Tomorrow is Church Visiting Day....Sigh

Well, I am going to set out tomororw for yet another church to visit. Believe me, it will take a lot for me to go, as going alone to churches is such torture. I sure wish I had a friend who wanted to be adventurous too. But everyone I know either has a church or doesn't want to visit others. It sure is tempting to stay home but I will force myself to go as I really do need a church. So that brings me to the quote below. Maybe this is the problem, or at least one of the problems, especially in the larger urban/large surburban
in area that where I live--Los Angeles County.


The small neighborhood church has given way to the large commuter church. The friendly country parson has been replaced by the suburban CEO/pastor. Older practices such as the "family altar" and the "family pew" have received token attention while new programs have been devised that divide families and segregate the ages. In many ways we have become too clever for our own good.

Source:http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.1003

Poor America....Waaaaahh

Americans are funny. Here are the "sacrifices" we have had to make recently. No wonder Third World people laugh at us and then wrinkle their nose.

Parade Magazine questionnaire
What have you had to sacrifice?

Vacation plans: 68%

Dining out: 67%

Home improvements: 52%

Going to the movies: 50%

Designer clothes: 34%

*********************************************

Waaah..I can't buy my designer clothes....wwwaaaaaaaaahhhhh.......

The Middle Way

I'm getting tired of constantly having choose between theological extremes. Stop pushing me into corners and stop erecting exaggerated and outright false strawmen.....puh-leeese

Ladies and Gentlemen.....in this corner we have the Emergent Conversation with its close cousin, Liberal Protestantism.

...and in this corner we have the Young Calvinists with their close cousins the Cool (or is it Kewl?) Calvinists.

...and in a third corner we have the Mega Seeker-Sensitive-Purpose-Driven Churches.

Finally, in this corner (this seems to be a square/rectangle type of figure), we have the old-fashioned fundamentalists with their close cousins the 60's evangelical.

But the middle (?) is empty. Or is it?



*Emergents------------------Calvinists


.............................?..............................


*Seekers-------------------Fund./Evang.




I say there is something in the middle. Something that is closer to original Christianity than all those other things in the corners.

If you agree with me, what do you think it is....that thing in the middle?

Baptising Shack-Ups?

Many pastors today (i.e. emergent as well as a few others) do not understand all the hullaboo concerning them baptizing practicing homosexuals/lesbians who have no intention of not being practicing homosexuals/lesbians. There is a stipulation though. These pastors want the homosexuals/lesbians to be monogamous. For all of you non-Californians this means they have a life partner and don't cruise the gay bars. I thought baptism was for believers who were leaving sinful and "interesting" lifestyles. Isnt' that what Acts 2:38 means when it says,

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

I read a blog many weeks ago that said that a very well-known seeker church baptises shack-ups. For all of you non-Californians that means two unmarried people (a man and woman) living together and probably having sex.

I wonder who else churches today baptise? But the emergents do have a point. Where do we draw the line. If someone is an angry person and refuses to change do we not baptise them? If they worry (a sin in the Bible) and refuse to change, then do we not baptise them? Do we baptise practicing child molesters? That kind of hits home doesn't it. As long as it doesn't affect me or my family go ahead and baptise them and hey....let's give them church membership too. But if it affects me or my family, then...whoa...let's think this out. I find that position a bit hypocritical to put it mildly.

Please NOTE the term "refuse to change." This is NOT about the sanctification process where people want to change but are having trouble (probably because most churches don't have a clue today as to how to assist the Spirit in the change). I think this is a real dilemma. What do you think about this dilemma? Where do we draw the line? Please no comments telling me that Romans 1 is talking about gay prostitutes, not committed gay couples. This post isn't about homosexuality. It it's about baptism.

Church Visitation Blues

Yes, I've left my church (I hope). Is it really too much to ask for the Bible to be preached and studied with some application outside of psychobabble and self-esteem teaching? Is it too much to talk at least once in a while about what Jesus did at the cross? Is it too much to ask that at least once a month there is some explanation to non-believers how to receive Christ and why? And, finally, is it way too much to ask that the Holy Spirit is sensed at least a little bit in the service? And I know this is a BIG stretch---is it too much to ask that the church at least try to pray for healing, both emotional and physical, and actually believe God might do it?

