I had almost forgotten about The Beautiful Side of Evil by Johanna Michaelsen. Then today I read a post at the From the Lighthouse blog by Berit Kjos. I had also forgotten that Michaelsen saw "angels" from whom she felt joy, light and peace. Kjos writes that this angel sounds very familiar to one we are hearing about today. Who? Think Todd Bently and his angel, Emma.
For those of you who haven't read Michaelsen's book, published in 1982, she tells the story of how her family moved to Mexico when she was young becuse of her father's job. She got into psychic phenomena and was what we would here term the New Age. This is the one big thing that I remember because it stood out so much for me. When she would go to the psychic healer's house, guess who was in the long line with her to see the psychic? Roman Catholic priests and nuns. I've heard this same thing from a missionary to Spain. He said that he had converted a witch there in Spain and when he asked how she learned satanism, she replied, "Through the [Catholic] Church of course."
I think Kjos has hit it on the head. Some of these Third Wave "leaders" are very naive IMO and do not understand the satan that satan has. If you don't believe that, just read Michaelsen's book. You can still get it through amazon.com. It costs under $9.59 there (excluding shipping).
Oh, by the way, Johanna Michaelsen is Hal Lindsay's sister-in-law and he wrote the preface to her book.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Spiritual Formation?
Saturday, June 28
My Sunday School class is going to study Spiritual Formation this summer. I wonder if a lot of this Foster-Wiilard-Campolo stuff is really a works-Sanctification program. Fast and pray, fast and pray, meditate...meditate...meditate.....hear the inner voice.
Too much of it, IMO, and in fact in the opinion of many others, smack of a fusion of medieval mystical Catholicism and some Buddhist and Hindu meditation techniques. I've read several testimonies from former New Agers and Buddhists who have converted to Christianity. They say that these so-called spiritual formation techniques ballied about today in evangelical-land really smack of what they were into and they avoid them like the plague.
Jesse Penn-Lewis wrote an interesting book against these practices during the great Welsh Revival of 1905-06. In my study of revivals I felt this was one of the greatest revivals ever. However, it died soon and many feel it was becuse of a lack of teaching and discipleship. Mrs. Penn-Lewis, who was a leader in the revival, saw that converts were going into this same passive type of meditation that we are hearing about today. She urged the converts to be more active in their meditation--that is --more active in their mind. She felt that their passivity (shutting down their mind too much) would allow demonic spirits to pose as the Holy Spirit. By the way, her book is entitled The War on the Saints. Watchman Nee, the great Chinese evangelist, really liked her book and it influenced him quite a lot. Remember, most of his converts were out of Buddhism and so it was important for him to help them discern the difference between Buddhist and Christian meditation.
So, is the Foster-Wilard type of Spiritual Formation right on? Perhaps some of it but we really do need to be more discriminating about those parts that aren't right on. And, is their program a works program? I'll let you grapple with that answer but I'll throw this into the discussion. The word meditate is found in the Old Testament in Joshua 1:8 and Psalms 1:1-3. The Hebrew root means "to mutter." The Jewish priests understood it to mean saying the Scriptures. The problem was they were getting into mindless rote. I hope that gives you a clue to what it really is.
I will leave you with this quote from Pastor John Piper, in his 1998 address to the Evangelical Theological Society. This is what he had this to say about the spread of spiritual formation training in seminaries:
"…you can’t take it for granted that students or pastors or missionaries or teachers know God better than they know anything and find more satisfaction in him than in anything else in their lives. You can’t assume that. The foundation simply isn’t there.
The evidence for this is the emergence of the spiritual formation movement. It would not have occurred to anyone to add courses in spiritual formation if students were walking out of their Biblical classes aflame with a passion for the glory of God standing forth in the exegesis of his Word. It would not have occurred to anyone to add courses in spiritual formation if students were coming out of systematic theology and church history with their minds amazed at the majesty of God and their hearts burning within them like the men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:32)."
Source of Piper quote: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=4997
Sunday, June 29
Well, to my surprise the class started out really well and the young woman who taught it was excellent. She did bring up the legalistic tendencies that I brought up yesterday and also balanced it with the other extreme of doing what you feel like when you feel like it. It's meditation that I will be very interested in hearing about. So I will report in when that occurs.
My Sunday School class is going to study Spiritual Formation this summer. I wonder if a lot of this Foster-Wiilard-Campolo stuff is really a works-Sanctification program. Fast and pray, fast and pray, meditate...meditate...meditate.....hear the inner voice.
Too much of it, IMO, and in fact in the opinion of many others, smack of a fusion of medieval mystical Catholicism and some Buddhist and Hindu meditation techniques. I've read several testimonies from former New Agers and Buddhists who have converted to Christianity. They say that these so-called spiritual formation techniques ballied about today in evangelical-land really smack of what they were into and they avoid them like the plague.
Jesse Penn-Lewis wrote an interesting book against these practices during the great Welsh Revival of 1905-06. In my study of revivals I felt this was one of the greatest revivals ever. However, it died soon and many feel it was becuse of a lack of teaching and discipleship. Mrs. Penn-Lewis, who was a leader in the revival, saw that converts were going into this same passive type of meditation that we are hearing about today. She urged the converts to be more active in their meditation--that is --more active in their mind. She felt that their passivity (shutting down their mind too much) would allow demonic spirits to pose as the Holy Spirit. By the way, her book is entitled The War on the Saints. Watchman Nee, the great Chinese evangelist, really liked her book and it influenced him quite a lot. Remember, most of his converts were out of Buddhism and so it was important for him to help them discern the difference between Buddhist and Christian meditation.
