*Ransom theory of atonement
This is what some Word of Faith teachers teach. Jesus obtained a ransom to satan by going to the cross to "buy" back mankind from satan. Human souls are released. The article in Modern Reformation correctly states that "nowhere is satan understood to demand payment from God. Satan's reign through sin is overthrown, not compensated by Christ's death."

*Satisfaction theory of atonement
Anselm in the Middle Ages came up with this one. Sin caused the creation to "groan" and God's honor to be violated. Jesus' death at the cross restored God's honor and the created order.

*The Moral Influence theory of atonement
This is the one liberal Protestants and now many emergents hold. Jesus died as an example of His love for us and that brings us to repentance.

*The Governmental theory of atonement.
This says that Jesus didn't pay a penalty for sin but rather was an example to us of how grievous sin is and the nature of God's law. God accepted the death of Jesus as a token payment.

*Incarnational theory of atonement
This is strong in Eastern Orthodox churches. Jesus was alienated from God at the cross. By faith, we can be united to Christ. However, there is no penalty here for OUR sin.

*Recapitulation theory of atonement
I would like to thank reader John for introducing me to this atonement theory. Basically it says Jesus, by resisting temptation, living a sinless life and dying on the cross won back what the first Adam lost.
Well, yes, but the atonement went further than that.

And Today-----Politics

I usually don't write about politics here but today I just couldn't resist after listening to the Sunday morning news programs (Meet the Press, et.al). So here are some of my thoughts. I won't tell you until the end whether I am a liberal, moderate or conservative; Republican, Democrat, Independent or some other party or non-party.

First, this is my ideal candidate:

*Looks and talks like Mitt Romney. Plans to implement some of Romney's ideas that worked well in Massachusetts where he was governor.

*Is an evangelical but not with a "trying to legislate morals with a social agenda while being hypocritical and stabbing the American public in the back by selling out to Big Business. Basically he will be there to appoint any future Supreme Court judges -conservatives that is.

*Is like Pat Buchanan in most ways but with a Mitt Romney personality and no anti-Semitism. Pat can't seem to get rid of that, sad to say.

*Is Like Mike Huckabee in integrity and just a good all-around American grass roots guy who happened to be a Baptist minister too.
Now remind me again why the Christian Right is NOT behind Huckabee? I really don't get it. I hope he gets the Republican nomination just to spite the Christian Right and show that evangelicals are quitting being their lap dogs and have actually begun to think for themselves.

*Has the knowledge and integrity of a true Goldwater Republican like John Dean. Let's get these awful Reaganite neo-cons out. NO, we do not need to go back to Reaganville. We need to revisit Goldwaterville.

So that is my perfect candidate.

If you haven't guessed already, I am a Goldwater Republican. Before you laugh, find out more about Goldwater, because if you are laughing it tells me you don't know anything about him. Read the last two books written by John Dean, especially "Broken Government" that just came out.

No, I am not a nut.

On another note, I am not sure why the New Christian Left (read that Jim Wallis) isn't recruiting their followers, the post-modern 18-35 year olds in a voting registration. And who would they vote for? Obama hands down. I think if the New Christian Left can get their folks to vote, Obama has a great chance of winning both the Democratic nomination and perhaps even the general election. He's a liberal Protestant which the po-mo crowd seems to like and he holds as important what the New Christian Left holds important--the poor and the environment.

Round and Round We Go

"Few individuals have been as successful as Joel in spreading God's Word. Joel understands today's culture and that messages of damnation and of a vengeful God no longer resonate with an overstressed society that already believes they are living in hell daily. Instead, Joel tells people that if they draw closer to God that their lives will be better. This is a message that our society is eager to embrace. Who doesn't seek a fuller life on earth?"

Richard Young, author of The Rise of Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen.

This is hysterical because it's almost word for word what the liberal Protestants were saying 100 years ago. Now who doesn't think history is cyclical and repeats itself?

Authenticity and Tolerance - Blech!

Authenticity and Tolerance--Blech!

If I hear those two words (in the title) once more I think I will regurgitate. That is a polite word for throwing up. Reading tragic comment after comment on both emergent blogs and the "diss" comments on anti-emergent blogs, I am getting really disturbed and fed up with the four letter words used by many of the emergent followers....BLECH!

But see, they say they want to be "authentic."

And then there is the "T" word - Tolerance....Blech!

