Who Said This?

Who said this?

“I don’t think anything has been done in the name of Christ that and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and, hence, counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition.”

(scroll down for answer)












Robert Schuller


And, this is only one of many, what I would call, "very liberal Protestant-type" statements. So, what do you think of this.


Source:http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=677

The Most Segregated Hour? Well, Maybe Not How You Think

Diversity began with me in junior high. I grew up in an all-"white" upper-middle class suburb of Los Angeles, California in the 1950's. (That makes me an oldie but goodie...:)

Of course my junior high was made up with people from my community--no diversity. But one year, if you wanted to take summer school (not all was remedial; there were fun subjects to take too), ours wasn't open so we went to the junior high in the black section of the city next to us. I was going into 9th grade and I remember that experience well. My friend and I went together and the students were so nice to us. Several black girls came up and asked us if they could help us find our room. I took Spanish and typing. Thankfully, that summer experience gave me positive attitudes toward African-Americans. And that was important because since we didn't have a high school in our community, guess where we went? Yes, that's right - to the high school in the black section of the city next door. That was very unusual for those times - the late 1950's - but, this was California.

My first job was teaching in the inner city black section of Los Angeles in a junior high school. After that I had some jobs in the Latino section of Los Angeles. I like diversity. When I visited friends Nebraska a few years ago, and before that went to Minnesota on business, I actually missed the diversity. And, I've heard that from other "white" people here too.

So, what about the church. We howl about Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week, but that is a dishonest assessment since the reason is assumed to be prejudice when in many, if not most cases, it's not. I NEVER hear how insulting it is to expect non-whites to come to our churches. Like they want to? Blacks like their churches. Why should they come to ours? Other groups wish to hear their services in their language. In many churches out here, we do get two or three diverse churches together once or twice a year for services. I find the Holy Spirit really responds to this. So, yes, I would like to see this diversity every week, but it "ain't gonna” happen IMO. Not soon anyhow because of the aforementioned reason -NOT prejudice necessarily.

That brings me to other than racial and ethnic diversity. I have written in the previous post about the disabled being separated. And how about singles from marrieds; and young from old from medium aged?

So, if you want to know what the most segregated hour is in the church, it has to be age and marital segregation - not especially racial segregation as in most churches (where I live at least - in S. California) welcome and have other races attend their mostly "white" service.

P.S. By the way, I utterly hate the term "white" which is why I keep putting it in parentheses. Many Latinos, Middle Easterners and even blacks look "white." I prefer the term, European descent.

Bloggers Are Accountable To???

Several bloggers last week made reference to another blog that asked the question, "To whom are bloogers accountable?" And I would also add - "Or are they?"

I don't think I've ever heard that question raised in the almost four years I've been blogging, but I think it's a good one to ponder. The original blogger (I think it was at TeamPyro [http://teampyro.blogspot.com)] felt bloggers should be accountable to their pastors. I rather doubt most pastors even know any of their members blog. I don't think mine does. In fact, I'm not sure my pastor even knows who I am after three active years in my church. But pastors not knowing their members (in churches less than a 1,000) will be for another post on another day.

If I was accountable to my pastor, I would be paranoid as I am more Pentecostally than the usual Presbyterian pastor. I think I would feel very restrained in my blogging. But, I do see the upside to being accountble to a pastor....or elders.

But I think in most cases pastors will be too busy to notice their members' blogs. That is sad but it's reality and the awful truth. So, I think the real accountablity will be to the reader in the comment sections and through any email blog readers send.

I read all comments and many times will respond in the comment section. I Really value the comments section, not only on my own blog, but also when reading the comments on other blogs. Many times you learn more in the comment section than on the blog....LOL. Hopefully, if the blogger is half-way humble and sane, if they get really off on a tangent, the commenters will usually get the blogger back on track. Athough I am pretty set in my beliefs after working through them spiritually and Biblically for 45 years now, once in a blue moon I see a correction for me that I take seriously from a commenter.