So, is the Foster-Wilard type of Spiritual Formation right on? Perhaps some of it but we really do need to be more discriminating about those parts that aren't right on. And, is their program a works program? I'll let you grapple with that answer but I'll throw this into the discussion. The word meditate is found in the Old Testament in Joshua 1:8 and Psalms 1:1-3. The Hebrew root means "to mutter." The Jewish priests understood it to mean saying the Scriptures. The problem was they were getting into mindless rote. I hope that gives you a clue to what it really is.
I will leave you with this quote from Pastor John Piper, in his 1998 address to the Evangelical Theological Society. This is what he had this to say about the spread of spiritual formation training in seminaries:
"…you can’t take it for granted that students or pastors or missionaries or teachers know God better than they know anything and find more satisfaction in him than in anything else in their lives. You can’t assume that. The foundation simply isn’t there.
The evidence for this is the emergence of the spiritual formation movement. It would not have occurred to anyone to add courses in spiritual formation if students were walking out of their Biblical classes aflame with a passion for the glory of God standing forth in the exegesis of his Word. It would not have occurred to anyone to add courses in spiritual formation if students were coming out of systematic theology and church history with their minds amazed at the majesty of God and their hearts burning within them like the men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:32)."
Source of Piper quote: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=4997
Sunday, June 29
Well, to my surprise the class started out really well and the young woman who taught it was excellent. She did bring up the legalistic tendencies that I brought up yesterday and also balanced it with the other extreme of doing what you feel like when you feel like it. It's meditation that I will be very interested in hearing about. So I will report in when that occurs.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Have you Read the "Church 'In' Group" Post Yet?
If you didn't read my post of Thursday, July 12, I hope you will.
It's about faulty communication and ogranization in churches as what's really wrong most of the time. And my assessment of the root of it might surprise you.
You can find that post here.
It's about faulty communication and ogranization in churches as what's really wrong most of the time. And my assessment of the root of it might surprise you.
You can find that post here.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Maybe Now Charisma Mag Finally Finds Out What Real Revival Is
Hooray! I have my laptop back so I'm primed to post. Thanks for all who didn't abandon this blog while I was "away from keyboard." And now for today's post.
Charisma might finally get it. Editor Lee Grady did an interview with the wife of Bolivian evangelist Julio Ruibal, who was martyred for his faith in 1995. In the interview Ruibal's wife made it fairly clear that the great revival in Bolivia was not like the one in Lakeland, Toronto or other Third Wave Charismatic venues. She said they did not see angels, although they felt angels were with them. Then she states, and I quote her words exactly,
We did not have gold dust, feathers, gems, orbs, oil oozing from hands or any other such thing, nor did we seek it. We sought Jesus and His will.
Doesn't that quote really tell it all? I do hope Grady, Strang and Charisma will "get" it now, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, as we groan through this latest (Lakeland and Bently) Third Wave Charismatic mess, we patiently wait for the REAL quieter but much more effective revival to appear.
Oh by the way.....Peter Wagner and his "apostles" have now named Todd Bently an evangelist and put him under their watch. I'm not real hopeful that their watch will change anything but we shall wait and see. Here is the exact article from Charisma mag,
California pastors Ché Ahn and Bill Johnson, along with Canadian pastor John Arnott, laid hands on the 32-year-old Bentley while Peter Wagner, leader of the International Coalition of Apostles, read a statement about the need for apostolic alignment. Other prominent leaders from the apostolic and prophetic movements stood on the platform to show their support for Bentley and to endorse the revival, which began in early April and is now in its 83rd day of continuous meetings.
The ceremony, held in a 10,000-seat tent, took place after some charismatic leaders raised questions about Bentley’s claims, methods and theology. They asked Wagner to oversee a dialogue, and he responded by organizing Monday evening’s event so that Bentley could have more accountability—or what Wagner calls “apostolic alignment.
In most ministry movements and denominations, people don't become a covering agency until AFTER they investigate the person, NOT BEFORE. Naming him an evangelist under them is basically OK'ing him, right?
Here is what was said at this cermenony. It will give you a glimpe into how the Third Wave Charismatics think.
Wagner said to Bentley on the platform: “This commissioning represents a powerful spiritual transaction taking place in the invisible world. With this in mind, I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley, your power will increase, your authority will increase, your favor will increase, your influence will increase, your revelation will increase.
“I also decree that a new supernatural strength will flow through this ministry. A new life force will penetrate this move of God. Government will be established to set things in their proper order. God will pour out a higher level of discernment to distinguish truth from error. New relationships will surface to open the gates to the future.
Bently said that Wagner was the one who suggested having an official ceremony in which Bentley could be commissioned.
Interesting.
Charisma might finally get it. Editor Lee Grady did an interview with the wife of Bolivian evangelist Julio Ruibal, who was martyred for his faith in 1995. In the interview Ruibal's wife made it fairly clear that the great revival in Bolivia was not like the one in Lakeland, Toronto or other Third Wave Charismatic venues. She said they did not see angels, although they felt angels were with them. Then she states, and I quote her words exactly,
We did not have gold dust, feathers, gems, orbs, oil oozing from hands or any other such thing, nor did we seek it. We sought Jesus and His will.
Doesn't that quote really tell it all? I do hope Grady, Strang and Charisma will "get" it now, but I'm not holding my breath. Meanwhile, as we groan through this latest (Lakeland and Bently) Third Wave Charismatic mess, we patiently wait for the REAL quieter but much more effective revival to appear.
Oh by the way.....Peter Wagner and his "apostles" have now named Todd Bently an evangelist and put him under their watch. I'm not real hopeful that their watch will change anything but we shall wait and see. Here is the exact article from Charisma mag,
California pastors Ché Ahn and Bill Johnson, along with Canadian pastor John Arnott, laid hands on the 32-year-old Bentley while Peter Wagner, leader of the International Coalition of Apostles, read a statement about the need for apostolic alignment. Other prominent leaders from the apostolic and prophetic movements stood on the platform to show their support for Bentley and to endorse the revival, which began in early April and is now in its 83rd day of continuous meetings.