The distress point has been reached by many of us who are appalled at how ignorant the post-modern generation is. "Other religions are nice too and we shouldn't force our beliefs on them" is common to hear today in the 13-35 crowd. And THIS MESS IS SAID BY EVANGELICALS if you can believe it. Then what do they think evangelism is all about? And even more, what do they think that Jesus meant when he said in John 14:6, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." Oh that's right. Church youth groups don't teach the "evangelical" parts of the Bible any more so they probably don't even know He said this.

This month's column by Chuck Colson in the October 2007 issue of Christianity Today magazine talks about the "T" word too. Listen to this paragraph by Colson near the end of his article,

Here we are, hundreds of years later, unable to teach our kids [my note--the context in the former part of the article is that he means evangelical churches teaching evangelical kids] how to defend Christian truth. Unable, or unwilling, because worship at the altar of the bitch [his word, not mine] goddess of tolerance.

Well said, Chuck, And I would also add.......

Blech.....Blech.....Blech.....:(

Why Muslims Come to Christ

I subscribe to six Christian magazines and read the same twelve (12) blogs a day plus any other blog link from the ones I read that might be of interest. I also read quite a lot of books, both current Christian non-fiction and some social/political/historical non-fiction books that appear in the Los Angeles Times or New York Times Book Review section each week. I'm not saying this to brag, but to rather explain what this blog is about. I give my opinion of course, but even more, I want to inform you about what is going on in the world, in both Christian and secular. Think of me as a sort of Christian Reader's Digest . So, that is why I bring from time to time articles I've read. Today I want to bring to you an article from the current Christianity Today magazine (October 2007 issue) about why Muslims become Christian, especially in Muslim lands. The article is written by Dudley Woodberry, professor of Islamic Studies at Fuller Evangelical Seminary in Pasadena, Russell G. Shubin, deputy director of news for Salem Communications (they own a ton of Christian radio stations), and G. Marks who has ministered in Malawi.

Here is the number one (#1) reason they say Muslims receive Christ, even at great personal threat.

They like what they see in the Christians' lives. They live the message.

It makes me so grieved when I hear about so many young Christians and the vapid lives they lead, swearing and going to R-rated movies, and acting generally more like the devil than God to whom they supposedly belong. Many in other countries are praying for persecution of Christians here to wake us up. I don't think that will help as these namby-pambies will simply run and hide as secularists. What we really need is a calamity that affects them personally. Then I will be interested in seeing how the seeker-sensitive and emergent pastors react and if they can really help them. Sadly, neither can most of the churches that are really trying to preach the gospel because they leave out the POWER component and the faith-in-your-prayers component. If this type of calamity and/or persecution ever does arrive on our shores, I shall be very interested in seeing what churches these so-called young evangelicals will flock to - or if they will even flock to any church.
Maybe they will just give up in despair.

By the way, many here are having their own clamity with the fires. Although the nearest one to me is about 35 minutes away by freeway, the smoke is blanketing our town and it's difficult for me to even breathe when I go out. The Los Angeles County Health Director is saying that no one in the county should even go out, although there are no fires in our county except the Malibu--but the smoke is bad. I hope the young evangelicals here who had to evacuate--500,000 people estimated so far evacuated--will rise to the occasion.

Quote of the Week

Religion is- "if I obey I will be accepted."

Irreligion is - "I don't really have to obey anyone but myself."

The gospel is - "since I am accepted, I will obey."

__Tim Keller



Source: http://theresurgence.com/tim_keller_2004_preaching_in_a_post-modern_city_part_2

Dan's Proverbs

Dan at Cerulean Sanctum has listed 100 things he's learned in the 30 years he's been a Christian. I'm calling them Dan's Proverbs because they remind me of the form and content used in the book of Proverbs.. I read through all 100 and they are really excellent. So, I decided to tease you to read them by presenting the 10 I liked the best. So here is my Top Ten list a la David Letterman.

At #10 - Each of use should know our neighbors’ names and the names of their children. We should also know their birthdays, if possible, because the card we send might be the only one they receive. And that’s a powerful witness.

#9 If all other aspects of Sunday meetings were removed, prayer would be the one untouchable, yet we spend less time doing it in our meetings than anything else.

#8 Most Evangelicals have little or no understanding of the Holy Spirit.