From the four churches I visited last summer and the one I visited today, I guess the answer is "yes," it's too much to ask. Well, I am going to visit a church each Sunday and then write about my experience here until I either find one, give up and don't go to church, or am forced back into my old one. I seem to present an unusual challenge for most churches - I go alone. Churches are very surprised that someone would come alone and usually don't have a clue as to what to do about it. I don't know why. It's really amazing to me that pastors and other church leaders cannot understand that not everyone comes with a church member and that some people actually do come alone. In my ex-church the pastor say that "studies show that most visitors are brought by someone already in the church." Oh really? What about the "others?" What about me? And what about some of you? Even couples that come and don't know anyone in the church are treted the way singles are. I know what you are going to say because I've heard it from some of you on the 'net. "My churhc wouldn't treat you like that." Are you sure? I would challenge you to open your eyes and find out for sure.

Newsflash!!

Recent polls show there are more singles now in America than married ones, but America's church leaders continue to stay in ignorance. So, here is today's awful experience. Maybe the next church will be better.


I entered a building and on the left were stairs. I wasn't sure if I was to go upstairs as there no signs but I heard voices upstairs and so decided to climb the stairs. Once upstairs, I passed a coffee bar and tables to what I thought might be the sanctuary entrance. A man was at the door and I asked him if this was the church.
"uh huh," he replied. That was it. No "welcome." I assumed he was a greeter or usher but maybe he was just standing there, I don't know. There was no bulletin handed to me so I guessed they didn't use them here. Wrong. When I got inside and seated, on the screen at the front it talked about a bulletin. I found out later that the bulletin was obtained by picking it up somewhere out in the foyer where I had just been. Of course the church members already knew that but a visitor wouldn't.

I arrived 3 minutes before the service started and there probably were 10 people in the church. Most arrived late including the pastor. No one greeted me a the door and no one spoke to me in the church. I am a friendly approachable person so I wonder what happens to a shy one here in this church. I noticed that some people had bulletins so I asked the woman on my right where to get one. She said she would be happy to get one for me which she did and that was very nice. But see, people....I shouldn't have had to ask anyone. The bulletins should have been handed out or on each seat.

OK....so now the service started and the music part was very short, about three songs. Then a man made announcements and they passed the offering. After that the 50-ish-something pastor got up and spoke for an hour. He spoke on a chapter in Matthew. It was so fragmented with his nostalgia for the sixties and his warning us against global warming and other stuff politicians want to do to us to get us into fear, that I cannot tell you what the sermon was really about. What was annoying was he was trying to be 1960's cool. There were a few snickers when he tried to be funny-cool but when I looked over to the teens sitting in a group in the extreme right of the sanctuary, I didn't see most of them even crack a smile once. I imagine when they turn 18 they will be out of there.

After a half hour of this mess I prayed fervently for God to liberate us and have him end. But no, the hell dragged on another half hour. The pastor talked for a total of one hour. He was all over the map, talking about everything under the sun. Then he would go back to the scripture and then go off on a tangent again. This repeated itself several times. There might have been an application here but I certainly couldn't seem to get it. As far as the Holy Spirit was concerned, He seemed to be noticeably absent. Perhaps He went over to visit the liberal Presbyterian church, filled to the brim in two services, across the street from this one.

Finally, after an hour and a half, the gruesome experience was over. I got up to run out (almost literally) and the same woman on my right said goodbye. I thought that was nice.

Almost all the churches I visited last summer and today did not have any organizational structure for visitors. In fact, in some, including the one I visited today, people seemed to be surprised and almost shocked that a visitor would actually grace their church. But this church took the cake. It has to be the most visitor unfriendly one thus far.

Today's church - - a Calvary Chapel church.

I've heard downloads of talks given by two Calvary Chapel pastors at their pastor's conferences and I was impressed so I'm not saying all CC churches are this way. But denominations/conmvferences/ movements (many churches don't want the term "denomination attached which I personally think is silly when they are organized like one) need to help their pastors and cburch leaders learn how to teach their congregation to help and greet visitors and also to have an organizational intake system that works. In a few months I will present a comprehensive plan for visitor-intake. Maybe some pastor or elder somewhere will take notice. I hope so. So, next Sunday I will be visiting another church. Each Sunday I will tell you the denomination but not the church name or where it is located. I live in Los Angeles County in Southern California so of course it will be somewhere in that county.

Meanwhile, if you wish to read three of my blog posts that are related, here are the links:

My description of the four churches I visited last summer is here.