The ceremony, held in a 10,000-seat tent, took place after some charismatic leaders raised questions about Bentley’s claims, methods and theology. They asked Wagner to oversee a dialogue, and he responded by organizing Monday evening’s event so that Bentley could have more accountability—or what Wagner calls “apostolic alignment.
In most ministry movements and denominations, people don't become a covering agency until AFTER they investigate the person, NOT BEFORE. Naming him an evangelist under them is basically OK'ing him, right?
Here is what was said at this cermenony. It will give you a glimpe into how the Third Wave Charismatics think.
Wagner said to Bentley on the platform: “This commissioning represents a powerful spiritual transaction taking place in the invisible world. With this in mind, I take the apostolic authority that God has given me and I decree to Todd Bentley, your power will increase, your authority will increase, your favor will increase, your influence will increase, your revelation will increase.
“I also decree that a new supernatural strength will flow through this ministry. A new life force will penetrate this move of God. Government will be established to set things in their proper order. God will pour out a higher level of discernment to distinguish truth from error. New relationships will surface to open the gates to the future.
Bently said that Wagner was the one who suggested having an official ceremony in which Bentley could be commissioned.
Interesting.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Bad News
Well, last post I had good news. Sadly, it turned into bad news. My laptop isn't connecting to the Internet so it is back at computer doctors to see what is going on with the modem and the modem card.
Until I get it back or have time at the library like today, here is something to tide you over:
I read at Lighthouse Trails Blog this quote from a reader of that blog:
As time wore on, my Dad and I were getting quite skeptical of this Purpose Driven idea....we believed that as Christians, our purpose is to spread the Gospel - not growing your church into a mega-chapel where money flows, and what not. So, yes, as Christians, we do have a purpose - and our purpose should be getting out the good news of Jesus Christ - not what Rick Warren or any of his followers are exuding.
As we looked back, upon our practical excommunication from our old church, we see that it was run very much like that of Jim Jones and the Jonestown /Guyana Tragedy....from the late 70s. It was quite bizarre - the similarities.
That doesn't surprise me as I've studied the Jones phenomenon and recognized that what Jones did was to synthesize Buddhism, Communism and "Christianity" together. The emergents and others just do not get how dangerous this is. So, I present for your consideration, exhbit A
-------------Jim Jones and the People's Temple and Guyana.----------------
Still not convinced? Still think it depends on the person and not the doctrine? I hope you will think this out as it certainly can have serious implications.....right?
Until I get it back or have time at the library like today, here is something to tide you over:
I read at Lighthouse Trails Blog this quote from a reader of that blog:
As time wore on, my Dad and I were getting quite skeptical of this Purpose Driven idea....we believed that as Christians, our purpose is to spread the Gospel - not growing your church into a mega-chapel where money flows, and what not. So, yes, as Christians, we do have a purpose - and our purpose should be getting out the good news of Jesus Christ - not what Rick Warren or any of his followers are exuding.
As we looked back, upon our practical excommunication from our old church, we see that it was run very much like that of Jim Jones and the Jonestown /Guyana Tragedy....from the late 70s. It was quite bizarre - the similarities.
That doesn't surprise me as I've studied the Jones phenomenon and recognized that what Jones did was to synthesize Buddhism, Communism and "Christianity" together. The emergents and others just do not get how dangerous this is. So, I present for your consideration, exhbit A
-------------Jim Jones and the People's Temple and Guyana.----------------
Still not convinced? Still think it depends on the person and not the doctrine? I hope you will think this out as it certainly can have serious implications.....right?
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Cultural Christianity
Good news. My laptop can be fixed with a brand new hard drive
(like having a new computer) for only around $250. I accidently dumped a half of glass of water on it and that is why it's at the computer doctors. That is why I haven't blogged alot since I need to do it from the library, where I am now.
The computer doctor says I may get it back as early as Friday. If not, then Saturday or Monday. So, hopefully I will be online at home by next week. Thanks for your patience.
I liked this quote from the former Assemblies of God head guy:
“‘Do not deal with reality. Do not deal with what is really going on in your family, in your church, in your life. Keep it on the surface. Keep things shallow.’ That is cultural Christianity at its best and its worst. It is strangling the lifeblood out of our churches and our families. … We’ve been ignoring God’s call for repentance. We have been failing to be relevant to a culture that sees us as representatives of death and not as representatives of life. When the quickening power of the Holy Spirit comes on us, we do what we’ve always done; we avoid and we evade. … If anything comes out of this convention, would you join me in saying that the problem is not somebody else, it is me?” —outgoing SBC president Frank Page, speaking candidly in his last address to the denomination about the long-term effects of “cultural Christianity,” which he believes has become a “grave into which we have fallen.”
From: Baptist Press, 6/10/08
(like having a new computer) for only around $250. I accidently dumped a half of glass of water on it and that is why it's at the computer doctors. That is why I haven't blogged alot since I need to do it from the library, where I am now.
The computer doctor says I may get it back as early as Friday. If not, then Saturday or Monday. So, hopefully I will be online at home by next week. Thanks for your patience.
I liked this quote from the former Assemblies of God head guy:
“‘Do not deal with reality. Do not deal with what is really going on in your family, in your church, in your life. Keep it on the surface. Keep things shallow.’ That is cultural Christianity at its best and its worst. It is strangling the lifeblood out of our churches and our families. … We’ve been ignoring God’s call for repentance. We have been failing to be relevant to a culture that sees us as representatives of death and not as representatives of life. When the quickening power of the Holy Spirit comes on us, we do what we’ve always done; we avoid and we evade. … If anything comes out of this convention, would you join me in saying that the problem is not somebody else, it is me?” —outgoing SBC president Frank Page, speaking candidly in his last address to the denomination about the long-term effects of “cultural Christianity,” which he believes has become a “grave into which we have fallen.”