#7 God could directly feed the widows and the orphans with manna from heaven, but He instead chose us in the Church to bake the bread through the resources He’s already given us and then distribute it.

#6 We must start seeing discipleship in terms of an entire lifespan and not what we can accomplish in the moment.

#5 We do a great disservice to families in our churches when we split them up the second they hit the lobby.

#4 It’s a terrible indictment against men and young people in the American Church that old women are praying most of the intercessory prayers.

#3 We perpetually underestimate Satan’s wiles; at the same time, we underestimate our authority over him in Christ.

#2 In the end, nothing in life satisfies but Jesus.

and now.......

Number ONE is-------

A Tie between two of Dan's that are similar

-You are never more alone than in an unfriendly church.
-Most churches never once consider what it feels like to be an outsider, which is why so few visitors take root.

Please do click on the link at the top to read ALL 100.

Two Views of Missions Support

I was reading my October 2007 issue of Christianity Today and came across a most interesting article which I would like to tell you about today. The title of the article is The Dread Cancer of Stinginess. At first I though it was the usual giving and tithing article which didn't thrill me. But as I began to read it I realized it was something far different. It has to do with missionaries and two schools of thought toward supporting the native churches. One school of thought for the past 200 years, as the author, John Rowell, points out, is the concept of giving enough money to start native churches in other lands and then to challenge the churches to be self supporting so they won't be dependent on the West. The interesting point Rowell makes is that the West does continuously support the missionaries but shouldn't support the churches or the missionaries plant, or even the native msisionaries. He finds that a bit of a double standard. Rowell mentions Ralph D. Winter of the U.S Center for World Missions; Glenn Schwartz, director of World Mission Associates; and, David Garrison of the Southern Baptist Convention's International Mission board as among leading proponents of this view. He says that Garrison calls this aid "the devil's candy" and Winters recently said it was "the dread cancer of dependency."

On the other hand, Rowell presents another view to us. He first mentions Scripture and the many places Paul talks about churches helping other churches in need. Then he says that giving money for the ongoing work of these native churches does not make them especially dependent because of how they use the money. Many of these churches use the money given them to help still other churches or to establish new ones. Samuel Escobar calls this a more cooperative model of mission activity.

I think this is a good idea as long as the native churches have the integrity to do this. I would like to see some of this money given to individual church members in order to start microeconomic enterprises. Then they can make enough to support themselves and enough to give back to the church so it CAN support itself and give to other churches as well as mission work too. The only drawback to this is the appeal to "come to Christ" and "join the church" in order to get money. I'm not sure how to resolve this and will be interested in the ongoing debate on this subject.

Lighthearted Stuff

Once in a while here at Crossroads we do lighthearted stuff, but usually with a meaning.

Businesses that won't be here in 2017:

*Record stores - Online downloading of music and videos will replace them.
*Camera film - Digital cameras will relace them.
*Crop Dusters - They make too many mistakes dusting people with dangerous poisons.
*Gay Bars - Since gays are more accepted in society, they don't need to meet incandestinely.
*Newspapers - People are getting their news on TV, radio and the Internet.
*Pay phones - They will be replaced by cell phones.
*Used Bookstores - They will be replaced by the Internet.
*Piggy Banks - They will be replaced by a more paperless and coinless society.
*Telemarketing - This is being done in by the national Do-Not-Call list.
*Coin-operated arcades - I'm not sure why these will disappear. Anyone else out there know?

Equipped But Not Sent

We sit in church week after week; month after month; and year after year becoming "equipped" for ministry. But few actually ever minister in their gifting. Why? The church equips but does not send. Here is what I mean. The church provides a certain few slots and members must fit into those. The slots generally include leadership such as pastors and elders, teaching, greeting/ushering, evangelism team, prayer team, and music ministries such as choir, praise team and/or instrumental group. Married men are permitted to fill almost all of the slots. Second down are married women with fewer slots permitted than the married men, but certainly more than singles. So then, at the bottom of the pole are the singles, both single men and single women.

Some forward thinking churches are allowing members to bring ideas to them and then they encourage them and at times even help them start the ministries although seldom fund them. But the limitation to this is exactly the problem discussed above. Married men can bring forth almost any idea of merit, while women are limited to "their special ministries," mainly concerning working either with children or the poor or abortion-related ministries. And then there are the singles. It depends on teh church as to how they are treated. But most people who have a passion see that trying to "sell" their idea to the church results most of the time in futility. So, chruch members are equipped but not sent (actually today, in many if not most churches, they might not even getting equipped.)

