There has been an ongoing battle near San Diego, California for a long time concerning a cross on a federal veteran's memorial, Mt. Soledad. The ACLU and an atheistic veteran wants it removed as they feel this says that Christianity is the "religion" of the nation (USA). A federal judge, judge Burns, said yesterday the cross can stay because...and get this.....the cross is a symbol of many things, not just Christianity.
Frankly, keeping crosses on memorials, Ten Commandments on walls, prayer in schools does NOT make a nation Christian. There are two main things that make a nation Christian. By a Christian nation it is meant a nation with many born-again Christians who have shown their values help society and therefore convinces others of that. The perfect scenario of course would be if there was a majority of Christians in a nation. If you're a Calvinist, that probably will look near impossible. If you are not a Calvinist, it might look possible and either probable. In fact, you might even think the United States IS a Christian nation.
It isn't. Not anymore, if it ever was in the strictly literal sense of the word "Christian."
Sadly, our Christian leaders lead us to believe that forcing a mish-mash of OT and NT law plus outward looking things such as posting the Ten Commandments on government buildings would magically "make" a nation "Christian."
It isn't as if we didn't know how to Christianize our nation. We learned back in 1976. All the rage back then was the musical by Jimmy and Carol Owens, If My People (written in 1974). It was based on the passage in 2 Ch 7:14 that says,
if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
All of the evangelical churches were presenting this in the middle 70's and everyone had a midweek service where they fasted and prayed for the country. Well then, what happened? What went wrong? This is just my opinion, but I think it has merit. We here in America ignored one part of this passage - the word "humble." There was another component that they sacrificed - converting people. In the last decade the conversions in the evangelical churches have leveled off instead of rising. This is the first time this has happened since the Puritans arrived in the 17th century.
In other words, we've substituted the law as expressed in laws, rules and outward things for true conversion. There was a big flurry of evangelicalism in the 1960's and 70's and even into the early '80's but now we are hearing more about self-esteem, psychobabble, the environment and social justice in our so-called evangelical churches. By the way, this is almost EXACTLY what happened in the evangelical churches 100 years ago when it was invaded by liberal Protestantism.
I think it might be good, not to go back to the 1950's when we were at the same place - the law trying to change people - but back to the 1960's and '70's methods in some respects but postmodernizing the approach when needed to get this country back on track.
A country is only as strong as the strength of the evangelical church and its doctrine.....which should result in REAL conversions.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Good Comment from the New President of Gordon-Conwell
When I read this from the new president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I thought to myself, "You know, I think that is my exact doctrine too. All three in balance -- head, heart and hands." The reason we have all of these extremes showing up as heresies is because they usually are only emphasizing one of the three. For the emergents, it's the Hands. For the Third Wave Charismatic Revivalists, it's the Heart. For others, it's just the Head. So, here is the excellent quote from the new president of Gordon-Conwell.
I'm eclectic in my theology. I have drawn from the wells of Wesley, Calvin, Augustine, and the Anabaptist tradition. One thing that characterizes my own life and my approach to ministry and theological education is holding together what people tend to pull apart. My book Head, Heart and Hands reflects that approach. Those oriented toward the head have said that if we get our biblical and theological knowledge down, that will really put us in the good spot for the rest of our lives. The heart-oriented folks say that if our hearts are strangely warmed by God, that will develop Christian maturity. Others focus more on the action side. What I do in that book is argue that not only must all three be present, but also that they really need to nurture each other. That insight stems from my background of having worked in a number of different denominational settings.
_______Dennis Hollinger, new president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary,
I'm eclectic in my theology. I have drawn from the wells of Wesley, Calvin, Augustine, and the Anabaptist tradition. One thing that characterizes my own life and my approach to ministry and theological education is holding together what people tend to pull apart. My book Head, Heart and Hands reflects that approach. Those oriented toward the head have said that if we get our biblical and theological knowledge down, that will really put us in the good spot for the rest of our lives. The heart-oriented folks say that if our hearts are strangely warmed by God, that will develop Christian maturity. Others focus more on the action side. What I do in that book is argue that not only must all three be present, but also that they really need to nurture each other. That insight stems from my background of having worked in a number of different denominational settings.
_______Dennis Hollinger, new president of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary,
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
We Can Do It All On our Own--Can We?
Have any of you read the book, Revolution by Christian pollster George Barna? I have. The gist of it is very individualistic. And the message seems to be we don't need church....really. Michael Horton, in the current (July/August) issue of Modern Reformation magazine, says that Barna, "has gone so far as to suggest that the institutional church is over." Horton goes on to say that Barna identifies, "a rising demographic, what he calls 'Revolutionaries,'"....
Now pay attention to this part....
"who have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead."[emphasis mine]
We hear the follwing type of things all the time:
"We are the church, not a building."
"We are the church so wherever we meet is a church."
Here is the problem with this type of thinking. If you study the first century church, what George Barna describes in his book bears no relation. Barna opens his book with two Christian men golfing on a Sunday. They talk about God and maybe even pray together and THAT is their church. But God didn't set up that type of church.
Here is the church that God set up in the first century. It was man during the following centuries who got it all mixed up.
*God set up apostles to bring the gospel to unreached places, not to already established churches (unless asked by those churches) like many "apostles" do today.
*God set up elders, mature men, to run the church. They were NOT appointed by a pastor. They were originally set up by apostles and then after that by the elder board itself.
*God set up pastors who elders appointed, not self-appointed pastors who often turn into dictators.
*God set up deacons, who were directed by the elders to serve the poor and sick in their church. Most churches don't have deacons today. And, other churches help the poor everywhere else but in their own church family. Why? I think it is to brag as to how "loving and caring" they are. When I see this, the FIRST thing I look for is how they help their own. If they are good at helping their own church members, and have resources left over, then by all means they should help the poor in the community. Or, they can encourage their members to help the poor in the community, especially through good organizations like the Salvation Army to avoid individual recepients using the money to buy drugs, alcohol and/or really not get out of their poverty.
*God set up certain events like communion and baptism and marriage. It isn't something done at home with your friends, family or by yourself. It's done in a church family with many people who have gifts (I Cor. 12:8-10; Eph. 4:11). Most people don't have enough people in their sphere with all of those gifts.
*God set up the church to disciple Christians so they could grow in sanctification. Are your friends wise enough to do this for you?
I rest my case. George Barna is just plain wrong IMO.
But sadly, the postmodern generation of Christians today tend to agree with him, not with what God set up. Perhaps we need to stop the clown youth group and actually reach our young people with something Biblically substantial? Da ya think, maybe??
Now pay attention to this part....
"who have moved beyond the established church and chosen to be the church instead."[emphasis mine]
We hear the follwing type of things all the time:
"We are the church, not a building."
"We are the church so wherever we meet is a church."
Here is the problem with this type of thinking. If you study the first century church, what George Barna describes in his book bears no relation. Barna opens his book with two Christian men golfing on a Sunday. They talk about God and maybe even pray together and THAT is their church. But God didn't set up that type of church.
Here is the church that God set up in the first century. It was man during the following centuries who got it all mixed up.
*God set up apostles to bring the gospel to unreached places, not to already established churches (unless asked by those churches) like many "apostles" do today.
*God set up elders, mature men, to run the church. They were NOT appointed by a pastor. They were originally set up by apostles and then after that by the elder board itself.
*God set up pastors who elders appointed, not self-appointed pastors who often turn into dictators.