One problem I've seen continually since I became a Christian 45 years ago is the problem of social ease in evangelicals. I wrote a post about that here.

The response to the above post was disturbing to me so I tried to clarify what I said here.

Lakeland...Three Question from Holmes and Medway

Robert Holmes and Brian Medway is in the same "sphere" as Andrew Strom. These are Charismatic prophets that have questioned, and in most cases chastized or at least questioned somethings about the Third Wave so-called revivals like Toronto and Brownsville. Now, they are looking at the Lakeland "healing revival" with Todd Bentley.

They ask three (3) excellent questions about this revival. Suuporters of the revival really need to face these questions IMO. Here they are:

1. Why are we calling this a revival?
The largest churches in the UK (such as Kensington International) draw more people every week than are turning up to Lakeland. The largest church in Nigeria (Faith Temple) draws three times that number! These churches win as many people to Christ each week as are being won at Lakeland. We do not call them revival because such a term implies that communities are being affected, towns are being changed, nations are being shaken. For a start, there are no credible evaluations of how many have been saved in Lakeland, Florida. Not from any of the main sources. We are now six or seven weeks in! There are estimates of how many people show up, and how many are falling down - but not of salvations?

2. Why have all the recent "revivals" which cause tourism take place in America?
Toronto, Smithton, Pensacola, Lakeland... thousands travelling to see it. Next week in a Northern Indian city there will be a baptism of 10,000 new converts, gathered in from hundreds of COC churches. In two weeks time there will be the confirmation of 8,000 new converts in a Pentecostal assembly in Uganda. It is estimated that 1,000 Iraqis are being converted a week now from Islam. Why don't we fly to those places - whose statistics are far more impressive than Lakeland. (for more information on revival tourism to those places watch this space!)

3. What has our Christianity become about?
Since when is the gospel centrally about a focus on angels, third heaven revelations, impartations and transferable blessings? Since when did Jesus die to make us rich, or to cancel debt we have accrued through the self focused spending we engage in here in the West? What happened to the simplicity of the gospel - repent, believe and be baptized?

Never the less, when asked about people who worked miracles in the name of Jesus, but who may be off centre, or walking a different path from Himself, Christ answered, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in my name can soon afterward speak evil of me. For He who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:39,40 NKJV).

Source: http://www.stormharvest.com.au/index.php/20080308470/Latest-Articles/The-Lakeland-Outpouring-and-Todd-Bentley.html

"[Emerging churches] do not believe in evangelistic strategies, other than the pursuit to be like Jesus in his interaction with others. They do not target people or have an agenda but rather seek to love all those whom God brings to them. They do not hope for a belief change for their conversation partners as much as a life change. Because of their high level of engagement with other cultures, the sacred/secular split is overcome as they practice the kingdom in thier midst, in community."

____Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger in Emerging Churches, p. 134 as quoted in A Community Called Atonement by Scott McKnight

Let me take each of the above sentences separately.

[Emerging churches]....
1....do not believe in evangelistic stragies, other than the pursuit to be like Jesus in his interaction with others.

-->In other words, I believe this is talking about relational evangelism which IMO is a welcome relief to the "hit-and-run" type the evangelicals have used until recently. So, unless there is a hidden meaning (which there is at times int eh emergent "conversation"), this is a good direction.

2.They do not target people or have an agenda but rather seek to love all those whom God brings to them.

-->Well, everyone has an agenda. But If we're talking about unbelievers, once again, this is a welcome relief from the "I really don't know you and don't care to, but I want to convert you so I can go back to my church and [choose one:
1.brag about it
2.not feel guilty."

When talking to other emerging-type Christians, the emergents use this same respectful technique. However, the emerging agenda toward more Biblical evangelicals, which by the way the emergents call "fundamentalists, is completely different. Then the "conversation" suddenly changes and the "fundamentalists" are accused of being narrow minded bigots.

3. They do not hope for a belief change for their conversation partners as much as a life change.

-->If by this they mean they wish to make sure the belief change is a real one which would naturally be followed by a life change, then fine. But, what so many of us have seen, heard and read in emergent is the translation of this to mean the life change comes first, and THEN maybe there is a belief change. THis is putting the cart before the horse and usually ther is no conversion. It simply is liberal Protestantism. Or, it can mean another type of belief change than true conversion followed by a life change based on that non-conversion belief model. Emergents can be vague and also use their own terms. But when we rarely hear from many of them about the cross and the death of Jesus as a substition for us with Jesus bearing our sins, it gets suspicious.