From: Baptist Press, 6/10/08
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Quote of the Week...re: Abortion
If fetuses could vote, abortion would be outlawed in America.
_____Perry Stone
Think about that a bit.
_____Perry Stone
Think about that a bit.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
The Church "In" Group?
I hope today's post will be helpful to understand two key foundational problems in churches (and also in business, non-profits and educational institutions).
First, is Communication. When dealing with intelligent church leaders (pastors and elders), and the communication to the congregation is poor, one must ask why? In light of the apparent intelligence and position in society (business owners, managers, etc) of many of those leaders, we have to wonder if there is some underlying foundational reason for the poor communication since it would be unusual for those of that caliber to not understand how to communicate effectively.
Often, to avoid facing the real root problem, church leaders will try to put band-aids on the problems instead of attacking the roots. I find a common, if not THE common root is maintaining the status quo of clique groups within churches. If leaders of these groups don't communicate effectively; if they don't organize effectively; they can still maintain control.
Here are some examples from churches I've attended.
Example 1
The wrong way
The pastor or assistant makes an announcement asking for volunteers for the church picnic. He or she says that if you want to volunteer to see Mildred Doofus. Of course you must know who Mildred Doofus is and where she will be after church. This leaves out those who haven't been in the church for a long time as well as those who think maybe they aren't welcome in Mildred's crowd. So, those who feel comfortable volunteering is Mildred's "in" group. In this type of church you see the same people doing things over and over with the same people in charge.
The right way
In one church in which I was a member, this is how they did it. The pastor announced that the church was having a picnic and needed volunteers. Then he said, "If you would like to volunteer please see Mildred Doofus. Mildred, would you stand up please and turn around so everyone can see who you are?"
Mildred was sitting on purpose that day in the front row. Then the pastor continued, "Now where will you be after church so people can sign up to volunteer?"
Mildred replied cheerily that she would be right where she was standing and would love to meet those who wanted to volunteer.
Do you see the difference between these two churches? Why would the first one do it the way they did? I believe it was done purposefully to keep those not in the "in" group out. Do you wonder why the same people in some churches are always the ones "volunteering" or are in leadership year after year; even decade after decade? This might be a subconscious response, but nevertheless it's destructive to the church and to those not in the "in" group and frankly, it's also destructive to those in the "in" group.
Example 2
An activity for Sunday is announced at the Wednesday midweek service 4 days prior to the activity. This of course doesn't give most of the congregants enough time to plan to be there. But you find out later that the "in" group knew weeks before about the activity and it turns out that most of the participants in the Sunday activity turn out to be those in the "in" group.
Second, is organizational structures. If structures and groups within the church are falling apart, why? Again, the observation given above would apply here too. Why and how could educated smart people not have decent organizational structures?
Example
The church starts programs and groups but they seem to disintegrate after a while.
One reason I think this happens is that churches look at people rather than positions. Here is what I mean. Someone is in charge of a program and suddenly they are gone. Either they moved or left the church or perhaps became very sick. It takes months to replace that person in the churches I am describing. This is because they are looking to a person rather than the position. In correct organizational structures the position is what is important, that is, keeping it filled. That is a priority. In fact, good organizational structures would have an "assistant in waiting" to move right into the position, sort of like an understudy. I am wondering why this doesn't happen, especially as I said above in churches with professional-type leaders who should know better. Is it another control mechanism perhaps? In other words, the "in" group leaders must find one of their own to fill it?
I do know that the common excuse for all of this poor communication and poor organizational structure from leaders is, "I was busy." I used to buy this but not anymore since they could have "understudies" and delegate tasks more. I really do believe this is a control problem from an "in" group or groups within our churches. And why doesn't the pastor interfere more? It depends on the structure of the church/denomination. If the pastor is selected by the elders and congregation, I think you will understand what the answer is. He or she doesn't want to rock the "in" group boat or it's curtains for pastor. However, if the denomination places pastors in churches, there might be more pastor courage to come against this entrenched clique society within that church.
Do you think I'm right? If not, where am I missing it?
First, is Communication. When dealing with intelligent church leaders (pastors and elders), and the communication to the congregation is poor, one must ask why? In light of the apparent intelligence and position in society (business owners, managers, etc) of many of those leaders, we have to wonder if there is some underlying foundational reason for the poor communication since it would be unusual for those of that caliber to not understand how to communicate effectively.
Often, to avoid facing the real root problem, church leaders will try to put band-aids on the problems instead of attacking the roots. I find a common, if not THE common root is maintaining the status quo of clique groups within churches. If leaders of these groups don't communicate effectively; if they don't organize effectively; they can still maintain control.
Here are some examples from churches I've attended.
Example 1
The wrong way
The pastor or assistant makes an announcement asking for volunteers for the church picnic. He or she says that if you want to volunteer to see Mildred Doofus. Of course you must know who Mildred Doofus is and where she will be after church. This leaves out those who haven't been in the church for a long time as well as those who think maybe they aren't welcome in Mildred's crowd. So, those who feel comfortable volunteering is Mildred's "in" group. In this type of church you see the same people doing things over and over with the same people in charge.
The right way
In one church in which I was a member, this is how they did it. The pastor announced that the church was having a picnic and needed volunteers. Then he said, "If you would like to volunteer please see Mildred Doofus. Mildred, would you stand up please and turn around so everyone can see who you are?"
Mildred was sitting on purpose that day in the front row. Then the pastor continued, "Now where will you be after church so people can sign up to volunteer?"