*God set up deacons, who were directed by the elders to serve the poor and sick in their church. Most churches don't have deacons today. And, other churches help the poor everywhere else but in their own church family. Why? I think it is to brag as to how "loving and caring" they are. When I see this, the FIRST thing I look for is how they help their own. If they are good at helping their own church members, and have resources left over, then by all means they should help the poor in the community. Or, they can encourage their members to help the poor in the community, especially through good organizations like the Salvation Army to avoid individual recepients using the money to buy drugs, alcohol and/or really not get out of their poverty.
*God set up certain events like communion and baptism and marriage. It isn't something done at home with your friends, family or by yourself. It's done in a church family with many people who have gifts (I Cor. 12:8-10; Eph. 4:11). Most people don't have enough people in their sphere with all of those gifts.
*God set up the church to disciple Christians so they could grow in sanctification. Are your friends wise enough to do this for you?
I rest my case. George Barna is just plain wrong IMO.
But sadly, the postmodern generation of Christians today tend to agree with him, not with what God set up. Perhaps we need to stop the clown youth group and actually reach our young people with something Biblically substantial? Da ya think, maybe??
Monday, July 28, 2008
Am I Taking Sides on the Abanes-Silva Matter?
Before reading this post, you will need to read my previous post found here.
I want to follow up the previous post by telling you where I stand on this issue since I have the feeling that many will think I am taking sides in the Albanes-Silva battle. I say this because this morning, to my surprise, I found a portion of my yesterday's post quoted at Mr. Silva's blog. I want to say right now that I am not taking sides. In fact I see creedence on both sides. At times Silva is "over the top" on his blog and at his [former] website IMO and goes a tad over boundaries into what seems to be a personal attack. On the other hand, when I finally read the blog post about Abanes in question, I have to admit that the definiton of "slander" might be deifferent in each beholders' eyes. I didn't think it was that clear.
In addition, something called The Christian Newswire also carried this story. They basically brought up the same point I did (however, I wrote my post before I found their article) that this might set a precedent for bloggers having their blogs taken off by their ISP's if lawsuits were threatened by disgruntled parties. And that was really the only point of my previous blog. I wasn't trying to take sides....nor am I now.
I want to follow up the previous post by telling you where I stand on this issue since I have the feeling that many will think I am taking sides in the Albanes-Silva battle. I say this because this morning, to my surprise, I found a portion of my yesterday's post quoted at Mr. Silva's blog. I want to say right now that I am not taking sides. In fact I see creedence on both sides. At times Silva is "over the top" on his blog and at his [former] website IMO and goes a tad over boundaries into what seems to be a personal attack. On the other hand, when I finally read the blog post about Abanes in question, I have to admit that the definiton of "slander" might be deifferent in each beholders' eyes. I didn't think it was that clear.
In addition, something called The Christian Newswire also carried this story. They basically brought up the same point I did (however, I wrote my post before I found their article) that this might set a precedent for bloggers having their blogs taken off by their ISP's if lawsuits were threatened by disgruntled parties. And that was really the only point of my previous blog. I wasn't trying to take sides....nor am I now.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
The Abanes-Silva Battle and It's Implications
Most of you have probably missed the ongoing Internet sludge battle between someone named Ken Silva and another someone named Richard Abanes. For years Silva, as well as some other "watch-doggie" sites, as they are called, have targeted Abanes. According to these sites, Abanes seems to be a big promoter and proponent of everything Rick Warren and his church, Saddleback. However, Abanes isn't on Saddleback's staff and keeps saying this. In other words, Abanes seems to be expressing his own opinion of his support of Warren---I guess.
Anyway, onto the battle. In 2005 Ken Silva wrote at his website, Apprising Ministries, a post entitled, A Pastor's Assessment of Richard Abanes. Abanes, almost three years later (last week) decided he didn't like this post by Mr. Silva because Abanes felt it was libelous and slanderous of him personally. Now you might wonder why I am not giving either Silva's website or the link to that particular post. Well, I can't because his website is history (Late note(July 28)--you can find the link here]. And why? Well, Mr. Abanes sent a letter to Mr. Silva's ISP provider - the one who hosted his website - and said that he wanted that one post removed because of slander, etc. If they didn't remove it, then he (Abanes) would ask his lawyers to sue the ISP. So, the ISP told Mr. Silva that he needed to remove that post. Mr. Silva refused on matter of principle, and voila! Silva's Apprising Ministries website is history. You can read all about this in further detail at the sites below.*
Mr. Abanes did not contact Mr. Silva and ask him to remove the offensive post. Abanes gave the following reasons as to why he didn't contact Mr. Silva, but instead contacted Mr. Silva's ISP provider:
1. Ken Silva has repeatedly shown to me (and others) that he cannot be reasoned with.
2. Ken Silva has consistently voiced his opinion that I am not someone with whom he wishes to dialogue because I am a a lying, worldly, sinful, deceptive product of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven madness. There’s not much talking to someone who sees you that way.
3. Ken Silva is desperately trying to make a tempest in a teapot. It is NOT unibiblical, ungodly, unethical, or immoral to simply write an Internet Service provider and alert them to a violation of Terms of Service by one of their customers. They saw the website article, read it, and made their own decision. Ken is trying to turn it into something it’s not — and he’s broken federal laws now in order to do it.
The above 3 points were taken from the comments section of Mr. Abanes' blog of July 25, 2008.
But getting past all of this stuff, why am I bringing this up? Whether or not you agree with Mr. Abanes or Mr. Silva, or nobody, is up to you. But there are some serious implications in this. In fact, some other bloggers are also writing about this implication. The larger implication for bloggers is someone going to our ISP or blog host (like Blogger which I'm on) and threatening to sue the blog host ISP if something isn't removed, or even worse, if the whole blog isn't shut down. Now of course I'm not talking about outright slander or filthy, threatening or hateful language. Since we cannot read the original post at Ken Silva's website, and Mr. Abanes, after replying to many posts (83 in all to his post describing this situation, including comments from him answering the other commenters), seems to refuse to answer the simple question that was asked by a few commenters, "What was on Mr. Silva's post that you considered slanderous?"; we'll probably never know what the ISP and Mr. Abanes considered slanderous. Neither the Lighthouse Trails blog or Mr. Silva's blog (he has a blog too)tells us what this slander was. We don't know if the ISP even looked at the offending post. Perhaps they just saw, "Lawsuit may be pending" and freaked.
I can see a future threat for all of us bloggers . The overarching question then is...will this occur more and more as ministries that are heretical will wish to shut up those questioning them and pointing out their heresy? By the way, I'm not intimating that Mr. Abanes is heretical. So, I'm not using Mr. Abanes as an example of that, just what was done by him. Will others in the future threaten lawsuits to the ISP's and blog hosts of those ministries and people pointing out people and movements that we believe are heretical and are destroying Christianity?
An interesting and sobering point to think about indeed.
*If you wish to read a summary of this situation, the best place is at Lighthouse Trails.
Mr. Abanes' blog where he discusses this is here. This is his main post about it but click on his website at the top to read other posts he's written about this situation.
Anyway, onto the battle. In 2005 Ken Silva wrote at his website, Apprising Ministries, a post entitled, A Pastor's Assessment of Richard Abanes. Abanes, almost three years later (last week) decided he didn't like this post by Mr. Silva because Abanes felt it was libelous and slanderous of him personally. Now you might wonder why I am not giving either Silva's website or the link to that particular post. Well, I can't because his website is history (Late note(July 28)--you can find the link here]. And why? Well, Mr. Abanes sent a letter to Mr. Silva's ISP provider - the one who hosted his website - and said that he wanted that one post removed because of slander, etc. If they didn't remove it, then he (Abanes) would ask his lawyers to sue the ISP. So, the ISP told Mr. Silva that he needed to remove that post. Mr. Silva refused on matter of principle, and voila! Silva's Apprising Ministries website is history. You can read all about this in further detail at the sites below.*
Mr. Abanes did not contact Mr. Silva and ask him to remove the offensive post. Abanes gave the following reasons as to why he didn't contact Mr. Silva, but instead contacted Mr. Silva's ISP provider:
1. Ken Silva has repeatedly shown to me (and others) that he cannot be reasoned with.
2. Ken Silva has consistently voiced his opinion that I am not someone with whom he wishes to dialogue because I am a a lying, worldly, sinful, deceptive product of Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven madness. There’s not much talking to someone who sees you that way.