Here is an innovative idea. Let the church leaders actually get to know their members. THis will involve pastors who will give up that precious pulpit several months a year to teaching elders and visiting teachers so they will have more time to meet and actually get to know their members. Ephesians 4:11 tell us the word for pastors in the original Greek is shepherd. Who shepherds today? Most jsut teach and do administrative work. While admin. work is a pART of shepherding, it certainly isn't all of it. (Recommended Reading: A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23. This book actually tells what a real shepherd is - what the kind who looks after sheep actually does. The author used to be a professional shepherd and I was amazed at all shepherds do.) . This will also involve small groups led by elders so they too can get to know the "folks." As they get to know their members WELL, ask those members what their passion is and then really TRY to send them, either inside or outside the church. Of course that means creating more "slots" than many churches are comfortable with. These members need to be mature enough both spiritually and emotionally. I'm not suggesting sending just anyone. They also should have been in the church awhile so leaders and others can see who they are and how they operate.

So, that is my suggestion for the day........

or perhaps the decade?...:)

Who Let Ann Coulter In Our Door?

I'm hoppin' mad! We are having enough problems within the evangelical community AND also outside it. A recent poll shows only 3% of non-Christian young adults between the ages of 16 and 24 think favorably about evangelicals. We are drowning in bad publicity outside of us; and drowning with terrible theology and practices within us. So now we have another blow--Ann Coulter.

Who is this anyway? I've never heard of her being in the evangelical community, but after her bombshell on Donny Deutsch's program, I'm sure we will be blamed. The really bad thing about this is the silence of major evangelical organizations like the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals). If they would have come forth IMMEDIATELY after her inane statement, which I will tell you about in a moment, we may have headed this off at the pass. But now it's too late, even if some evangelical does blast her statement. Here is what she said:

"The country would be better off if everyone were Christian."
When Deutsch -- who is Jewish -- asked if she wanted to get rid of Judaism, Coulter responded,
"We just want Jews to be perfected."

Geesh.....

Evangelicals have worked hard for the past 25+ years in reaching out to the Jewish community as well as Israel and telling them that we don't dislike them and we don't want to see harm come to them. Coulter in 5 minutes set this back 100's of years.

I am pleading with evangelical churches and organizations/ministries to denounce this immediately------please!

Stone Soup

One day a man was walking with his soup pot to the market place. In the pot was a stone and some water. As he passed people he would say that he was making a new kind of soup - stone soup. One man he passed was carrying carrots. He said, "you know, a carrot would really perk up my stone soup." So the man with the carrots gave him one. Then he came to a man carrying onions. He said, "An onion would be a wonderful seasoning for my soup". So the man with the onions gave him one. Then the man came to a potato-carrying man. "Oh, it would be so nice to have a potato in my stone soup." So the potato man gave him one. Pretty soon the man came to someone with celery. "A celery stalk would be a fine addition for my stone soup. So the celery person gave him one. The man with the pot of stone soup then went home, took out the stone and heated up his soup.


One day someone thought it would be a grand idea to add some things to his Christianity soup. First he added a pinch of Roman Catholicism, then a dash of Hinduism and Buddhism too. Later he found a teaspoon of socialist Marxism and Mormonism too. When he found liberal Protestantism, he took a big scoop of that. Then he took his soup home, took out the atonement - the central part of his Christian soup - and had a great feast.

"Assumed Evangelicals"

I don't think the atonement is that central to Christianity. In fact, I don't think it is that important at all.
___Brian McLaren in a 2004 speech


There is a terrific article in the current issue of Modern Reformation magazine (Sept./Oct. 2007 issue). In the article, the author, David Gibson, talks about second generation evangelicals he calls the Assumed Evangelicals. These subscribe to the gospel but start to either lift secondary issues to primary ones, and/or deny certain primary ones and start adding others. Assumed Evangelicalism, he says, also "allows itself to be increasingly influenced both in content and method by the prevailing culture of the day."

Does this sound familiar?

On tomorrow's Crossroads: We continue this thought with "Stone Soup."