The one thing that I see at times, not only on my own blog comments section, but also on other blogs' comments section, is the commenter who didn't seem to either read the blog, or while reading it was on another planet. This has happened to me probably on only one theme that I devoted several blogs to. Paul Washer. It was discouraging to read many, many comments on those blogs that had nothing to do with what I wrote. One called me a Pharisee which was bizarre as I was actually arguing for anti-Phariseeism. Maybe the commenter doesn't know what a Pharisee was. Anyway, until I figure out how to podcast, I am through with the Washer thing. But if I do figure it out (my computer is sick right now and doesn't like to upload things--that is the problem), my very first podcast will be what I thought Washer SHOULD have said. I can speak it better than writing it since my forte is public speaking, not writing. The blog, along with a "Wrting Your Memoirs" class I am taking for seniors (meaning old people like me, not like high school seniors) have both really helped me with my writing. At least I think so. I hope so.

So, do any of you have ideas about blogger accountability?

Ingrid Has Some Good Points in a Recent Post

Well, it's that time again. Time to tell you what Ingrid Schluetter of Slice of Laodicea has been up to. Recently she has become upset by Dr. Ravi Zacharias not using the name of Jesus at the close of his prayer in the National Day of Prayer. She feels Dr. Zacharias and others in the National Day of Prayer Committee are compromising. She was fair and did include Zacharias' response. If this type of thing interests you, then go to her blog and read all the posts concerning it. But I want to focus on one of her posts on this subject found here.

While I'm not extremely upset with what Dr. Zacharias did, probably because I like his theology and style which seems to me very NON-compromising, I do understand Ingrid's point. But, leaving aside the using or not using Jesus' name in prayer, I want to point out what really struck me as a very good analysis of where the evangelical church is today. IMO, Ingrid is one fo the best analysts fo the current state of the evangelical church. I know many readers of this blog vehemently disagree. But anyway, this analysis is found at the end of her post. Here it is,


In a nation that is polytheistic, Christians shelving the name of their Savior to “not offend” is only adding to the spiritual confusion in our country. Adding to the problem are decades of interfaith culture war activism that have created coalitions across religious lines. While the thought of all social conservatives across religious lines working together to save America seemed like a good idea, it is interesting to trace what has happened in the last 20 years of this kind of coalition building. What has happened to the church and the Gospel, that is.

1. The evangelical church is openly accepting heresy that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. For a man like Brian McLaren to be invited to and welcomed at a supposedly evangelical church like Willow Creek while denying hell, the substitutionary atonement and the Second Coming of Christ is about as good of an example of this as exists. The church is welcoming monstrous error into its midst and nobody seems to raise an eyebrow.


As I've said here before, it's the Atonement that everyone is after. Every so often, satan looks into his bag and ferrets around to find what will sell to Christians in order to destroy the church. These days, the ole' "the Atonement isnt that important/necessary/true" - (pick one--or all of them if you wish) - is the one he has pulled out of his magic bag of tricks.

2. While there are claims of progress in holding back the radical homosexual political agenda in some states, and while some claim abortions are down, ironically, moral corruption with the church itself makes headlines every week. Pastors busted for porn, for child molestation, for abuse of every kind. The ever worsening cultural filth in media pours into Christian homes today, creating pastors and church members who are up to their necks in the world and the flesh and who have language that is so bad it would have been offensive to non-believers only a short time ago in our country. Additionally, Christian schools have become repositories for the children from these same evangelical homes where the world has full sway. Ask any Christian school principle or teacher what they have to deal with now that wouldn’t have been conceivable only a short while ago. This is the church, folks.

Again, here's another trick that satan found in his bag that has worked in previous ages. Let's see if we can make the church like the world so that it will be "relevant." Listen, even the liberal Protestants who strained to be as "relevant" as can be, weren't as bad as many so-called evangelical churches today. Ingrid is right on the money with this one IMO. She finishes by saying the following. And, it is one of the best statements Iv'e read recently. I like ingrid because she tells it like it is.