3. Ken Silva is desperately trying to make a tempest in a teapot. It is NOT unibiblical, ungodly, unethical, or immoral to simply write an Internet Service provider and alert them to a violation of Terms of Service by one of their customers. They saw the website article, read it, and made their own decision. Ken is trying to turn it into something it’s not — and he’s broken federal laws now in order to do it.
The above 3 points were taken from the comments section of Mr. Abanes' blog of July 25, 2008.
But getting past all of this stuff, why am I bringing this up? Whether or not you agree with Mr. Abanes or Mr. Silva, or nobody, is up to you. But there are some serious implications in this. In fact, some other bloggers are also writing about this implication. The larger implication for bloggers is someone going to our ISP or blog host (like Blogger which I'm on) and threatening to sue the blog host ISP if something isn't removed, or even worse, if the whole blog isn't shut down. Now of course I'm not talking about outright slander or filthy, threatening or hateful language. Since we cannot read the original post at Ken Silva's website, and Mr. Abanes, after replying to many posts (83 in all to his post describing this situation, including comments from him answering the other commenters), seems to refuse to answer the simple question that was asked by a few commenters, "What was on Mr. Silva's post that you considered slanderous?"; we'll probably never know what the ISP and Mr. Abanes considered slanderous. Neither the Lighthouse Trails blog or Mr. Silva's blog (he has a blog too)tells us what this slander was. We don't know if the ISP even looked at the offending post. Perhaps they just saw, "Lawsuit may be pending" and freaked.
I can see a future threat for all of us bloggers . The overarching question then is...will this occur more and more as ministries that are heretical will wish to shut up those questioning them and pointing out their heresy? By the way, I'm not intimating that Mr. Abanes is heretical. So, I'm not using Mr. Abanes as an example of that, just what was done by him. Will others in the future threaten lawsuits to the ISP's and blog hosts of those ministries and people pointing out people and movements that we believe are heretical and are destroying Christianity?
An interesting and sobering point to think about indeed.
*If you wish to read a summary of this situation, the best place is at Lighthouse Trails.
Mr. Abanes' blog where he discusses this is here. This is his main post about it but click on his website at the top to read other posts he's written about this situation.
Friday, July 25, 2008
"We Cannot Know"
Continuing with people who have nailed the emergent village/conversation, here is a gem from Bob Dewaay. Note the "we cannot know" mantra which is another form of "there are many truths so which one is true? Gee, we cannot know."
The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
____Bob Dewaay
Source: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue105.htm
The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days.
____Bob Dewaay
Source: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue105.htm
Thursday, July 24, 2008
'60's Coming into the Church now
First up, do take the opportunity to check out this week's Christian Carnival up now at A True Believer's Blog. This is Ken's first time as a Christian Carnival host and he did a really great job.
Today, I want to continue the discussion about emergent. Lately, I've read some really good descriptions of what makes it tick. Here's an excerpt from emergent villager Doug Pagitt from his book, A Christianity Worth Believing,
"Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god. Jesus was sent to fulfill the promise of the Hebrew love God by ending human hostility. It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people. This world God created is one of peace and harmony and integration. Through Jesus, all humanity is brought into that world. And that is the point of the resurrection.
The story of Jesus Christ, of Joshua the Messiah, is about the healing of all creation. This was God’s promise from the start–that people would be God’s partners in the world… The Christian faith finds its center in the story of Jesus not because this is where the problem of God’s anger is solved. Jesus is the core of Christianity because it is through Jesus that we see the fullness of God’s hopes for the world. (194, 195)"
Source:http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5352
This is a good illustration about what I've been telling you for months now. That is, the emergent villagers (most of them, not all) are mounting an attack on the concept of substitutionary atonement. By the way, does this remind you of an era in our history? Like the hippie era? "Love, Joy, Peace," perhaps?" Maybe it's because IMO and in the opinion of a few others I've read, the emergent "conversation" is bringing the '60's into the church. Actually I'm amazed that the 60's didn't come flooding in sooner, but somehow the church has held it off--that is, until recently. I'm wondering if that is because now the Baby Boomers are getting into leadership positions. And that is fine, except, our churches, while keeping the '60's out, didn't quite get the "'60's mentality" out of many Boomers. Now these are in leadership and they bring in their 1960's values as well as their "clown youth group" training.
Today, I want to continue the discussion about emergent. Lately, I've read some really good descriptions of what makes it tick. Here's an excerpt from emergent villager Doug Pagitt from his book, A Christianity Worth Believing,
"Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god. Jesus was sent to fulfill the promise of the Hebrew love God by ending human hostility. It was not the anger of God that Jesus came to end but the anger of people. This world God created is one of peace and harmony and integration. Through Jesus, all humanity is brought into that world. And that is the point of the resurrection.
The story of Jesus Christ, of Joshua the Messiah, is about the healing of all creation. This was God’s promise from the start–that people would be God’s partners in the world… The Christian faith finds its center in the story of Jesus not because this is where the problem of God’s anger is solved. Jesus is the core of Christianity because it is through Jesus that we see the fullness of God’s hopes for the world. (194, 195)"
Source:http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5352
This is a good illustration about what I've been telling you for months now. That is, the emergent villagers (most of them, not all) are mounting an attack on the concept of substitutionary atonement. By the way, does this remind you of an era in our history? Like the hippie era? "Love, Joy, Peace," perhaps?" Maybe it's because IMO and in the opinion of a few others I've read, the emergent "conversation" is bringing the '60's into the church. Actually I'm amazed that the 60's didn't come flooding in sooner, but somehow the church has held it off--that is, until recently. I'm wondering if that is because now the Baby Boomers are getting into leadership positions. And that is fine, except, our churches, while keeping the '60's out, didn't quite get the "'60's mentality" out of many Boomers. Now these are in leadership and they bring in their 1960's values as well as their "clown youth group" training.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Quote of the Week
I feel these two quotes, one from Michael Horton (professor at the western campus of Westminister Seminary) and the other from Tozer (who is becoming very popular lately, especially with Young Calvinist types) are very worth the read.
Pastors, teachers and elders are not "life coaches" who help us in our personalized goals for spiritual fitness, but gifts given by the Ascended Lord so that the whole church might become mature and less susceptible to being spiritually duped (Eph. 4:1-16).....not surprisingly, ministers today are regarded more as "life coaches" who facilitate our self-transformation than as ambassadors of Christ, devoted to the Word of God and prayer, so that they can spread a feast on behalf of the King for His people in this world.
____Michael Horton in Modern Reformation magazine (July/August 2008 issue)
The old cross slew men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it. The old cross brought tears and blood; the new cross brings laughter. The flesh, smiThe ling and confident, preaches and sings about the cross; before that cross it bows and toward that cross it points with carefully staged histrionics–but upon that cross it will not die, and the reproach of that cross it stubbornly refuses to bear.