Sin: The Reformed View

I had been a Christian for 32 years when I was house sitting for a neighbor and there was no TV. So, I brought my radio into the place and listened to that. Since I rarely listened to the radio at night, I had no idea there was a program called the White Horse Inn on a Christian radio station where I live out here in the Los Angeles area. I was mesmerized with this program because they brought forth Calvinism. Although I had been a member of scads of churches of every stripe, I had never in my 32 years of being a Christian heard this view. Somehow I felt this was terribly unfair. After all, I had heard in many churches I attended that our Protestantism had come out of the Reformation. But, when I heard this program I understood that my churches hadn't really presented the true Reformational theology. There was some of what I heard that I didn't and still can't get with. But there were two items that made a deep impression upon me. One is something you hear me rant and rave about continually here - what Jesus did at the cross. Actually, and this might be very surprising to some, and distressing to others, I heard this emphasis through the 27 years I have followed the Word of Faith teaching (think Hagin, Copeland). The Faith people, that is the originals, not the younger phonies of today, seem to be the most covenantal of almost any denomination I've been in short of the Reformational ones. So, I was hearing lots about what was done at the cross by Jesus for us through the faith teaching. But the other view that made a deep impression on me was the Reformational definition of "sin." For the churches I had attended sin was what you did or didn't do. But the Reformational view is more of our nature after the fall and what we do or don't do comes out of that. When this view is accepted, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to it, we see why the Christian Right, as well as legalism in so many churches, have failed. When sin is who you are instead of what you do, the only way out is through a complete transformation through the cross. Of course this will upset most Christians when things like homosexuality are dealt with. Let me say it again so you'll get it. Sin is who you are, not what you do. Sadly, the homosexual/lesbian/transgender community has IMO a better theology of their condition than we do. I might discuss this particular issue in another blog - if I am brave enough...LOL. So, I will leave you with the following quote I found online by Oswald Chambers. This quote says it so well.

Sin is a fundamental relationship; it is not wrong doing, it is wrong being, deliberate and emphatic independence of God. The Christian religion bases everything on the positive, radical nature of sin. Other religions deal with sins; the Bible alone deals with sin.

The first thing Jesus Christ faced in men was the heredity of sin, and it is because we have ignored this in our presentation of the Gospel that the message of the Gospel has lost its sting and its blasting power. The revelation of the Bible is not that Jesus Christ took upon Himself our fleshly sins, but that He took upon Himself the heredity of sin which no man can touch.

Oswald Chambers

The Treaty of Tripoli - Are We a Christian Nation?

Here is an interesting item for all of you Christian Right junkies. This is Article 11 from a treaty made with the Tripoli in 1797 as a result of pirates attacking American ships. The shame of some "Christian history revisionists" is that they say that Article 11 isn't in the original copy. It's shameful because the document they are talking about was investigated by a Dutch scholar, Dr. C. Snouk Hurgronje, from the Arabic copy which was not the treaty at all but a letter containing the treaty and much of the letter was gibberish. The American copy does have Article 11. Also, it was published in many newspapers of the day of which we have surviving copies. The Christian Right often goes to any extent, including dishonest ones, to make their "point." As a conservative Republican waaay before the Christian Right appeared, and also as an ethical, honest Christian, I am tired of seeing this kind of unethicism and dishonesty over and over again from these folks.

Article 11 As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Oh by the way, the Senate, which is the body that ratifies treaties, unanimously passed this in 1797. It appeared in numerous newspaper and other writings in the United States and no one said a word against it at that time.

Source: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Move Over Emergents - Here Come the Young Calvinists!

We've heard plenty about the emergent church but have you hear about the Young Calvinists (YC's)? I think there might be an actual "war" brewing between these two groups. While the Young Calvinists talk a lot about the emergent "apostasy" (their word), you never hear a word from the emergents about the Young Calvinists. It reminds me of the 1960's when the acid-dropping hippies "pretended" that everyone their age was a drug user and a near-communist. Later it was revealed in poll after poll that only a minority of the under 30's was like that. In a Christianity Today article it was mentioned that the Young Calvinists might even be larger than the emergents. Interesting--and you nary hear a word about them from most denominations except perhaps the Southern Baptists where both sides, emergent and Calvinists are flooding in trying to stake a claim.