So while Christian activists who care about America have admirably been out trying to damp down the eruptions of hell all over this country, the church has been growing sicker by the moment, the resulting worthless, man-centered, faux gospel has been substituted for the real thing, and our nation only continues downhill on greased skids. In other words, while evangelical leaders focused on electing the right President and restoring Mayberry, USA, the enemy was walking boldly in the door of our unprotected churches. Ironically, the church is ending up looking as bad as the world as a result.

I can only add......Amen.


Source: Again, the entire post is found here.

The Disabled and the Church

In the 1990's I attended a very interesting church, a well-known very evangelical church in my area. While there I saw an attitude toward the disabled - both developmentally and physically -that I've rarely seen in any other church I've attended. First, this one was to my knowledge, one of the first (and perhaps the first) in our nation (USA) to have an actual adult Sunday School class for the developmentally disabled. For those of you who don't know what that term means - it is the new politically correct term for the old "mentally retarded." This group includes Down Syndrome and Cerebral Palsy. But what I thought was really interesting was this church used a few Downs Syndrome people as well as the physically handicapped in the church as volunteers. A few Downs Syndrome guys, the higher functioning of course, were also taking the offering and even serving communion on communion Sunday. I admit it was a little jarring the first time I saw one of these young men at the church door handing me a buletin and then saw them taking the offering. But I thought it was neat and after a while it seemed to be quite normative.

Meanwhile, at the information tables, some of the volunteers were in wheelchairs or had crutches (higher functioning cerebral palsy and others). And why not? Why shouldn't our wheelchair people be at the info tables on the patio or in the foyer?
And why couldn't a high fucntioning developmentally disabled person hand out bulletins and even take the offering? They can if we allow them.

It's really dispicable for churches to "hide" disabled people in a dark corner in the church. I remember one church I went to where they would have a prayer meeting and this lady would bring her adult Down Syndrome daughter. This was a Word of Faith church and the daughter, I felt, had a very good grasp of Healing in the Atonement and the Scripture verses that were the foundation for it since the church emphasized this theology. How I wish most Christians grasped what she did. She wanted to pray those Scriptures over the sick but they wouldn't allow her to do that. A shame! I bet she would have had the faith to get the healing power of God to come because she wouldn't have over analyzed.

Well, I hope this post got you to think about this subject as I've rarely, if ever, heard anyone or any church handle their disabled in this positive manner.

We Lost???

From Center For Christ & Culture

The Culture War is Over: We Lost!

Wow! That is a strong statement. So, why did he say this? The author, S. Michael Craven, is reviewing a book by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons entitled unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity... and Why it Matters. In the book, there is a story told about Jud Wilhite, a pastor in Las Vegas who says, "In Las Vegas, where I live, the culture war is over. We lost. Let me repeat: WE LOST. Now our calling is to love and accept people one-on-one, caring for them where they are. Our role is subversive as we carry the light and love of Jesus into the casinos, clubs, and streets of our city."

The book goes on to report that "radical new frontiers are being explored and old moral and ethical boundaries are being challenged and/or obliterated almost daily within the field of medical science.....modern science is rapidly moving beyond therapy and treatment to "enhancement" and the alteration of human nature itself.... scientific progress [is going] into the morally ambiguous areas of human cloning, nanobiotechnology, and neurosciences [and] has achieved such a level that any hope of stopping it at this point is nearly futile."

So what do we Christians do in the midst of this nighmare 2150 scenario?

Craven writes,
"...like the pastor from Las Vegas,[what the book] argues for is that the current conditions are such that the Church cannot remain in the simple posture of opposition to these issues. The time for preliminary debate has passed and the Christian philosophical contribution was either absent or under-represented. Thus, a new strategy must be considered if we want to have any participation in the discussion from this point forward. Otherwise, we simply will not have a place at the table."