Mildred replied cheerily that she would be right where she was standing and would love to meet those who wanted to volunteer.
Do you see the difference between these two churches? Why would the first one do it the way they did? I believe it was done purposefully to keep those not in the "in" group out. Do you wonder why the same people in some churches are always the ones "volunteering" or are in leadership year after year; even decade after decade? This might be a subconscious response, but nevertheless it's destructive to the church and to those not in the "in" group and frankly, it's also destructive to those in the "in" group.
Example 2
An activity for Sunday is announced at the Wednesday midweek service 4 days prior to the activity. This of course doesn't give most of the congregants enough time to plan to be there. But you find out later that the "in" group knew weeks before about the activity and it turns out that most of the participants in the Sunday activity turn out to be those in the "in" group.
Second, is organizational structures. If structures and groups within the church are falling apart, why? Again, the observation given above would apply here too. Why and how could educated smart people not have decent organizational structures?
Example
The church starts programs and groups but they seem to disintegrate after a while.
One reason I think this happens is that churches look at people rather than positions. Here is what I mean. Someone is in charge of a program and suddenly they are gone. Either they moved or left the church or perhaps became very sick. It takes months to replace that person in the churches I am describing. This is because they are looking to a person rather than the position. In correct organizational structures the position is what is important, that is, keeping it filled. That is a priority. In fact, good organizational structures would have an "assistant in waiting" to move right into the position, sort of like an understudy. I am wondering why this doesn't happen, especially as I said above in churches with professional-type leaders who should know better. Is it another control mechanism perhaps? In other words, the "in" group leaders must find one of their own to fill it?
I do know that the common excuse for all of this poor communication and poor organizational structure from leaders is, "I was busy." I used to buy this but not anymore since they could have "understudies" and delegate tasks more. I really do believe this is a control problem from an "in" group or groups within our churches. And why doesn't the pastor interfere more? It depends on the structure of the church/denomination. If the pastor is selected by the elders and congregation, I think you will understand what the answer is. He or she doesn't want to rock the "in" group boat or it's curtains for pastor. However, if the denomination places pastors in churches, there might be more pastor courage to come against this entrenched clique society within that church.
Do you think I'm right? If not, where am I missing it?
Be Sure to Read Dan's Answer
Be sure to see Dan's answer to the blog link I gave you on the June 9, 2008 post. You can read it here.http://ceruleansanctum.com/2008/06/the-rescue-of-moonbase-asimov-the-real-story.html
Monday, June 09, 2008
Read Dan's Blog Today
I am doing two posts today, so after you read Dan's blog, I hope you'll come back here and read my next post on Obama.
You've just got to read the allegory at Dan Edelin's blog today. Here is the link.
You've just got to read the allegory at Dan Edelin's blog today. Here is the link.
Obama
I usually don't do politics here but I think we need to see the big shift between the generations. Tidbits about the Obama phenomenon.
First, Geroge Barna, our Christian Pollster, has declared that a new poll by his organization hsows Obama will win theh United States presidential election unless he makes a major mistake, or a huge national security issue arises, or something else big that will sink Obama. You can read about his poll at this link.
Second, I am amazed at the Christians that don't get what their postmodern 18-35 children believe. For a year now I've been saying that they will go with the New Christian left and that the emergents will soon have a coalition with the Sider-Wallis New Left group. Every poll I've read so far, including Barna's, that includes younger evangelicals, shows this to be absolutely true. The majority of them will be for Obama---that is IF many of them register to vote before November.
Third, most pundits believe Obama has to go more to the center to attract moderate Democrats and Independents but if elected may go back over to the very liberal side. Remember, he was considered the most liberal Senator.
Fourth, and this isn't necessarily related to Obama, the younger generation of evangelicals just aren't bothered by practicing homosexuals/lesbians. Therefore, I'm not sure we can count on them to vote for the propostion in November to outlaw same sex marriages here in California. And, I believe you will see this trend all over the USA in the next years from that generation. By the way, I don't think legislating morals (i.e. laws) work in stopping sinful practices although the law may be a deterrant. However, for the sake of children, we should have good moral laws as a model in addition to the deterrant factor.
First, Geroge Barna, our Christian Pollster, has declared that a new poll by his organization hsows Obama will win theh United States presidential election unless he makes a major mistake, or a huge national security issue arises, or something else big that will sink Obama. You can read about his poll at this link.
Second, I am amazed at the Christians that don't get what their postmodern 18-35 children believe. For a year now I've been saying that they will go with the New Christian left and that the emergents will soon have a coalition with the Sider-Wallis New Left group. Every poll I've read so far, including Barna's, that includes younger evangelicals, shows this to be absolutely true. The majority of them will be for Obama---that is IF many of them register to vote before November.
Third, most pundits believe Obama has to go more to the center to attract moderate Democrats and Independents but if elected may go back over to the very liberal side. Remember, he was considered the most liberal Senator.
Fourth, and this isn't necessarily related to Obama, the younger generation of evangelicals just aren't bothered by practicing homosexuals/lesbians. Therefore, I'm not sure we can count on them to vote for the propostion in November to outlaw same sex marriages here in California. And, I believe you will see this trend all over the USA in the next years from that generation. By the way, I don't think legislating morals (i.e. laws) work in stopping sinful practices although the law may be a deterrant. However, for the sake of children, we should have good moral laws as a model in addition to the deterrant factor.
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?
Everyone is talking about Jesus today both inside the evangelical church and outside it.