A. W. Tozer in The Pursuit of Man (Source: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5500)
Pastors, teachers and elders are not "life coaches" who help us in our personalized goals for spiritual fitness, but gifts given by the Ascended Lord so that the whole church might become mature and less susceptible to being spiritually duped (Eph. 4:1-16).....not surprisingly, ministers today are regarded more as "life coaches" who facilitate our self-transformation than as ambassadors of Christ, devoted to the Word of God and prayer, so that they can spread a feast on behalf of the King for His people in this world.
____Michael Horton in Modern Reformation magazine (July/August 2008 issue)
The old cross slew men; the new cross entertains them. The old cross condemned; the new cross amuses. The old cross destroyed confidence in the flesh; the new cross encourages it. The old cross brought tears and blood; the new cross brings laughter. The flesh, smiThe ling and confident, preaches and sings about the cross; before that cross it bows and toward that cross it points with carefully staged histrionics–but upon that cross it will not die, and the reproach of that cross it stubbornly refuses to bear.
A. W. Tozer in The Pursuit of Man (Source: http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=5500)
Monday, July 21, 2008
They Deserve Much More--Youth
In the last post I said that over all, Christian adults today deserve a much higher level of teaching than they are presently receiving. But what about our Christian youth? What are they getting? For the past 35 years, churches and youth pastors feel that to get and retain teens in church we have to make everything fun and "relevant." In many churches there has been little Bible teaching and little good application. And presently, we have the emergent doctrines and thoughts flooding into many of our youth groups, much of which is very similar to liberal Protestant thought, as I've written here before ad nauseum.
I believe our youth deserve more. Let's look at the results of all of the years of "pizza" church youth groups and see how they have fared as adults. That would be approximately the 25-50 age group.
1. Polls show that there is a big problem in the Biblical literacy of this group
2. Divorce rates are now almost 50% among Christians, most of them in this age group.
3. Worldiness has come into the church in unprecedented ways mainly through the leadership of this age group.
The evangelical movement is in the worst shape that I've ever seen. If we don't do something in our churches to reach the youth better than we've done, it will get much worse. I've also said here that as the church goes, so the country goes. If the church goes down, and it will if we don't get back to the foundational truths, then the country goes down.
Our youth deserve better. So do our churches.
I believe our youth deserve more. Let's look at the results of all of the years of "pizza" church youth groups and see how they have fared as adults. That would be approximately the 25-50 age group.
1. Polls show that there is a big problem in the Biblical literacy of this group
2. Divorce rates are now almost 50% among Christians, most of them in this age group.
3. Worldiness has come into the church in unprecedented ways mainly through the leadership of this age group.
The evangelical movement is in the worst shape that I've ever seen. If we don't do something in our churches to reach the youth better than we've done, it will get much worse. I've also said here that as the church goes, so the country goes. If the church goes down, and it will if we don't get back to the foundational truths, then the country goes down.
Our youth deserve better. So do our churches.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
They Deserve Much More-Adults
As I've visited churches and adult Sunday School classes in my area of California (USA) over the past year, I am shocked at the low level of teaching. No wonder Christians are floundering in these times. In many churches, and in most churches with lots of young adults - most of the members don't have the slightest concept of what happened for them at the cross, what prayer is supposed to accomplish, faith, healing and so forth. The latter two aren't even mentioned in most churches, probably because of some of the crazy Word of Faith teaching going around. A few months ago I called for a New Kind of Faith Teacher (see link here). I've come to realize more than ever how badly these New Kind of Faith Teachers are needed. When the calamities come more and more, I'm not sure what Christians are going to do. And, I'm not sure what the leaders are going to tell them to do except the same tired out old worn-out phrases - "Well, just pray." "Well, just trust da Lord." These are good phrases but without proper understanding of what they mean, the phrases become just that - phrases - and essentially useless.
This condition in our churches would be tragic enough if it was confined to the young. But the elderly, some of whom have been in church for 60+ years, don't seem to know much more than the clown-youth-group-trained young adults. The elderly Sunday School classes seem to be just a rehash of everything they have heard for the past 20+ years. No wonder Christians here in America don't practice their faith often. They don't know anything. How can you practice something you don't know. If you've only putted balls on the putting green, but never played a game of golf, you probably will flounder in playing the game. If you've only practiced first year pieces on the violin for 20 years, then after 20 years you won't be playing too well.
Churches today want us to "do something," usually for the poor. Anyone can help the poor. So what is supposed to set apart Christians? They know something others don't. And they're CONVINCED in their hearts and spirit of it. They are supposed to share their knowledge so others (for Arminians) can make a decision to follow Christ;(for Calvinists) so others can become Christians if God woos them, But if we don't have any foundation, how can we tell others, and especially, how can we disciple those who do come to Christ. In Hebrews 5:12 we read,
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
I am convinced that God has raised up plenty of mature, relevant, Biblically-based teachers. So what is the problem then? Churches refuse to allow them to teach. The churches continually use the same people or newer ones who aren't mature enough in their own faith to adequately teach. The same thing goes for the real-deal prophets too. Too many false prophets are allowed into the church to speak and teach. Or, no prophets are allowed. I guess only God can open the doors to these God-ordained true teachers and prophets, almost forcing churches to accept them. But I wonder what God will have to do to get churches to open those doors? Bring the churches to their knees? It'll be most interesting to find out.
This condition in our churches would be tragic enough if it was confined to the young. But the elderly, some of whom have been in church for 60+ years, don't seem to know much more than the clown-youth-group-trained young adults. The elderly Sunday School classes seem to be just a rehash of everything they have heard for the past 20+ years. No wonder Christians here in America don't practice their faith often. They don't know anything. How can you practice something you don't know. If you've only putted balls on the putting green, but never played a game of golf, you probably will flounder in playing the game. If you've only practiced first year pieces on the violin for 20 years, then after 20 years you won't be playing too well.
Churches today want us to "do something," usually for the poor. Anyone can help the poor. So what is supposed to set apart Christians? They know something others don't. And they're CONVINCED in their hearts and spirit of it. They are supposed to share their knowledge so others (for Arminians) can make a decision to follow Christ;(for Calvinists) so others can become Christians if God woos them, But if we don't have any foundation, how can we tell others, and especially, how can we disciple those who do come to Christ. In Hebrews 5:12 we read,
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
I am convinced that God has raised up plenty of mature, relevant, Biblically-based teachers. So what is the problem then? Churches refuse to allow them to teach. The churches continually use the same people or newer ones who aren't mature enough in their own faith to adequately teach. The same thing goes for the real-deal prophets too. Too many false prophets are allowed into the church to speak and teach. Or, no prophets are allowed. I guess only God can open the doors to these God-ordained true teachers and prophets, almost forcing churches to accept them. But I wonder what God will have to do to get churches to open those doors? Bring the churches to their knees? It'll be most interesting to find out.
Friday, July 18, 2008
The Modern "Solas"
I found a gem at the Scott Brown Online blog. This is a great contrast between true Christianity and what passes for "Christianity" today. Brown contrasts the original Five Reformational Solas with seven that could pass for today's solas.
First I explain what the original solas are. This is from a post I wrote in 2004:
The solas were formulated by the leading 16th century Reformers to unify their theology. Sola means only or alone in Latin. Latin was the "business" language of the day, just as French was in the 19th and early 20th century, and English is now. Therefore, so everyone would understand the solas back then, they were put into Latin.
I've put everyday lay people's definitions to them as well as the journalistic "W's" and "H" which I found at another site.