As to the two kingpins of the Christian Right social gospel--abortion and homosexual rights/marriage, the Craven writes that the book says,

"Clearly, we have seen what seems to be the perpetual erosion of morality and ethics in this culture. Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for more than 30 years now and while abortions are down and opposition to abortion is on the increase, there still seems to be little political or popular will to once-again criminalize abortion. Homosexuality is for the most part widely accepted, and if the attitudes of the next generation remain as they are, the present opposition to same-sex marriage will not remain much longer. A higher percentage of children than ever are being born out-of-wedlock in this country and the future of traditional marriage is in grave doubt.

Add to this the growing anti-Christian spirit–much of which emanates from the public battles over these very issues, i.e. the culture wars–and the hope of Christian cultural transformation seems bleak to say the least. More importantly, our present approach to cultural engagement may be hindering the greater mission of Church. Suffice it to say that these factors have caused me to wrestle deeply with my own life and ministry. Am I doing the right thing in the right way? Does what I am doing draw people toward Christ or push them away?.....we must consider the changing cultural context and adjust our approach to cultural engagement."

Then he makes what I think is a fantastic statement,

"I am not suggesting compromise of any kind. I am merely suggesting that the current cultural conditions may be closer to those of the early Church than our grandparents. Our brothers and sisters in the first and second centuries did not labor under a "christianized" culture–quite the contrary–and yet their testimony transformed the world. They did not mobilize politically, they couldn't. They had no voice in government. They did not control the educational institutions of their day. Information was strictly controlled by the Roman authorities and any opposing perspectives were quickly and decisively crushed. The moral and ethical consensus was in stark contrast to Christian virtues. Culturally speaking, the Roman world was brutal and completely lacking in compassion. There was nothing socially conducive to the Church and her mission in the world. Sound familiar? Nonetheless, our first and second century brothers and sisters "lived such good lives" that the unbelieving world could not help but take notice. In the book of Acts we are given some insight into the life and impact of the early Church. What we see is a picture of a "new" people that stood out from the rest of the world and what distinguished them first was their love for one another. They reflected something unprecedented in the Roman world: real and authentic community where people were caring for others and they were of "one heart and soul." From there this love spread to those outside the faith as the Lord "added to their number day by day." By contrast, we often appear indifferent, judgmental, radically individualized and intractably divided."

Absolutely. We are living in a form of a crumbling Roman paganistic Empire (yes, I know it was Christian by the time the empire fell, but the crumbling started early before Constantine).

Now, Craven says what I've been saying for the past 30 years,

"In other words, I don't want to be identified by what I am against but rather what I am for: the kingdom of Christ. I want my apologetic efforts to point people to Christ and not merely the preservation of Christian morality. Preserving Christian morality and ethics will not necessarily lead to Christian conversions but conversion to Christianity will most assuredly lead to true moral perspectives and cultural transformation. I pray I never get this backwards!"


Source: www.battlefortruth.org

Quote of the Week

The chief danger of the Church today is that it is trying to get on
the same side as the world, instead of turning the world upside
down. Our Master expects us to accomplish results, even if they
bring opposition and conflict. Anything is better than compromise,
apathy, and paralysis. God give to us an intense cry for the
old-time power of the Gospel and the Holy Ghost!

___A. B. Simpson

The Most Segregated Hour? Well.....Maybe Not How You Might Think

Lately I am hearing it again. It's almost gotten to be robotic. I'm sure you've heard it.

"Sunday morning is the most segregated time in America out of the whole week."

NO, THIS IS NOT THE MOST SEGREGATED HOUR IN AMERICA


Well, yes and no. If you mean racially, I beg to differ. The reason our churches aren't integrated more on Sundays isn't because white people don't want others to come. At least not where I live. I cannot vouch for the South but I understand that is changing rapidly too. The reason we are so segregated is because other racial and ethnic groups WANT to in THEIR churches. Yes, that's right....some blacks, Latinos, Asians, and other groups really don't wish to come to a white church.

GASP!

I think it's insulting to think they would. Ethnics want to go their own churches with their own language. Blacks want to go to their own churches with their OWN types of worship and sermons. How insulting of whites to think they need to come to their churches. So, I really do not want to hear this nonsense anymore. If others want to come to white churches, fine. Where I live churches are happy to see non-whites come to their church. My church has a few African-Americans (my city only has a few to) and some of them are in leadership. They aren't in leadership because they're black, but because they are mature leaders.