Jesus as good teacher; Jesus as mystic; Jesus as the True source; Jesus as Light; Jesus as Prophet; Jesus as helper of the poor; Jesus as healer (and the variation of Jesus "imparting" his healing to "specially anointed" people); Jesus as lover; Jesus as political reformer; Jesus as radical (much of the time we are not sure what He was radical about--we are simply told He was radical); Jesus as deliverer; Jesus as emotional healer; Jesus as our sin substitution; and of course Jesus as the Son of God.
As you can see in the above decriptions, some of these are true, some half-true and some just plain new-agey false.
I thought the following quote from the book Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People by Will Metzger was very insightful.
Perhaps some will say that "the gospel is a person (Jesus), not a doctrine." This is a false dichotomy. The living word and written word are not enemies, but friends. As much as I agree with presenting the person of Christ, not just flinging concepts at people, Christ must be defined. A content-less Christ will not save anyone [emphasis mine]. Just as we saw the word of God is used by people in various ways, similarly Christ is redefined to fit people's preconceptions. Biblical illiteracy abounds and the possibility of misleading people about Jesus is real. This means that the written word is absolutely necessary to explain who Christ is. (In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red! [emphasis mine])..
I really like these two sentences which I put in bold type:
--A content-less Christ will not save anyone.
--In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red!
I'm really glad that someone other than me finally said it.
Source: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.1008
Jesus as good teacher; Jesus as mystic; Jesus as the True source; Jesus as Light; Jesus as Prophet; Jesus as helper of the poor; Jesus as healer (and the variation of Jesus "imparting" his healing to "specially anointed" people); Jesus as lover; Jesus as political reformer; Jesus as radical (much of the time we are not sure what He was radical about--we are simply told He was radical); Jesus as deliverer; Jesus as emotional healer; Jesus as our sin substitution; and of course Jesus as the Son of God.
As you can see in the above decriptions, some of these are true, some half-true and some just plain new-agey false.
I thought the following quote from the book Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People by Will Metzger was very insightful.
Perhaps some will say that "the gospel is a person (Jesus), not a doctrine." This is a false dichotomy. The living word and written word are not enemies, but friends. As much as I agree with presenting the person of Christ, not just flinging concepts at people, Christ must be defined. A content-less Christ will not save anyone [emphasis mine]. Just as we saw the word of God is used by people in various ways, similarly Christ is redefined to fit people's preconceptions. Biblical illiteracy abounds and the possibility of misleading people about Jesus is real. This means that the written word is absolutely necessary to explain who Christ is. (In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red! [emphasis mine])..
I really like these two sentences which I put in bold type:
--A content-less Christ will not save anyone.
--In our explanations of who Christ is, we do not pit the Gospels against the apostolic letters. Both are equally inspired. Red letter Bibles can be misleading, unless all the sentences [not just those of Jesus] are in red!
I'm really glad that someone other than me finally said it.
Source: http://www.oldtruth.com/blog.cfm/id.2.pid.1008
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Today's Revivals Compared to Earlier Ones
Today I read a very short but excellent analysis of the present so-called Third Wave Charismatic revivals (Lakeland and Bentley is one of them) compared to the earlier revivals in our country. You'll find it at Bob's Onward, Forward, Toward blog.
If you would like a pretty comprehensible survey of revivals in our country (USA) + two outside of it, from the time of the Puritans to the present day Third Wave ones, I wrote a 22 series on this blog between June and August, 2005, covering just that.
You will find all 22 links here. Happy reading.
If you would like a pretty comprehensible survey of revivals in our country (USA) + two outside of it, from the time of the Puritans to the present day Third Wave ones, I wrote a 22 series on this blog between June and August, 2005, covering just that.
You will find all 22 links here. Happy reading.
Friday, June 06, 2008
The Old Time Religion (Legalism)...Maybe Not So Bad After All?
Here is something that I have never heard before. It came to me out of the blue about a week ago. So here goes.
Most Christians today understand that the fundamentalist legalism of old was the wrong definition and application of Sanctification. In other words, the "saved by grace, kept by works" (works by your own energy that is), wasn't correct doctrine. This type of legalism was a "don't do-ism." But to be fair, today we have the new legalism which is a "do-ism." In other words, if you do this or that you will please God. In some movements the assurance of your salvation is implied if you do whatever their particular movement says to do--i.e. prayer and fast so many days (or even weeks), help the poor, and so forth.
Just for fun, let's look at the old legalism in another way and perhaps we will find that the old-timers were onto something that we may be missing today in the church.
Let me asure you that I am not advocating for us to go back and do legalism like churches used to do. But could we do it another way? Could we do it through teaching from the pulpit and Sunday Schools as to the results and consequences of certain actions? So then, let's take a look at the old-time legalism in another way.
Don't smoke
Would it be fair to say that those old-time Christians that didn't smoke would be healthier, at least lung-wise and many heart-wise? Probably so, unless there were other factors involved such as eating too much fat (heart) or working in mines (lungs).
Don't drink
Although most of us know the Bible doesn't prohibit the drinking of low alcoholic-content drinks such as beer and wine, did not drinking at all prevent alcoholism and the attendant health problems including liver diseases?
Don't chew
For those of you in California and other blue states, this means chewing something called "chewing tobacco." You know, like some baseball players. Do you think perhaps that the Christians who didn't chew didn't have high rates of tongue and mouth cancer?
Don't gamble
Christians who didn't gamble didn't get addicted to it did they? And they didn't lose their money through that means.