So here are the five solas:
1. Sola gratia-by God's grace alone we have our salvation-the Why.
2. Sola fide-by faith alone we have our salvation-the How.
3. Sola Christus-by Christ alone and His atoning substitutionary work on the cross we have our salvation-the Who.
4. Sola Scripture-by Scripture alone we understand where to find out about our salvation-the Where.
5. Soli dei gloria-to God alone be the glory for our salvation-the For What Purpose.
Now, here is "today's solas" given at Brown's blog:
Layman's guide to the key drivers of the 21st century church
1. Sola Cultura - let culture define church life
2. Sola Successa - let numerical success legitimize activities
3. Sola Entertaina - let entertainment be the guiding principle
4. Sola Edificia - let the edifice be the center of church life
5. Sola Programma - let programs dominate the peoples time
6. Sola Thralldoma – let the people be enslaved by whatever thrills them
7. Sola Processa – let the church be managed by business philosophies and processes
Source: http://www.scottbrownonline.com/ScottBrownOnline/Welcome_to_Scott_Brown_Online/Entries/2008/7/15_Seven_Sola%E2%80%99s_of_the_Modern_Church.html
First I explain what the original solas are. This is from a post I wrote in 2004:
The solas were formulated by the leading 16th century Reformers to unify their theology. Sola means only or alone in Latin. Latin was the "business" language of the day, just as French was in the 19th and early 20th century, and English is now. Therefore, so everyone would understand the solas back then, they were put into Latin.
I've put everyday lay people's definitions to them as well as the journalistic "W's" and "H" which I found at another site.
So here are the five solas:
1. Sola gratia-by God's grace alone we have our salvation-the Why.
2. Sola fide-by faith alone we have our salvation-the How.
3. Sola Christus-by Christ alone and His atoning substitutionary work on the cross we have our salvation-the Who.
4. Sola Scripture-by Scripture alone we understand where to find out about our salvation-the Where.
5. Soli dei gloria-to God alone be the glory for our salvation-the For What Purpose.
Now, here is "today's solas" given at Brown's blog:
Layman's guide to the key drivers of the 21st century church
1. Sola Cultura - let culture define church life
2. Sola Successa - let numerical success legitimize activities
3. Sola Entertaina - let entertainment be the guiding principle
4. Sola Edificia - let the edifice be the center of church life
5. Sola Programma - let programs dominate the peoples time
6. Sola Thralldoma – let the people be enslaved by whatever thrills them
7. Sola Processa – let the church be managed by business philosophies and processes
Source: http://www.scottbrownonline.com/ScottBrownOnline/Welcome_to_Scott_Brown_Online/Entries/2008/7/15_Seven_Sola%E2%80%99s_of_the_Modern_Church.html
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us--Part 5
So, how would your church look like if we change it to meet all age groups' expectations and philosophical outlook/thinking? First, it isn't about the music. I hope you see this now after reading the first four parts of this series (links at the end of this post). Music is one component, but not the only one. THis isn't a generational change; it's a phiosophical change--after 500 years. I can only offer insights here but do want your feedback too. I want you to understand that we are working with three major generational groups:
*The WWII generation which includes those a little younger and those a little older, mainly those over 63;
*The Baby Boomer (BB's) generation (including the younger Baby Busters), mainly 41-62
*The Postmodern (PM's) generation, mainly 18-40.
Here are the major components of most church services:
Worship Through Music
WWII people want hymns. BB's want 1970's-80's praise music. PM's want - I'm not sure how to describe this without singing it to you, but here goes:
"Jesus!!!" (heavy metal guitar twangs and lots of drums banging). "We love you Jesus!!" (Bam, Bam; Boom; Boom.; Crash; Loud twang, twang).
But the postmoderns also like hymns and Gregorian chants or anything Roman Catholic (anybody catch what I just said?).
So, we probably need all three types of music for the three generational groups. Churches would need to work with each generational group to help them accept the other styles they may not like. And from time to time, why not include youth musicians or a youth band if your church has one in the service.
Worship through Offerings of Money
PM's want to come up to the front and give their money, not sit in their seats. PM's like to participate. This might be a bit disturbing to the WWII generation although I think the BB's will not mind. So, perhaps have both? Those who want to come up can and those who want to sit in their seat--hey! We'll pass the bucket too.
Announcements and Sharing of Testimonies (The PM's Call This Stories)
Have lots of people making announcements, not just one person. PM's like to participate. I don't think anyone would mind this. BUT, we need people from all generations to do these things, not just from one generation. And why not include the youth too (12-17) at times.
Sermon/Teaching
A short message (story--not a lecture) with discussion and questions asked during or afterwards. PM's like to participate. The WWII's won't like this and lots of BB's won't either. If these two generational groups get antagonistic, then do a mix and try to work with the PM's to accept this. Point out to them it is a trade-off. If they will sit through the 45 min. "lecture," they have the opportunity at least to do church with other age groups and they get to see what is meaningful to those groups. This approach just might work.
Other Things PM's Like
Lots of art and audiovisuals to enhance the "experience." They like to mill around at different places in the church looking at art and going to prayer stations and stuff like that. PM"s like to participate. This definintiely will upset the WWII's and probalby many BB's. Again, churches need to help other generational groups to be patient and allow some change and innovation. Perhaps you could do this slowly about once a month and have "regular" church the other three weeks.
Seating
Tear out the pews. Put in chairs and arrange them in a semi-circle. Take out the platform as the speaker and worship people need to be on the same level. No binaries--everyone equal...no one is marginalized.
I think that WWII's might not like this at first as they might see this as irreverant. But eventually they and many of the BB's will get used to it and perhaps even like it.
DO NOT CHANGE THIS
Do not change the content of the gospel. There is a great post at a blog that I saw today and I will share it tomorrow. It really illustrates this point. It's like changing the presentation and illustrations of Campus Crusade's Four Laws without messing with the content message. That is what I think we will eventually be doing, or we 'll lose our churches. Some think this is a fad. But in my reading and talking to a few postmoderns I don't see this at all. I see it as the BIG philosophical change I talked about in the first four parts of this series. And I think it's here to stay.
(You can read the other parts at these links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4)
*The WWII generation which includes those a little younger and those a little older, mainly those over 63;
*The Baby Boomer (BB's) generation (including the younger Baby Busters), mainly 41-62
*The Postmodern (PM's) generation, mainly 18-40.
Here are the major components of most church services:
Worship Through Music
WWII people want hymns. BB's want 1970's-80's praise music. PM's want - I'm not sure how to describe this without singing it to you, but here goes:
"Jesus!!!" (heavy metal guitar twangs and lots of drums banging). "We love you Jesus!!" (Bam, Bam; Boom; Boom.; Crash; Loud twang, twang).
But the postmoderns also like hymns and Gregorian chants or anything Roman Catholic (anybody catch what I just said?).
So, we probably need all three types of music for the three generational groups. Churches would need to work with each generational group to help them accept the other styles they may not like. And from time to time, why not include youth musicians or a youth band if your church has one in the service.
Worship through Offerings of Money
PM's want to come up to the front and give their money, not sit in their seats. PM's like to participate. This might be a bit disturbing to the WWII generation although I think the BB's will not mind. So, perhaps have both? Those who want to come up can and those who want to sit in their seat--hey! We'll pass the bucket too.
Announcements and Sharing of Testimonies (The PM's Call This Stories)
Have lots of people making announcements, not just one person. PM's like to participate. I don't think anyone would mind this. BUT, we need people from all generations to do these things, not just from one generation. And why not include the youth too (12-17) at times.
Sermon/Teaching
A short message (story--not a lecture) with discussion and questions asked during or afterwards. PM's like to participate. The WWII's won't like this and lots of BB's won't either. If these two generational groups get antagonistic, then do a mix and try to work with the PM's to accept this. Point out to them it is a trade-off. If they will sit through the 45 min. "lecture," they have the opportunity at least to do church with other age groups and they get to see what is meaningful to those groups. This approach just might work.