THE REAL SEGREGATED HOUR IN AMERICA
The real segregation is marital, age and disabled. In other words, singles are not ALLOWED to mingle with marrieds; young are not allowed to mingle with middle aged and elderly, and the disabled are shoved into dark corners of the church where they won't be seen.

I NEVER hear anyone else say what I just said. Why? Is our preoccupation with racial segregation, which is largely in the past in most of the country, an attempt to cover up the REAL segregation? Intresting concept, isn't it?

Why Younger Christians are Falling for Anything

This says it all,

Most students say they did not learn enough Bible content growing up to enable them to make biblical life decisions, let alone defend a Christian worldview in the face of vicious opposition.


Source: Worldnet Daily

Emergent Snippet - 5

This post will be the last of the "snippets." Today's snippet is rather long and I suppose could be called a macro-snippet.

Trevin Wax over at Kingdom People gives us Five Reasons Why the Emerging Church is Receding. I condensed some of his comments but do read the entire post - the link is at the end of this post.

1. The Emerging Church does little evangelism.
Surely the Emerging Church is not the only segment of Christianity that fails in the evangelistic task. So I’m not throwing stones here. I am merely pointing out that which some Emerging leaders (Scot McKnight, Dan Kimball and others) have been saying for a long time. The Emerging Church isn’t making many converts.
What the Emerging Church has succeeded at is reaching young, disgruntled Christians who are fed up with the problems in traditional evangelicalism.
Another issue that affects evangelism is the lack of clarity and focus regarding the nature of salvation. With traditional doctrines such as the exclusivity of Jesus Christ and the existence of hell being questioned (and, in some quarters, outright denied), evangelism is no longer a priority. Saved… from what? Saved… by whom?

MY COMMENT:
Well, perhaps they aren't doing evangelism in the sense that Trevin and I see it, but they are doing evangelism in their view.
Saved from What? Old-fashiponed evangelical churches.
Saved by whom?
Saved by the new "progessive" [read that "emergent"] Christian leaders.

2. Some Emerging leaders have embraced a disturbing lack of clarity on key doctrinal and social issues.

MY COMMENT
Yes, I agree that there is a disturbing lack of clarity on key doctrinal issues. But in social issues they are better and have much more clarity. They busy themselves trying to figure out how to help people. And while that is nice, I am wondering if there way is how God would do it?

He writes about twenty-somethings he knows that do not fit the mold the emergents seem to think 20-somethings fit. Then he says this,
Some Emerging leaders consistently refrain from speaking out on important moral and theological questions of our day. Asking for a moratorium on making pronouncements the Bible has already made may sound humble and gentle, but in reality, it leaves people struggling with sin and guilt without a clear word from God.

3. Many who initially intrigued by the Emerging conversation are now distancing themselves from Emerging theology.
The whole “missional” movement is a case in point. Here you have young, hip pastors in their thirties who might be called “postmodern” in their style of worship, but who no longer want to the baggage of theological liberalism that the term “Emerging” is beginning to connote.
When dozens of successful pastors/writers/bloggers who were initially intrigued with the Emerging Church begin shedding the name and throwing off the baggage, it’s a clear sign that the conversation is ending (or at least becoming more narrow in its tendency toward liberalism).

MY COMMENT:
I have not heard this nor do I have any evidence of this but I sure would like to have some. It would be very good news indeed. I wish he had given sources.

4. Some aspects of the Emerging Church look faddish and fleeting.
The Emerging Church is about contextualization and practice. How do we contextualize the gospel for a postmodern world?......Unfortunately, some Emerging Churches look like the continuation of the Seeker movement, even as they decry the Seeker-focused mindset. Incense, candles, icons. These aspects of worship might be helpful for ministry to postmodernists somewhere. They would look silly in rural Tennessee. Contextualization does not always look the same, something the Emerging Church conversation affirms in theory, but often ignores in practice.