4. Because of their high level of engagement with other cultures, the sacred/secular split is overcome as they practice the kingdom in thier midst, in community.

-->This is more emergent-speak for an often mix of some Christian-like elements, such as things Jesus taught, with worldly elements. This mix is not true Christianity however. Some day I think I will put together a glossary of emergent speak so you can translate their writings and speakings.....:)

As I've said here before, HOW the emergent conversation/village does many things isn't my dispute with the movement. It's the content, or I should say lack of it, that concerns me so much. Without the content of the gospel of subsitutionary atonement there is NO life change or belief change. By the way, I never said anything about hell or predestination. I refuse to allow people to shove me at that extreme and I rarely find churches today are even preaching this with the exception of some Reformation-type churches. That is a straw man and outright lie, frankly, that some emergents love to promote to their mostly ignorant-of-evangelical-churches young adult followers.

Quotationmania #7

I thought this was an excellent analysis of how the evangelical movement has morphed into.....well.....into....uh......


"...at a time when anyone can claim the credential “evangelical”, the creation of what you term an “Evangelical Manifesto” seems a tad presumptuous. The term evangelical now can mean anything from a homosexual and his lover at an Evangelicals Concerned support group in New York City, Jim Wallis waving around Karl Marx’s Das Kapital , Shirley Dobson and her Reform Jewish universalist Rabbi, Greg Boyd and his hand-wringing semi-God, Brian McLaren and his hell-free, atonement-free, New Age Shift crusade, Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven madness, Rob Bell and his “human-product” Bible, Mark Driscoll and his toilet mouth pastorate, Doug Pagitt and his Desperate Housewives theology, and so forth and so on. Why don’t you call this document, “An Evangelical Manifesto: Whatever Evangelical Means”. It might clear things up. Sort of."

Source: http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=733

Quotationmania #6

It's frustrating to converse with emergent followers. Why? Mike Ratliff really gives a good description of what happens when you try to point out serious and massive problems with the emergent village leaders' doctrine,

"Debating these folks is quite an experience. They demand that we stop exposing their doctrinal errors. They call those who won’t stop doing this“hypocrites” by taking Jesus’ command to Judge Not out of context. I saw an article on a friends blog today in which someone blasted him for warning his readers about a false teacher. What was the argument the commenter used? She said, “You are a hypocrite, after all you are not perfect so how can you judge this person?” Well none of us are perfect, but we must judge because our Lord tells us too. We are not to judge hypocritically, but it is commanded that we discern what is true and what is false. We are to shun those who preach what is false and we are to warn our brethren as well. The Word of God gives us the standards of what is true and what is false and all genuine believers have the Holy Spirit."

___Mike Ratliff

Source: http://mikeratliff.wordpress.com/2008/05/06/unbelief-and-the-hard-heart

Quotationmania #5

Before we turn to our quote today, I jsut want to remind you that the Christian Carnivla is up at The Evangelical Ecologist.

Our quote today is from Samuel Chadwick. I have no clue as to who he was (is), but the quotes I've read from him recently are right on IMO. Here is one that I especially liked,


"We give ourselves to prayer. We preach a Gospel that saves to
the uttermost, and witness to its power. We do not argue about
worldliness; we witness. We do not discuss philosophy; we
preach the Gospel. We do not speculate about the destiny of
sinners; we pluck them as brands from the burning. We ask no
man's patronage. We beg no man's money. We fear no man's
frown…Let no man join us who is afraid, and we want none but
those who are saved, sanctified and aflame with the fire of the
Holy Ghost."

– Samuel Chadwick

Source: http://www.revivalschool.com

"But I Don't Want to Help the Poor Anymore?"

I think this post is one I will keep up for about three days as I do want people to think about this and hopefully comment on it.

Wonder if you are a "Jesus follower," attend an emergent church, and then decide you really don't wish to help the poor anymore? Or really have more pressing problems in your life that need more attention than the environment? What would emergent pastors say? What would they do? Would they scold you? Throw you out of the church? Be patient and wait until you come back to your senses? Lecture you? I would love to see/hear this scenario.