So exactly who are the Young Calvinists? They follow people like John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minnesota; Mark Deaver, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C.; John MacArthur, pastor of Grace Community Church right here in good 'ole Southern California and is 20 minutes from me; and C. J. Mahaney, R.C Sproul, and others. Interestingly, except for Sproul, they adon't talk a lot about the odler generation of Calvinists like Michael Horton and the late James Boice. I've heard on the grapevine the YC's think they might be a bit too arrogant. Actually I adore the writings of Horton and am saddend never to hear about him from any fo the YC's.

Joshua Harris (yes, the guy from the "I Kissed Dating Goodbye" books) is one of the main Young Calvinist pastors. He pastors Covenant Life Church in Maryland. And get this - he pastors a Calvinistic Charismatic church. The theology of these Young Calvinists is very Calvinistic with the Confessions and especially the TULIP anagram being taught. They read Spurgeon (a 19th century English Reformed Baptist pastor). Please don't ask "reformed from what?" No really, you can email and ask if you really don't know. The YC's also like almost any 17th and 18th century Puritan writer like Richard Baxter and friends. But they absolutely adore anything about or written by Jonathan Edwards. Yes, THAT Jonathan Edwards - the 18th century Puritan pastor in Massachusetts.

Tim Challies is their official blogger and Phil Johnson is their official theological interpreter (and also is a blogger). And the above mentioned pastors are their mentors - Dever, Piper and Mahaney. Sometimes I think the blogosphere is made up of mostly these Young Calvinists. They seem to be everywhere, but most Christians don't seem to recognize them or their beliefs. They are even creeping into the emergent camp. Mark Driscoll, pastor of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle and his Acts 29 Network is Calvinistic.

I recommend highly you read the the Christianity Today article

Further Reading for You on the Internet

Sovereign Grace Ministries - this is the Harris-Mahaney Charismatic Calvinist network of churches
Tim Challies' blog
Pyromaniacs - Phil Johnson's blog. He also has other contributors. Phil works with John MacArthur.
Mars Hill Church - Mark Driscoll's church.
The Acts 29 Network - Mark Driscoll's organization of young missional-emergent type Calvinists
9Marks - Mark Deaver's 9Marks site, a good one.
Al Mohler's blog Dr. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and IMO always has great stuff to say.
Pulpit Magazine - an online magazine from John MacArthur

Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up

I've been reading many books by the "emergent pastors" during the past year. I've listed the books I've read at the end of this post so you know I am doing my "homework." As I've reported here before, I am looking for an emergent I can "live" with (not literally of course...LOL).

As I've read these books, I've noticed that most of the time, the Jesus presented in their pages isn't the one at the cross who bore our sins. He is more the Jesus of the liberal Protestants; the one who is a good teacher, helps the poor and gets in the face of those awful "establishment" Pharisees. And sadly, other evangelical churches aren't presenting the crucified, risen Jesus and Savior and Lord too much either. They are too busy watering it down or presenting a psychobabble, self-esteem gospel. On the other hand, many Calvinististic churches aren't doing such a hot job of presenting a balanced Jesus. In many of their churches the congregants are not hearing about the Jesus who is concerned about the poor and the sick. We NEED both sides. Balance folks....balance!

Getting back to the emergent and seeker-sensitive/purpose-driven churches - why aren't they presenting the Savior Jesus? The Bible might gives us a clue in the following passages.

In 1 Corinthians 11:23 it says,
....but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles....

and in Matt. 11:6,
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

People who the Holy Spirit is NOT drawing toward God through Christ might be offended. Christ is like a wall. You cannot get to God except through Christ. You cannot go through Him, around Him, over or under Him. You must deal with what He did at the cross. Sadly, I'm not hearing this too much today in the evangelical movement and that is why IMO that movement is in absolutely chaos. The emergents aren't doing us a favor by continuing this trend. When I read Dan Kimball's book They Like Jesus But Not the Church(I reviewed it several weeks ago here in several posts), I got the idea the Jesus they liked was not the crucified One. But then most of the 18-30 year olds Kimball talked with were not believers and perhaps didn't know about Jesus the Savior. Of course we have no problem with that as then we can tell them about THAT Jesus. But when born-again Christians (yes, I do still use that old fashioned word because it describes so well our condition after we receive Christ) don't want to talk about Jesus the Savior, I am wondering what is going on. Why are they so offended? My guess is one of a reaction against the "legal Jesus" that so many of them grew up with in church. I would invite all the emergents, seeker-sensitives/purpose-driven and non-believers to get to know the REAL Jesus - the one who is the incarnation of God AND the one who went to the cross and what He did there and why He did it. Please, please - get over the legalistic thingy. Most churches aren't into that anymore. You keep erecting a straw man. You keep saying these represent "religion." Yes they do, BUT what you preach is another form of religion - a nice powerless Jesus who doesn't deal with sin. Again, anyone out there for balance?