Then he says this, which I found really intriguing,
Think of Jesus Movement of the 1970’s. Replace Vietnam with Iraq, beards with goatees, and contemporary music with liturgy. (I’m overstating my case here, but you get my drift.)

5. Evangelicalism is beginning to address the good questions raised by the Emerging movement.
The Emerging Church is a protest movement and some of the protests have been good and necessary. As I’ve written before about fundamentalism, movements that find their identity in protesting usually find smaller and more insignificant things to protest about.

Now that evangelicalism has begun listening to the Emerging Church’s concerns about ecclesiology, Kingdom theology, incarnational spirituality, ancient rituals, etc., we are beginning to see the best that Emerging has to offer being incorporated into the larger stream of evangelicalism. As that happens more and more over the next few years, the Emerging Church as a movement will be more and more unnecessary.
We’re seeing the receding of a movement that has served its purpose - reawakening evangelicals to the necessity of the Church and the importance of being the Church to the world.


Read the entire post here.

Emergent - 4

I thought this was an interesting assessment of many emergent churches,

Emergent is:
Overcoming the theology of Western European white male Christians and replacing it with the theology of Western European white male atheists.

What does this person mean by "white male atheists?" Probably because many of the secular, French (or French-leaning) postmodern philosophers were atheists, and many emergent pastors are adopting their views.

Source: here

Cerulean Sanctum on Hold

Dan at Cerulean Sanctum, which is required daily reading for many of us, is taking a hiatus because of illness in his family. So, hope you all will pray for Dan and family. We really want him and his family on their feet again.

P.S. I hope this doesn't sound horrible but I do have a slight ulterior motive. Like many, I am a Cerulean Sanctum addict......and I need my daily fix.

M. Horton Speaks

I couldn't continue the "snippet" series without one of my favorite authors and theologians, Michael Horton. In the March/April issue of Modern Reformation magazine he writes of a liberal Protestant theologian who told him he visited an evangelical church. Sadly, he didn't hear a message any different than in his own mainline liberal church. This is just another case I present to you to make my point that so many evangelical churches are following 19th century Frederich Schleiermacher's (the father of liberal Protestantism) path into liberal Protestantism. Satan does NOT have a new bag of tricks. He simple reaches into his old bag. So how specifically does Horton tell us this is happening? He makes this startling statement,

So while evangelicals are often quick to launch public protests against "secular humanists" for diminishing the role of God in American society, it would seem that the more likely source of secularization is the church itself. I am not claiming that evangelicalism is "atheistic" or even "deistic" in principle, but that in parctice it is losing its interest in God and the grand story of His saving work in Jesus Christ.

Emergent - 3

Here is a snippet from a very good presentation by Brannon House. It's pretty blunt cocnerning the emergent church but perhaps some need to be blunt in order to unmask some of the foundations of this "conversation."
(You can hear the whole thing here.

He says the emergent church is involved in spiritual paganism. There are five characteristics to this movement.

1. A spiritual to justify their rebellion against the authority of the Bible.
2. They are looking for a spiritual salve for their guilty consciences.
3. They want the right to interpret the truth as to what works for them and what makes them happy.
4. They want a religion that fits the cultural mandates of tolerance and pluralism.
5. They are looking for a faith that justifies their liberal social views.

Rob Bell says about the beginning of emergent,

"They were looking for a faith that was savy for their friends."

[My observation: This is remarkably similar to what Frederich Schleiermacher said in the 19th century. Schleiermacher is considered the "father" of liberal Protestantism. Get it? Get the connection?]

This emergent trend is worse than you think,” according to House.

He says,

“I wish you could join me in traveling on a national level and talking to pastors and youth pastors and assistant pastors. You would be stunned at the absolute shallowness, gullibility and lack of discernment of the people on church staffs around America.”

[My comment: I absolutely agree. It's bad enough that most Christians don't have a clue about the emergent influence that has flooded our seminaries and Bible colleges and are now seeping into our churches, mainly through the youth departments. But so many elders and pastors are not aware of this trend or what it means either.]