Other Things PM's Like
Lots of art and audiovisuals to enhance the "experience." They like to mill around at different places in the church looking at art and going to prayer stations and stuff like that. PM"s like to participate. This definintiely will upset the WWII's and probalby many BB's. Again, churches need to help other generational groups to be patient and allow some change and innovation. Perhaps you could do this slowly about once a month and have "regular" church the other three weeks.
Seating
Tear out the pews. Put in chairs and arrange them in a semi-circle. Take out the platform as the speaker and worship people need to be on the same level. No binaries--everyone equal...no one is marginalized.
I think that WWII's might not like this at first as they might see this as irreverant. But eventually they and many of the BB's will get used to it and perhaps even like it.
DO NOT CHANGE THIS
Do not change the content of the gospel. There is a great post at a blog that I saw today and I will share it tomorrow. It really illustrates this point. It's like changing the presentation and illustrations of Campus Crusade's Four Laws without messing with the content message. That is what I think we will eventually be doing, or we 'll lose our churches. Some think this is a fad. But in my reading and talking to a few postmoderns I don't see this at all. I see it as the BIG philosophical change I talked about in the first four parts of this series. And I think it's here to stay.
(You can read the other parts at these links:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4)
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us--Part 4
(Note: If you haven't read the first three parts of this series it will give you the necessary background fro this post. You can find the links here:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3)
Here are several vignettes to illustrate my point of the 18-35 year olds (Postmoderns) thinking differently from those of us over 40.
In my church, in an intergenerational Sunday School class, there was a nice young man who was 34. I shared with the class about the need to retain the kernel of the gospel of substitutionary atonement, the cross and what really happened there. The class agreed and he was very enthusiastic in his agreement. Then I continued to lament that IMO many emergents were changing this gospel. He replied, "You know I read a book and I'm wondering if that is a book by one of those emergent people you are talking about." He named the book and its author and told me it was the most meaningful book he has read in his life. Having read the book, I know the author (IMO) does not have a solid belief in what we know as historic orthodox Christianity and the substituionary atonement. Now in my modernist thinking these two things do not match. That is, that book and what I said about what the gospel should contain don't match. I see black and white as very opposite. But the postmodern often sees them as compatible through gray. They tend to fuse or synthesize. This is called Hegelian Synthesis after the late 18th-early 19th century philosopher G. F. Hegel (who is very "hot" right now in seminaries and Christian colleges). This generation often doesn't seem to see any probems with that approach. And that IMO is the kernel of the challenge to the church. Typical is something like this coming from their mouths:
"After all, the Hindus have some truth, and the muslims have some truth so we should learn from them."
This type of thing is being said by Christians--not unbelievers. And that is the challenge in front of us. It isn't a fad at all. It's a whole different philosophical way of thinking.
*I met with a 22-year old reader of this blog at his request. He is attending a well-known evangelical seminary near me. I told him about the young man in the Sunday School class and he agreed that he too felt that emergent book "spoke to him." This was after we had already established, I thought, tht he was pretty into Calvinism with a strong sense of substitutionary atonement. I wanted to bury my head in my salad, dressing and all. That is how an older person will feel when talking to someone who is synthesizing. This isn't a criticism or judgment against them at all, just my own frustration and those of my generation I believe.
And here is my last example. I know a 25-year old young married Christian woman I would call a very strong Christian who attended a Christian college. She read the first three parts of this series and sent me an email to express her thoughts. I'm going to reproduce it here with her permisison. I think it speaks for itself and I will end with that.
I read the three posts you had on postmodernism and it actually answered a lot of questions for me so I wanted to thank you for sending me the links. I could see examples of what you talked about throughout my entire life. In the Christian school, when I was young, that’s all we did was memorize and recite scripture. We were like little robots who never questioned what the verses meant or how they applied to us – we could just recite them over and over again. Many of those verses I still know 20+ years later.
When I went to public school, it was an entirely different situation and, the further in grade school I got, the further I got away from clearly defined right & wrong, truth & non-truth as it was taught in the school (I was still taught these things at home or by my grandparents). Because the teachers needed to include ‘everything’, they would teach you everything and encourage you to make your own decisions about things. In fact, those who could not or would not intellectually challenge what was taught them were often viewed as somehow being scholastically or otherwise impaired. The older and further you got, the more you were expected to respect but challenge the things they taught you and the teachers doted or smiled on those that did. Those students that were open for a debate were most often viewed as the ones most likely to succeed in life or at least graduate with honors. One of my favorite classes in high school was Brit Lit (British Literature) because the teacher was a very outspoken atheist who daily encouraged me to challenge his beliefs with my own because he claimed that neither of us could ever proof the other correct and viewed my beliefs to be just as valid as his own. He would often pick British writings to be analyzed in a classroom discussion. He would refer to me by my last name and say “What does your God say about this?” By the end of the year, I was spending much of my free time & lunch breaks discussing different things with him. Despite being an atheist, he was by far my favorite teacher in high school and one I won’t quickly forget.
College, even though it was a Christian university, was just an advanced version of high school. I learned all about the different types of philosophy and studied all the people you mentioned but we moved through them in such a way that the underlying mindset or point always seemed to be that no man was ever more right or wrong than the other. Of-course, you had students w ho would argue that there was a clearly defined line between right & wrong but the professor loved those situations the most because he would use binary type situations to get a strong discussion out of it. Most of the exams in both high school and college had a certain element of how much you could argue or discuss your own side of the question or scenario (some tests left more room in this area than others). Even on multiple choice tests, more points were often awarded if the student adequately defended their answer, regardless of whether their answer was one of the choices or not, and space was provided to write.
The affect that this had on me and others my age was more astounding than ever once I realized where it had all come from. For non-Christians in my age range, just by being friends and hanging out with them, I can see and understand why they are not in a rush to come to Christ. Since they have a poor concept of what truth is, they can’t understand the truth when they see it. Even if, for some reason, they are convinced that they need to be in church or that they need to seek Christ, they struggle and fight with themselves over the idea that there could be just one right way or one right truth. If they do begin to accept the fact that there may only be one right way, they panic about which one is right because everybody says they’re right. What ends up happening is that they create their own methods of doing things and their ways to live, call it whatever they want, and feel safe because it is the only thing that makes sense to them.
For myself, although I don’t struggle with the supremacy of God, I do often struggle with the concept of right & wrong and with the binaries you mentioned. Binaries are most often what teachers would use to begin a debate or discussion by using a method similar to “Yes, _____ is wrong but is it wrong when ______?” It is most often the “but what ifs” that have made me struggle with right & wrong. For instance, the law says that stealing is wrong but is it wrong to the homeless guy sitting out in the cold & rain and who sees an opportunity to get a coat? Or, the law says that speeding is wrong, but is it wrong to the man whose dying wife was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance and he is following behind? Once you start considering all the ‘buts’ to the situation, you open up a can of worms where it is difficult to define anything as absolutely being right or wrong. I think that’s where a lot of crime begins to happen because people who do not know or who struggle with right and wrong simply justify their actions and do whatever it is they want to do.
I can talk for hours on this subject but I think the whole post-modern movement, although it certainly has its advantages and good points, has been twisted around by satan to give him a foothold in society. As Christians, we have to understand what these types of thinkers are going through and how to best approach them. For young Christians like me, we have to really keep our minds in check and not let the thoughts or things that have been so engrained in us fog the truth that God has for us.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3)
Here are several vignettes to illustrate my point of the 18-35 year olds (Postmoderns) thinking differently from those of us over 40.