My point is that emergents are no less legalistic than any other "hafta-do-or-don't do this and this-to-be-holy" group. But they think they are. I hope someday that many of their followers will say, "I need to tend to my life because I have been so concerned with the poor that I don't know if I am coming or going spiritually." And since I have no atonment foundation for acceptance by God, I need to stop and find out what's REALLY going on here. Maybe they will finally question their emergent masters and ask them why important Biblical things were withheld from them? And maybe they will ask why a works program was put IN PLACE OF a justification by Christ's work program. That should be interesting. And, wonder if they find out that the poor are still poor after all of their efforts?

I will sit back and watch and be available to these sad young adults who will be searching for people and churches who will put the horse before the cart. In other words,

Justification........and then Sanctification......and THEN....the Social Gospel. And hopefully the gifts and miracles will not be left out either. Pentecostals and Charismatics! Wake up! This is a golden opportunity for you to introduce the young adult to God's REAL mystery and experience. But first, you C/P's have to get your own house in order and get back to your historic faith statement beliefs.

Lakeland, FL: It's not the WHAT - It's the WHO

I'm really getting tired of Christian leaders raising strawmen. Strawmen are when people say a certain group believes or does something that isn't true. The emergents do it all the time and so do the third wave Charismatics. The emergents try to convince us that every evangelical that isn't in their theological camp are extreme Calvinists, and the third wave Charismatics do it by saying that everyone who doesn't believe in healing THEIR way are cessationists.

It is the latter to which I refer to in this post. I am saddened that both Lee Grady and Stephen Strang, editor and publisher respectively of Charisma magazine has come out and said/intimated that if we don't agree with what is happening in Lakeland, Florida right now, we are against healing. At their own forum I cannot count the many, many people who make it VERY clear they are not against healing but are seriously questioning WHO is healing there. When a healer "sees" angels with names like Emma and reports really way-out-there experiences and revelations, we have to ask what kind of healing is going on? But in Grady's and Strang's world, that qualifies us to be "against healing.". This is just plain dishonest by both of them. The people on the forum have stated for weeks now the massive problems with WHO is holding these healing so-called revival meetings in Lakeland, Florida. And yet, Grady never responds directly to these concerns. And that was bad enough but now Strang comes out with the same. Charisma magazine is no longer a minor league Christian magazine and it needs to be more responsible than this and frankly, more comprehensive. From the beginning of this "river" revival, Grady and Strang have been enamored of it. Most Charismtics and Pentecostals I've read and talked with have serious questions about the Third Wave Charismaticism. And they also have serious questions and reservations about what is happening in Florida. Charisma really needs to do better than this. They should be presenting the classic Pentecostal position of Healing in the Atonement more instead of constantly pushing the occultic new age teaching of impartation by the "river" people in our faces. Although Bently finally started to teach healing in the atonement last year, I haven't heard him teach it this year and he doesn't seem to practice it. To teach healing in the atonemnt you don't have to drag the controversial Faith teachers into it. You can go back to Mason and MacPherson who both taught it. In fact, all three Pentecostal denominations that came out of those two people - COGIC, Assembly of God and Foursquare - believe this. For some strange reason the Foursquare statment of faith doesn't clarify this but MacPherson taught it. But then I don't know what is happening in Foursquareland lately but I plan to write about it in another post. On the other hand, the Assemby of God has it in their statement of faith (http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/index.cfm) and so does COGIC (http://www.cogic.org/believe.htm). People who believe in healing through the atonement of Christ, and not in impartation by "special people" (this smacks of Manifest Sons of God teaching, by the way) should not be pillolried as "people who are against healing." It's just plain dishonest. Let's get rid of those strawmen, shall we?

In conclusion, here is what Andrew Strom (a more true prophet and a Charismatic) said today in his email letter. I am quoting the last half of it:

A Spirit-filled pastor that I know from the UK who has been following
Todd Bentley's ministry closely for some years wrote to me about
what he himself has observed since the year 2000:

"My difficulty with Todd Bentley's ministry is not whether he has
recently covered himself with tattoos or pierced himself silly, but
the SOURCE of his power. He keeps changing his position on this.
Sometimes he says it's the Holy Spirit and a lot of the time it's his angels…

"Many have said that they believe that Florida is a 'mixture'.
Personally, I do not believe 'mixture' is involved. I believe these
deceiving spirits have hi-jacked Todd's ministry… Either the healings
are of God or they are not. Which is it?