Here are the emergent books I've read so far:
The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball
They Like Jesus But not the Church by Dan Kimball
Chasing Daylight by Erwin McManus
The Barbarian Way by Erwin McManus
Uprising and Unstoppable Force by Erwin McManus
Static by Ron Martoia
Faith of My Fathers by Chris Seay
The Two Faiths by Brian McLaren
Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren
Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller
Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell
The Great Giveaway by David E. Fitch
Reformission by Mark Driscoll

Books I have and will read shortly
Soul Cravings by Erwin McManus
The Emergent Manifesto edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones

The Evangelical Circus and Control/Codependency

This has to be the best article I've seen in a long time. It's from Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine.

I fear for many of the men and women who claim to be God’s mouthpieces today, particularly in the charismatic/Pentecostal movement that I serve. When I read Leviticus 10, I wonder why the ground has not opened up and swallowed some of the careless spiritual clowns who are masquerading as bishops, apostles and prophets.

and......

There are so many crazy things happening in pulpits in this country that I’ve become numb to their impact. It seems that in many segments of the church today, false prophets and backslidden preachers can introduce the most bizarre doctrines imaginable and still get shouts from the crowd and plenty of donations in the offering plate.

and......

I have no personal vendetta against these spiritual hoodlums, but lately I find myself praying: “Lord, when will You clean up Your church? When will you send Your holy fire into the sanctuary? When will You turn over the tables of the moneychangers and drive the charlatans out of Your house?”

You can read the entire article here and even comment on it if you register for their forums.

I want to add that there is a dearth of real prophecy in this country (USA) in this season. I cannot tell you how many years this false prophecy has gone on. Here are some examples,

"This is your year."
"This is the year that God will begin to pour out His blessings on His people."
"This is the year for God's people to be healed."

Oh, did I mention that I've heard this stuff every year since 1980? First, it was in the Word of Faith teaching, and now today, it's the Charismatic Third Wave teaching. Even today on the prophecy list I receive (so I can keep abreast of this stuff), there were these type of prophecies. In fact, it's not unusual to hear them daily. But if you go back to previous years (I actually save some of these), you will hear the SAME people say the SAME things every year. They only change the year.

"The year 2003 is the year God will begin to pour out great finances on His people."
"The year 2004 is the year God will begin to pour out great finances on His people."
"The year 2005 is the year God will begin to pour out great finances on His people."
"The year 2006 is the year God will begin to pour out great finances on His people."
"The year 2007 is the year God will begin to pour out great finances on His people."

You get the idea. But the really crazy thing is WHY Christians keep giving money to these people. Actually I know why. After studying control and codependency in the home, the workplace, the church and in governments, it isn't a hard question. Codependents have an obsessive need to believe the best and want the best and keep it going so it can become the best - EVEN WHEN it's so obvious that they are being played by their controllers - in this case - many TV evangelists, "prophets," "apostles," and so forth. And here is the main catch. Since codependents always have a need for controllers, they keep them going by giving money and attending their churches/meetings/conferences.

I have a website on this subject of Control and Codependency if you are interested. It's called the Faustian Covenant because the controller and codependent make a "Faustinian "covenant" with each other. The "ministry people" and those who support them financially and/or attend their churches/meetings are a prime example of this type of relationship. The controllers cannot stop controlling. And their codependents cannot stop supporting them so they can continued to be controlled.

The Right Way to Support Missionaries

Ever since I became a Christian 44 1/2 years ago I've been concerned about how missionaries were paid. It seemed to me that their going around "raising their support" was nothing more than begging. And I thought that was tragic. And I didn't like it. I understood then and even more now, that churches should be supporting their own missionaries. This morning I had an "aha" moment and suddenly realized why they don't. It's a mindset that doesn't see them as "their missionaries." They see them as members of their church who just happen to be missionaries, but are supported by other people and institutions and work for a mission's board or organization. But it's the church that should be sending out missionaries; not missionary boards. As for organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ, YWAM and others, I think their organizational structures and focus can be more advantageous than an individual church. However, the missionaries' support should be handled by their church. This will greatly help accountability of the missionary as well as bring the church up to par as to what missionaries do and go through. It's one thing when a missionary not from your church comes through and gives a talk, but quite another when that missionary grew up in your church.