Don't go to movies
Although the movies were tame in those days compared to today, they still had the women with the flirtatious looks and then eventually kissing. Remember, people were not used to this type of thing in open society and so it might have certainly titilated. It also led to opening movies up to all kinds of sex and violence beginning in the 1960's. I don't know if you can prove this, but I wonder if there was less sexual temptation for Christians who didn't go to movies. I didn't say they never got tempted, only less tempted. Christians today think they are real smart and can take all the movies they see without searing their consciences. I have news for you. They are plain worng and deceive themselves. Check all the Christian men including pastors who are hooked on porn. I wonder if movies from a young age (and now TV) opened this up for them. I think it would be interesting to do a survey. Let's ask those who are hooked on porn what their movie history habits were, and those who don't watch porn what their movie history habits are. Of course I could be wrong as perhaps the non-movie people might do porn out of curiosity. But overall, and this is not a legalistic statement at all, I believe Christians are much better off not attending the majority of today's movies. Yes, I know about the message, the photography, the needing to go so we can talk about them with non-Christians, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it. I probably know just as much about what is playing in the movie theaters today as anyone who goes each week because I read the movie section of the daily Los Angeles Times every day of the week. I read all of the reviews and look at the movie ads. I can talk intelligently with anyone who has gone to a movie. And so could you, frankly.
Don't dance
Same as above. Titilation.
To sum up, do you think that perhaps the old-time Christians weren't as stupid as we thought after all?
Most Christians today understand that the fundamentalist legalism of old was the wrong definition and application of Sanctification. In other words, the "saved by grace, kept by works" (works by your own energy that is), wasn't correct doctrine. This type of legalism was a "don't do-ism." But to be fair, today we have the new legalism which is a "do-ism." In other words, if you do this or that you will please God. In some movements the assurance of your salvation is implied if you do whatever their particular movement says to do--i.e. prayer and fast so many days (or even weeks), help the poor, and so forth.
Just for fun, let's look at the old legalism in another way and perhaps we will find that the old-timers were onto something that we may be missing today in the church.
Let me asure you that I am not advocating for us to go back and do legalism like churches used to do. But could we do it another way? Could we do it through teaching from the pulpit and Sunday Schools as to the results and consequences of certain actions? So then, let's take a look at the old-time legalism in another way.
Don't smoke
Would it be fair to say that those old-time Christians that didn't smoke would be healthier, at least lung-wise and many heart-wise? Probably so, unless there were other factors involved such as eating too much fat (heart) or working in mines (lungs).
Don't drink
Although most of us know the Bible doesn't prohibit the drinking of low alcoholic-content drinks such as beer and wine, did not drinking at all prevent alcoholism and the attendant health problems including liver diseases?
Don't chew
For those of you in California and other blue states, this means chewing something called "chewing tobacco." You know, like some baseball players. Do you think perhaps that the Christians who didn't chew didn't have high rates of tongue and mouth cancer?
Don't gamble
Christians who didn't gamble didn't get addicted to it did they? And they didn't lose their money through that means.
Don't go to movies
Although the movies were tame in those days compared to today, they still had the women with the flirtatious looks and then eventually kissing. Remember, people were not used to this type of thing in open society and so it might have certainly titilated. It also led to opening movies up to all kinds of sex and violence beginning in the 1960's. I don't know if you can prove this, but I wonder if there was less sexual temptation for Christians who didn't go to movies. I didn't say they never got tempted, only less tempted. Christians today think they are real smart and can take all the movies they see without searing their consciences. I have news for you. They are plain worng and deceive themselves. Check all the Christian men including pastors who are hooked on porn. I wonder if movies from a young age (and now TV) opened this up for them. I think it would be interesting to do a survey. Let's ask those who are hooked on porn what their movie history habits were, and those who don't watch porn what their movie history habits are. Of course I could be wrong as perhaps the non-movie people might do porn out of curiosity. But overall, and this is not a legalistic statement at all, I believe Christians are much better off not attending the majority of today's movies. Yes, I know about the message, the photography, the needing to go so we can talk about them with non-Christians, blah, blah, blah. I don't buy it. I probably know just as much about what is playing in the movie theaters today as anyone who goes each week because I read the movie section of the daily Los Angeles Times every day of the week. I read all of the reviews and look at the movie ads. I can talk intelligently with anyone who has gone to a movie. And so could you, frankly.
Don't dance
Same as above. Titilation.
To sum up, do you think that perhaps the old-time Christians weren't as stupid as we thought after all?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Messy
Have you ever heard this?
"Revival can be messy."
"Reformation can be messy."
"Change in the Christian community can be messy."
Frankly, I'm tired of this blather. The reason I'm tired of it is because it's often a smokescreen to cover up the REAL problem. And what is the real problem? What is happening may not be of God. To cover that up, the proponents of the event or the movement or the doctrine say, it's messy.
I hear this all the time from the emergent camp as well as the Third Wave Charismatic camp.
Nothing should be messy about God's way and truth. In fact it should be very clear. I Cor. 14:33 says,
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace
No confusion, no messiness. Peace and clarity. Now, we may not know all of God's plan at once, but what we do know and what we practice shouldn't be "messy." It should exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23). If we get on the wrong track, instead of copping out with, "It can be messy, remember," why not just say we missed up and are asking God to show us the right path?
Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, wrote recently that there are troubling things (that's putting it mildly) at the Todd Bentley Lakeland so-called "revival," but we should examine it and remember that revivals can be "messy."
Again, when people say "messy" it's usually secret code for, "Don't criticize this [revival, movement, doctrine, practice]."
If someone says, "Let's examine it but remember revivals are messy," that is secret code for, "let's be really careful when criticizing this revival." In other words, let's be wusses and weanies and not stand up for what is obvious and evident.
"Revival can be messy."
"Reformation can be messy."
"Change in the Christian community can be messy."
Frankly, I'm tired of this blather. The reason I'm tired of it is because it's often a smokescreen to cover up the REAL problem. And what is the real problem? What is happening may not be of God. To cover that up, the proponents of the event or the movement or the doctrine say, it's messy.
I hear this all the time from the emergent camp as well as the Third Wave Charismatic camp.