"People can be healed in spiritualist churches. I have witnessed,
close-up, first hand, people being instantly healed by mediums
and faith healers. I have also seen people healed by the power of
the Holy Spirit. To begin with there is no discernible difference.
However the counterfeit healings soon begin to either go wrong or
something far worse comes upon the person.

"When God heals someone - He adds 'no sorrow.'

"I know Todd started off OK - I was there in his early meetings…
In September 2000 I stood in front of Todd and gave him the
warning that God gave me for him. "Beware, the leaven of the
Pharisees, lest an angelic leaven enters your ministry."

"One month later, according to Todd's own account, at a meeting
in Grants Pass Oregon, Cal Pierce walked in with Branham's
'Healing Revival' angel in tow, Todd saw and accepted this spirit
without reservation. His 'angels' have been with him ever since.

"I have written to Todd on numerous occasions and reminded him
of God's warning, alas to no avail.

"When Todd Bentley conducted a healing meeting in a large
charismatic church here in England in 2005, he laid hands on
many people who were apparently healed. I know of at least one
instance where a pastor's wife with cancer was prayed for by Todd.
Soon afterwards she heard voices in her head telling her to 'drown
herself just like her father did'. The poor woman ended up in a
mental hospital, I believe she still has the cancer.

"No-one is following up or keeping records of what happens to
people who have hands laid on them by Todd or others like him.

"I have kept records as far as I can, concerning this particular
church. Over a relatively short period, there has been a dramatic
increase in premature deaths, cancers, marriage break-ups,
sickness and disease amongst the congregation where the
leadership have allowed this type of ministry into their church.
Many people left the church in fear.

"These are the consequences of following this type of 'ministry'
which no-one is either aware of, or wants to address. I know, I have
visited the people in hospital and attended one of the funerals…"
[END QUOTE]

Meanwhile we find a number of prominent leaders beginning to
declare that this will be one of the greatest revival movements in
history. Some even see it as the beginning of a "new awakening".

Bob Jones declared that "This move will be a global move, traveling
with signs and wonders all over the world! The third wave is here!"

As this 'anointing' spreads worldwide, I believe there are some
serious questions that we need to ask ourselves:

Isn't it possible, with all the dubious 'anointings' and angels and
manifestations associated with Bentley's ministry, that what we
are really seeing is a giant 'counterfeit' revival? Isn't it possible
that if it continues to grow at the present rate, that it may literally
become one of the great "delusions" of the Last Days - a great
deception that has the power to actually deceive, if possible, the
very elect?

These are very serious questions - but I believe they must be
asked - because this 'anointing' is already beginning to circle the globe.

The Evangelical Manifesto

We will take a break from Quotationmania and come back to it in about a week. I have about 4 more fantastic quotes.

Today I want to introduce you to a document called the Evangelical Manifesto. In fact, it came out just today. The signers were prominent evangelical leaders and basically it's directed to two audiences-

-Evangelicals
-non-Evangelicals, especially non-Christians

Here is the Introduction to the Manifesto in its own words:

An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform.

As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together.

For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.

I have to admit that before I read the entire Manifesto I was afraid it would be a combo of the New Christian Left + emergenty theology + some seeker sensitive thrown in somewhere, But to my delight I found it doesn't mince words about what evangelicals believe. One of the best sections IMO was where the crafters of the Manifesto told the world that fairness isn't being observed when only evangelicals cannot speak in the public square. They ask for everybody to have a chance to speak in the public square. As I was thinking about this, I realized that for the past decades, while evangelicals have been criticized and blanked out and laughed at in the public square, liberal Protestants have been given free reign without any problem or derision at all. Interesting, huh.

To read the Evangelical Manifesto (it's a PDF file), go here.

Quotationmania #4

It is through the self that seekers imagine themselves to be peering into, and experiencing, the eternal and by doing so hoping to findsome meaning. And though its language was a little different, this was really the way earlier Protestantism traveled until it sank [emphasis mine] beneath the human debris of war in Europe and the Depression of the 1930's in America, incapable [emphasis mine] of addressing evil and suffering. It had no place to stand outside the culture. It could offer no judgement on human depravity. It had to assume the innocence of its own means of access to the divine, and that assumprion simply blew apart.

Source: David Wells in the book, The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, p. 46.

Quotationmania #3

I usually don't do politics here unless it interfaces with evangelical Christianity but I couldn't resist this one.