In my church, in an intergenerational Sunday School class, there was a nice young man who was 34. I shared with the class about the need to retain the kernel of the gospel of substitutionary atonement, the cross and what really happened there. The class agreed and he was very enthusiastic in his agreement. Then I continued to lament that IMO many emergents were changing this gospel. He replied, "You know I read a book and I'm wondering if that is a book by one of those emergent people you are talking about." He named the book and its author and told me it was the most meaningful book he has read in his life. Having read the book, I know the author (IMO) does not have a solid belief in what we know as historic orthodox Christianity and the substituionary atonement. Now in my modernist thinking these two things do not match. That is, that book and what I said about what the gospel should contain don't match. I see black and white as very opposite. But the postmodern often sees them as compatible through gray. They tend to fuse or synthesize. This is called Hegelian Synthesis after the late 18th-early 19th century philosopher G. F. Hegel (who is very "hot" right now in seminaries and Christian colleges). This generation often doesn't seem to see any probems with that approach. And that IMO is the kernel of the challenge to the church. Typical is something like this coming from their mouths:
"After all, the Hindus have some truth, and the muslims have some truth so we should learn from them."
This type of thing is being said by Christians--not unbelievers. And that is the challenge in front of us. It isn't a fad at all. It's a whole different philosophical way of thinking.
*I met with a 22-year old reader of this blog at his request. He is attending a well-known evangelical seminary near me. I told him about the young man in the Sunday School class and he agreed that he too felt that emergent book "spoke to him." This was after we had already established, I thought, tht he was pretty into Calvinism with a strong sense of substitutionary atonement. I wanted to bury my head in my salad, dressing and all. That is how an older person will feel when talking to someone who is synthesizing. This isn't a criticism or judgment against them at all, just my own frustration and those of my generation I believe.
And here is my last example. I know a 25-year old young married Christian woman I would call a very strong Christian who attended a Christian college. She read the first three parts of this series and sent me an email to express her thoughts. I'm going to reproduce it here with her permisison. I think it speaks for itself and I will end with that.
I read the three posts you had on postmodernism and it actually answered a lot of questions for me so I wanted to thank you for sending me the links. I could see examples of what you talked about throughout my entire life. In the Christian school, when I was young, that’s all we did was memorize and recite scripture. We were like little robots who never questioned what the verses meant or how they applied to us – we could just recite them over and over again. Many of those verses I still know 20+ years later.
When I went to public school, it was an entirely different situation and, the further in grade school I got, the further I got away from clearly defined right & wrong, truth & non-truth as it was taught in the school (I was still taught these things at home or by my grandparents). Because the teachers needed to include ‘everything’, they would teach you everything and encourage you to make your own decisions about things. In fact, those who could not or would not intellectually challenge what was taught them were often viewed as somehow being scholastically or otherwise impaired. The older and further you got, the more you were expected to respect but challenge the things they taught you and the teachers doted or smiled on those that did. Those students that were open for a debate were most often viewed as the ones most likely to succeed in life or at least graduate with honors. One of my favorite classes in high school was Brit Lit (British Literature) because the teacher was a very outspoken atheist who daily encouraged me to challenge his beliefs with my own because he claimed that neither of us could ever proof the other correct and viewed my beliefs to be just as valid as his own. He would often pick British writings to be analyzed in a classroom discussion. He would refer to me by my last name and say “What does your God say about this?” By the end of the year, I was spending much of my free time & lunch breaks discussing different things with him. Despite being an atheist, he was by far my favorite teacher in high school and one I won’t quickly forget.
College, even though it was a Christian university, was just an advanced version of high school. I learned all about the different types of philosophy and studied all the people you mentioned but we moved through them in such a way that the underlying mindset or point always seemed to be that no man was ever more right or wrong than the other. Of-course, you had students w ho would argue that there was a clearly defined line between right & wrong but the professor loved those situations the most because he would use binary type situations to get a strong discussion out of it. Most of the exams in both high school and college had a certain element of how much you could argue or discuss your own side of the question or scenario (some tests left more room in this area than others). Even on multiple choice tests, more points were often awarded if the student adequately defended their answer, regardless of whether their answer was one of the choices or not, and space was provided to write.
The affect that this had on me and others my age was more astounding than ever once I realized where it had all come from. For non-Christians in my age range, just by being friends and hanging out with them, I can see and understand why they are not in a rush to come to Christ. Since they have a poor concept of what truth is, they can’t understand the truth when they see it. Even if, for some reason, they are convinced that they need to be in church or that they need to seek Christ, they struggle and fight with themselves over the idea that there could be just one right way or one right truth. If they do begin to accept the fact that there may only be one right way, they panic about which one is right because everybody says they’re right. What ends up happening is that they create their own methods of doing things and their ways to live, call it whatever they want, and feel safe because it is the only thing that makes sense to them.
For myself, although I don’t struggle with the supremacy of God, I do often struggle with the concept of right & wrong and with the binaries you mentioned. Binaries are most often what teachers would use to begin a debate or discussion by using a method similar to “Yes, _____ is wrong but is it wrong when ______?” It is most often the “but what ifs” that have made me struggle with right & wrong. For instance, the law says that stealing is wrong but is it wrong to the homeless guy sitting out in the cold & rain and who sees an opportunity to get a coat? Or, the law says that speeding is wrong, but is it wrong to the man whose dying wife was rushed to the hospital in an ambulance and he is following behind? Once you start considering all the ‘buts’ to the situation, you open up a can of worms where it is difficult to define anything as absolutely being right or wrong. I think that’s where a lot of crime begins to happen because people who do not know or who struggle with right and wrong simply justify their actions and do whatever it is they want to do.
I can talk for hours on this subject but I think the whole post-modern movement, although it certainly has its advantages and good points, has been twisted around by satan to give him a foothold in society. As Christians, we have to understand what these types of thinkers are going through and how to best approach them. For young Christians like me, we have to really keep our minds in check and not let the thoughts or things that have been so engrained in us fog the truth that God has for us.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us--Part 3
Before you read this post, you probably need to read parts 1 and 2 of this series to get the background. You can read Part 1 here and Part 2 is here.
So, now that we understand a little about postmodern philosophy, how does this impact our evangelical churches? In parts 1 and 2 we talked about the following postmodern ideas:
1. binaries-i.e. white/black (the Structuralists like Saussure and Levy-Strauss)
2. marginalization-i.e. white is given more voice and is treated as superior, thus marginalizing black "voice."
3. No one TRUTH, but many truths depdending on whose story you are hearing or reading. I.e., white may have one truth, but black may have another about the same subject. Both should be treated as equal in the binary. 4. People who say they have the TRUTH might be trying to do a power grab on you using this TRUTH as their weapon. (Foucault)
5. People who have ONE story (the meta-narrative) and say it is THE only story and THE TRUTH, may be doing this to assert their power over you. There may be as many stories as there are groups of people, and perhaps lots of "truths." (Lyotard)
If we think about Christianity as THE TRUTH and THE STORY, I'm sure you can already see that there might be some conflict brewing here. If young Christian adults, nevertheless non-Christians, come into our churches with these ideas ingrained in them, then we are all going to have some conflict and confusion no doubt. For example, either Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to Father except by me" or he didn't. In other words, it's either the truth or it isn't. But if subconsciously, young Christian adults have percolating within them a suspicion of groups that present their way as the truth, then what happens? And actually, I don't know but I thought I should throw it out there. Is there a confusion in our young adults because they are hearing one philosophy in their churches and another in the world? This is more than just ideas IMO. This is a whole philosophical change.