Nothing should be messy about God's way and truth. In fact it should be very clear. I Cor. 14:33 says,
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace
No confusion, no messiness. Peace and clarity. Now, we may not know all of God's plan at once, but what we do know and what we practice shouldn't be "messy." It should exhibit the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22,23). If we get on the wrong track, instead of copping out with, "It can be messy, remember," why not just say we missed up and are asking God to show us the right path?
Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, wrote recently that there are troubling things (that's putting it mildly) at the Todd Bentley Lakeland so-called "revival," but we should examine it and remember that revivals can be "messy."
Again, when people say "messy" it's usually secret code for, "Don't criticize this [revival, movement, doctrine, practice]."
If someone says, "Let's examine it but remember revivals are messy," that is secret code for, "let's be really careful when criticizing this revival." In other words, let's be wusses and weanies and not stand up for what is obvious and evident.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Emergent or Reformed? Wait a darn minute here....
I thought this was very interesting. It's from a Christianity Today Poll:
Would you consider yourself emergent, reformed or something else?
I'm emergent-5%
I have a lot of sympathy for the emergent movement but I'm not quite a part of it-10%
I'm reformed-25%
I read a lot of John Piper but am not really reformed-3 %
I wouldn't consider myself part of either the Emergent or Reformed movements-56%
You mean there are other movements out there except for emergent and Reformed? You would never know that reading emergent literature. The Reformed understands there is a third option however, since they daily battle both emergent and the "Third Way." I wonder what the "Third Way is?" Perhaps there are many movements other than emergents or Reformed? I bet there are....:)
Would you consider yourself emergent, reformed or something else?
I'm emergent-5%
I have a lot of sympathy for the emergent movement but I'm not quite a part of it-10%
I'm reformed-25%
I read a lot of John Piper but am not really reformed-3 %
I wouldn't consider myself part of either the Emergent or Reformed movements-56%
You mean there are other movements out there except for emergent and Reformed? You would never know that reading emergent literature. The Reformed understands there is a third option however, since they daily battle both emergent and the "Third Way." I wonder what the "Third Way is?" Perhaps there are many movements other than emergents or Reformed? I bet there are....:)
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Staying in my Church
Well, I hate to disappoint you but my church visitations days have been cut short. God has made it fairly clear that I am to stay where I am. The interesting thing is I've talked to several people in the last few months who are going through the same thing. They feel they aren't connectingat with people in the church, there is no gospel preached so people can get born again and the preaching is shallow. But we still seem to have a clear mandate from God to stay. I can only surmise therefore that God has something "up His sleeve" for this church.
Yes, I know I irk some people with the term "born again." But I love that term as it describes what has happened to so many of us including me. I, for one, am not going to allow the emergents or anyone else to take it away from me.
Yes, I know I irk some people with the term "born again." But I love that term as it describes what has happened to so many of us including me. I, for one, am not going to allow the emergents or anyone else to take it away from me.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Visitation Plans Deferred
I know many of you were looking forward to reading about my latest church visit today, but I wasn't able to get out of my condo parking place because of a car from the apartment house next door overhanging our driveway. We called the police but they said they couldn't tow it off of their privte property. So it was cited but we are completely dependent on the owner coming out today to move it. My experience with this particular car is that they don't go anywhere on Sundays.
So, I am kind of trapped here in my condo today. I sure hope it is moved tomrorow since I do need to get out at that time.
Tune in next Sunday to see where I go to church, if I do. Tomorrow I have an appointment with the assistant pastor of the church I think I'm leaving to discuss why I'm leaving. Usually when I leave a church I feel a peace about it feel "finished" there, and also I have no other church to go to. But this time I feel a "thread" keeping me here and have no other church to go to. So, I am asking God to make it very, very clear if I stay or leave. If I stay it will be humiliating since someone told the deacons (those are people who help others in my church--not elders. Our elders are actually called elders....LOL). So they have already sent me a good-bye card, although I wasn't quite ready to bolt out of the door until my church visitation was finished.
I've tried to get a clear leading from the Lord on this matter for the past two years but am still going back and forth about it. And, as you can imagine, I don't like this back and forth "feeling." Like most of us, I want a definite, "Yes, you are to leave; or, "No, you are not to leave." I don't think this is something I can figure out with my head as I can give you plenty of very good reasons for me to leave. This is "led by the Spirit time," for me--not "figuring it out with my mind" time. But I sure am having a devil of a time sensing what He is saying about me staying or leaving. I have the sneaky feeling some of you have gone through this same thing too. Am I right?
So, I am kind of trapped here in my condo today. I sure hope it is moved tomrorow since I do need to get out at that time.
Tune in next Sunday to see where I go to church, if I do. Tomorrow I have an appointment with the assistant pastor of the church I think I'm leaving to discuss why I'm leaving. Usually when I leave a church I feel a peace about it feel "finished" there, and also I have no other church to go to. But this time I feel a "thread" keeping me here and have no other church to go to. So, I am asking God to make it very, very clear if I stay or leave. If I stay it will be humiliating since someone told the deacons (those are people who help others in my church--not elders. Our elders are actually called elders....LOL). So they have already sent me a good-bye card, although I wasn't quite ready to bolt out of the door until my church visitation was finished.
I've tried to get a clear leading from the Lord on this matter for the past two years but am still going back and forth about it. And, as you can imagine, I don't like this back and forth "feeling." Like most of us, I want a definite, "Yes, you are to leave; or, "No, you are not to leave." I don't think this is something I can figure out with my head as I can give you plenty of very good reasons for me to leave. This is "led by the Spirit time," for me--not "figuring it out with my mind" time. But I sure am having a devil of a time sensing what He is saying about me staying or leaving. I have the sneaky feeling some of you have gone through this same thing too. Am I right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