The New Age Influences

Continuing with snippets from those who are seeing apostasy in several movements within the evangelical church.

Many are saying that several current movements will combine together to form the last days apostate church. Some of these may include emergent, seeker-sensitive/purpose driven/Third Wave Charismatic, liberal Protestant, and Roman Catholic. Eastern Orthodox churches also might join, depending on the direction they take. Why would we think this? All of these movements have some things in common,

1. Downplaying the substitionary atonement of the cross and/or downplaying or actually denying this as the only means of salvation.

2. Christ the SAVIOR as the center of Christianity and his mediatorial work, NOT Jesus the good guy, good teacher alone.

3. New Age and Eastern religious influences accepted.

Here today's snippet concerning this New Age influence seen especially in completative spirituality,

Christianity experiences unprecedented attacks on its foundational truths. These attacks are motivated and coordinated by evil forces that are intent on deceiving all people as a prelude to revealing the Antichrist and physically establishing Satan’s kingdom on earth. Their main obstacle is biblical beliefs in the deity, atoning death, resurrection and second coming of Jesus Christ. As a result, attacks against evangelical Christianity are on the increase, being aimed at discrediting the canonical books of the Bible, and thus also the God and Saviour of the Bible.



Source: http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/final-preparations-to-receive-the-new-age-christ/

Emergent - 2

Contining snippets from various sources to describe current movements int eh evangelical church:

From Shane Lems in the March/April issue of Modern Reformation magazine on postmodernism in the church,

"...a postmodern sermon 'is not a declaration of absolute truth, but a mile marker along the congregation's journey.' A postmodern preacher 'needs to help the congregation have a good sense of what they can trust from God, the gospel, and Christian community.' Sermons deal with the authentic rather than the absolute. What Christians need, preachers say, is "a spirit of love and respect...a spirit of acceptance...a spirit for today, here and now.' Yesterday's truths are as stale as cold Folger's coffee; sermons can fit only one community for one time."

He then goes on to describe how the senses play an important part in the service--incense, candles, videos, etc. Then he makes a rather astounding statement that I am certainly thinking about seriously and hope you do too,

"I submit that this appreciation for the sensual is another way of avoiding foundationalism."

Wow! He explains,

"Each person can authentically experience worship in community by interaction rather than simply hearing a propositional truth."

Lems says that perhaps we can have both. In his view propositions are absolutely necessary but at times he says we need to, "de-dramatize." This happens when the sermon is reduced to a message on doctrine. He says that the gospel is also an event that happened in history. I do agree with this emergent view of the event in history. However, Lems is also correct when he says that propositional truths cannot be ignored or disdained.

What is Emergent - 1

As I posted yesterday, for the next few days I am going to present snippets from others who I think are defining certain trends (many- not so good) in the evangelical church. The next few days will be emergent's turn. So, today here is a snippet from a longer but not too long MUST READ from Tim Challies' blog. He actually gets it from another source and it is funny but so, so true. I will give the link after the snippet so you can read all of it yourself.


You might be an emergent Christian:
if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Winks and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage.....


You can read the entire blog post here.

What is Seeker/Purpose-Driven?

For the next few days, I'm going to begin a short series giving short quotes and their link sources from people who IMO are definining quite well some of the movements within the evangelical church that I've been discussing here for the past almost 4 years. Here is a short but effective description from Pastor Bob DeWaay about what the seeker sensitive/Purpose Driven churches are all about,

DeWaay’s basic conclusion is this: The purpose-driven movement begins with the premise that the only way to attract non-Christians to church is by offering to meet their felt needs, rather than their real need for salvation through Christ. If a non-Christian "seeker" visits a church where he hears the traditional Gospel message that he is a lost sinner in need of a salvation that can only come from personal repentance and trust in the atoning death of Christ, he will be repelled by the challenging message, and will not return. To prevent this failure, so the theory goes, a church must conduct market research into what people in its area want, and then find a way to give these seekers what they want.


Source