Thankfully, today I see more and more churches understanding this. But I don't see the level of support needed. I realize smaller churches cannot support a person, but perhaps they could join with another smaller church or at least give the missionary in their church good contacts and references in order that they might raise enough support. The missions' scandal is the poverty so many of our missionaries are enduring in addition, often, to very difficult circumstances overseas.

Over all, we need to see missionaries as people from OUR OWN church being sent out by our own church, not a missionary organization, although that missionary might be a part of that organization. But when we have the mindset of "this is a missionary we send out and support fully," instead of "this happens to be a missionary in our church," both the missionary and our church will benefit.

What the Church Should Be Doing

At the blog, Provocations and Pantings, there is a great post on how churches [Southern Baptist ones in this post] "outsource" things they really should be doing themselves. Here are some of the "outsourcings" that are listed,

Theological education has been outsourced to Baptist colleges and seminaries.

Church planting has been outsourced to denominational entities, namely the North American Mission Board (NAMB).

Biblical counseling has been outsourced to “Christian psychologists” or professional counselors.

Evangelism has been outsourced to vocational evangelists and revivalists.

Benevolence and mercy ministry has been outsourced to parachurch organizations such as World Vision, Compassion International, and Salvation Army.

He then asks, "Have we lost confidence in the local church?"
This is such a great observation. I am hearing God more and more ask the same question. I would add another outsourcing - healing. James 5:13-15 makes it very clear that elders, IF they pray the prayer of faith, will see healing. Not might see; will see. You kind of wonder how in the world the early church did anything at all without all of these "Christian professionals" in tow.

Quote of the Day--It's Not New Folks

I couldn't believe my luck as today I found the following quote. For many months I've been seeing more and more how the emergent village is a rehash of what happened 100 years ago in liberal Protestantism. In fact, I am currently reading the book that many felt was a watershed writing in Liberal Protestantism and especially the social gospel. It is the one by Walter Rauschenbusch and is named, Christianity and the Social Crisis.. I will report on it as I get into it more. Now, here is the quote of the Day and it's from Mark Driscoll's second book.

...the emergent church is the latest version of liberalism. The only difference is that the old liberalism accommodated modernity and the new liberalism accommodates postmodernity.

__Mark Driscoll

Source: Taken from a quote in the larger article by Gary Gilley at:
(http://svchapel.org/Resources/Articles/read_articles.asp?ID=139)

3 Good Ones

From time to time I like to alert you to good posts from other blogs. Today I want to bring three to your attention.

*From the Six Steps blog,

"The more I read literature from Emergent “pastors”, the more I scratch my head — because I simply cannot understand what they mean and cannot figure out the point of what they are saying! It is like a veil is being pulled over my eyes, blinding me from comprehending what Scripture has actually said; I equate it to going back in history to a time where gnosticism and paganism has veiled Christ’s disciples from seeing His truth."

My sentiments exactly, especially with D. Pagitt and B. McLaren. I especially like the gnosticism observation.


*I've said many times here that emergents, seekers and Third Wavers will get further away from the gospel and have really nothing much to offer their congregants. In fact, if a BIG calamity comes to our country these so-called pastors "got nothin'." And, I predict there will be hordes of their followers rushing out of their churches trying to find a church that really WILL help and make a difference in their lives. And only those on the gospel of substitutionary atonement (not the moral influence/example atonement) will fill the bill. Here is a very well-written blog from Totem to Temple along these same lines. Here is a snippet, but do read the entire blog,

"We had noticed that the third ravers, the seeker-sensitives, the pentecostals/ charismatics, Carlton Pearson, and emergents at one time asked a commonly interpreted question albeit worded differently? Is there a better, more right, and/or more orthodox way of doing Christianity?"

He answers by pointing out theat they answered the question by going away from the gospel, some even into universalism (that is, all people are going to heaven).

*The Resurgence blog has the third installment of Tim Keller's Preaching in a Post-Modern City. You can read my summary of and links to the first two parts here.