“They came for the steel companies and nobody said anything. They came for the auto companies and nobody said anything. They came for the office companies, people who did white-collar service jobs, and no one said anything. And they came for the professional jobs that could be outsourced, and nobody said anything.”

___Hillary Clinton


Source: New York Times Op/Ed section of May 2, 20008--David Brooks' column


This is a take-off on what the co-leader of the WWII evangelical Lutheran Confessing Movement, Martin Niemoller, said about what the Nazis did. His quote was:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

I am not exactly a Hillary fan but I thought this was very clever and frankly, IMO, she's right. And who are the they" she is talking about. Well, acutally it's a "they." Globalization, new technologies eliminating domestic jobs, and outsourcing.

Quotationmania #2

"One of the oddest things in our culture is that we seem to be tolerant of all sorts of behavior, yet are deeply unforgiving."

__Rowan Williams, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in England

Source: Modern Reformation magazine, March/April 2008 issue, page 60

Quotationmania

For the next week I am going to post quotes and comment on them. These quotes are ones that IMO really hit the mark on whatever they are talking on. So, here is the one for today.

As a pastor I hear a lot of emergent leaders talk about what is wrong with the church. It comes across as someone who doesn’t love the church. I’m a pastor first and foremost, and I’m trying to offer a solution or a model of what church should look like. I’m going back to scripture and seeing what the church was in its simplest form and trying to recreate that in my own church. I’m not coming up with anything new. I’m calling people to go back to the way it was. I’m not bashing the church. I’m loving it.


______Francis Chan, author of Crazy Love


My Comment: I liked this quote because it's exactly what God is showing me too. I started posting on everything wrong with the emergents. God challenged me, while not letting my position on emergent go, I needed (along with many other critics) to talk about what we DO need to do in order to reach the younger postmodern generation. So, those types of posts will appear here more often now.



Source: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-crazy-love-by-francis-chan.php

Angry Young Christians?

I am getting more and more perplexed about what I perceive is a lot of anger in our young Christian adults. I've seen this online for the past 10 years. And now I am hearing it outside the online world too. Perhaps that is why they don't want to attend our churches. They hide it well, but I can sense it. It's outright hostility. But why?

There are several symptoms of this anger. One is the foul language used by some of them. At a blog I read recently the blogger felt that it was because many were unchurched. Here is the reply I left on that blog,

I think we need to look at the root of the problem. While some may be in the category you presented - the unchurched - many know exactly what they are doing. The root seems to be a lot of hostility and anger and "in your face-ism." I am becoming more and more alarmed with the anger I see in our younger Christian adults. We saw this in the secular society in the 60's and early 70's but not really with the younger Christian adults. This is a whole new ballgame for the church and I think we need to address the root problem, not just throw Scripture at them about using nice language. And frankly, many don't care about those verses anyway.

A second symptom of this anger is boycotting the churches. Some of this is out of boredom, but I know some of it is out of the anger of "you do church my way or I hit the highway."

A third symptom is the abandoning of the importance of the atonement along with other Scriptural orthodoxy. It's almost like a "forget your stupid theology; we'll get our own (which they in fact have done--think emergent).

A fourth symptom is an adoption of occultic (New Age, Hindu, Buddhist, etc.) and medieval Catholic practices. I don't believe people who do this are simply looking for something different, but it often arises out of anger and frustration.

So what are these younger people angry about? Here is my guess. It goes back to just one thing. And here is that one thing:

Their Baby Boomer parents and Baby Boomer-created society.

Four problems originated by the BB's.
1. Too many divorces--this will almost always create anger, insecurity and alienation in children.

2. Both parents working--this is similar to the above. It creates insecurity and anger when parents are not available or home.

3. Their upbringing--BB's tend to not discipline their children as much as their predecessors. As a teacher for many years, I've seen the toll this takes in the anger of children.

4. The secular society with it's constant gray areas. The BB's made sure that everything was turned upside down especially in regards to morality. This creates a lot of anger, believe me. Young people want boundaries and their guilt assuaged. This cannot happen in an immoral, hang loose-anything goes society.

(5) I've put this in parentesis because I feel that it doesn't apply in most places anymore (outside the South). Also, the BB's didn't originate it. In fact, they are the main ones who have been and still are, abolishing it. But sadly, the emergents constantly want us to believe every church is like this.
#5 then is-----Legalism in the churches. Yes, that will make one angry too.

So, what say you?