In my reading, this is how I finding that it's being played out in our churches. We usually present the modernist philosophical approach to theology begun mainly since 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door in Wittenburg, Germany. I am not saying this is wrong. I am simply making an observation. The young adults say there is more to the story than that. They do not necessarily accept that meta-narrative. They know there is more history in the church than that and they also know there is more interpretation of the Bible than the Reformational and modernist view. So, many of them are deeply interested in the medieval church as well as the pre-medieval church leaders (roughly 5th to 9th centuries) and what they thought . This movement is called the Ancient-Future movement begun by the late Wheaton professor of theology, Robert Webber. What attracts them to this era has something else in play too. It was a more right-brained and mystical approach which is also happening right now in our society. We are changing over from a very analytical, scientific society into a more intuitive, mystical, experiential one. About 10 years ago I read in my hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, a fascinating story abut how some big business schools like Stanford and Wharton were literally being told quite firmly by big business to stop sending out what they termed left-brained number-cruncher MBA's. They wanted more intuitive right-brained creative thinkers for this era of global competition. So, some of the big name business schools are requiring new-age type of classes for their MBA students. Here is a side note: sadly, most K-12 Christian curriculums are still mired in the 1950's - memorize, regurgitate; memorize, regurgitate - extreme left-brained mode because it looks good on tests. But that type of curriculum does not adequately prepare our students for this present world. Of course some memorization is fine, but there has to be a lot more right-brained thinking. Our pubic schools, on the other hand, are shifting over to a more right-brained approach and I think those students will have the advantage, at least in the right-brained thinking area. But they might fall down on facts and math calculation.
Well, back to the postmoderns. Another factor is the postmodern's sense of importance--the ME factor. Their parents, the Baby Boomers, were known as Generation Me. But their children, the postmoderns, are the Generation ME. I read a fascinating and very informative book recently by psychology professor at California State University at San Diego, Professor Jean Twenge, entitled, Generation Me. In it she talks about how the self-esteem movement has failed. And as a feminist in the postmodern generation herself, she is perplexed and very upset about this. But one thing in the book really stood out to me. She has found something kind of new with this generation of college students. In fact, she has found that most professors she has talked to report the same phenomenon. And what is it? On a True-False or Multiple-Choice test, there is only one correct answer. But today, remember, there is no one answer--or ONE truth. She reports that in almost every class every semester she will have a few students who will challenge her answer on these types of tests and tell her that they think their answer is right. Well, what do we do with this type of person in our churches? What do we say to someone who says, "Well, I don't think the Bible is saying that. And my interpretation is as good as yours." Again, folks, I don't have all of the answers yet, but maybe we can all work on this. One thing I do realize; we cannot just shut these young people out with a "This is the truth and that is all there is to it!"
Emergent
You probably have wondered when I was going to get around to the emergent village/conversation since I write about it here so often. Ok...here we are. The emergent pastors understand this generation a lot better than "usn's" over 45 do. Some of their pastors have actually studied philosophy at the university level. They understand what's going on, but sadly, we often do not. In a nutshell, we may need to see HOW they are doing church to reach the 18-35 age group. BUT, we must NOT adopt many of their liberal Protestant doctrines. In other words, we need to keep a lot of our own content but perhaps present it in a different way. Many emergents are conflicted, or at least seem conflicted about the [penal] substitutionary atonement. We must not allow that to be conflicted or we lose the entire gospel message's foundation.
So, now that we understand a little about postmodern philosophy, how does this impact our evangelical churches? In parts 1 and 2 we talked about the following postmodern ideas:
1. binaries-i.e. white/black (the Structuralists like Saussure and Levy-Strauss)
2. marginalization-i.e. white is given more voice and is treated as superior, thus marginalizing black "voice."
3. No one TRUTH, but many truths depdending on whose story you are hearing or reading. I.e., white may have one truth, but black may have another about the same subject. Both should be treated as equal in the binary. 4. People who say they have the TRUTH might be trying to do a power grab on you using this TRUTH as their weapon. (Foucault)
5. People who have ONE story (the meta-narrative) and say it is THE only story and THE TRUTH, may be doing this to assert their power over you. There may be as many stories as there are groups of people, and perhaps lots of "truths." (Lyotard)
If we think about Christianity as THE TRUTH and THE STORY, I'm sure you can already see that there might be some conflict brewing here. If young Christian adults, nevertheless non-Christians, come into our churches with these ideas ingrained in them, then we are all going to have some conflict and confusion no doubt. For example, either Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to Father except by me" or he didn't. In other words, it's either the truth or it isn't. But if subconsciously, young Christian adults have percolating within them a suspicion of groups that present their way as the truth, then what happens? And actually, I don't know but I thought I should throw it out there. Is there a confusion in our young adults because they are hearing one philosophy in their churches and another in the world? This is more than just ideas IMO. This is a whole philosophical change.
In my reading, this is how I finding that it's being played out in our churches. We usually present the modernist philosophical approach to theology begun mainly since 1517 when Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door in Wittenburg, Germany. I am not saying this is wrong. I am simply making an observation. The young adults say there is more to the story than that. They do not necessarily accept that meta-narrative. They know there is more history in the church than that and they also know there is more interpretation of the Bible than the Reformational and modernist view. So, many of them are deeply interested in the medieval church as well as the pre-medieval church leaders (roughly 5th to 9th centuries) and what they thought . This movement is called the Ancient-Future movement begun by the late Wheaton professor of theology, Robert Webber. What attracts them to this era has something else in play too. It was a more right-brained and mystical approach which is also happening right now in our society. We are changing over from a very analytical, scientific society into a more intuitive, mystical, experiential one. About 10 years ago I read in my hometown newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, a fascinating story abut how some big business schools like Stanford and Wharton were literally being told quite firmly by big business to stop sending out what they termed left-brained number-cruncher MBA's. They wanted more intuitive right-brained creative thinkers for this era of global competition. So, some of the big name business schools are requiring new-age type of classes for their MBA students. Here is a side note: sadly, most K-12 Christian curriculums are still mired in the 1950's - memorize, regurgitate; memorize, regurgitate - extreme left-brained mode because it looks good on tests. But that type of curriculum does not adequately prepare our students for this present world. Of course some memorization is fine, but there has to be a lot more right-brained thinking. Our pubic schools, on the other hand, are shifting over to a more right-brained approach and I think those students will have the advantage, at least in the right-brained thinking area. But they might fall down on facts and math calculation.
Well, back to the postmoderns. Another factor is the postmodern's sense of importance--the ME factor. Their parents, the Baby Boomers, were known as Generation Me. But their children, the postmoderns, are the Generation ME. I read a fascinating and very informative book recently by psychology professor at California State University at San Diego, Professor Jean Twenge, entitled, Generation Me. In it she talks about how the self-esteem movement has failed. And as a feminist in the postmodern generation herself, she is perplexed and very upset about this. But one thing in the book really stood out to me. She has found something kind of new with this generation of college students. In fact, she has found that most professors she has talked to report the same phenomenon. And what is it? On a True-False or Multiple-Choice test, there is only one correct answer. But today, remember, there is no one answer--or ONE truth. She reports that in almost every class every semester she will have a few students who will challenge her answer on these types of tests and tell her that they think their answer is right. Well, what do we do with this type of person in our churches? What do we say to someone who says, "Well, I don't think the Bible is saying that. And my interpretation is as good as yours." Again, folks, I don't have all of the answers yet, but maybe we can all work on this. One thing I do realize; we cannot just shut these young people out with a "This is the truth and that is all there is to it!"
Emergent
You probably have wondered when I was going to get around to the emergent village/conversation since I write about it here so often. Ok...here we are. The emergent pastors understand this generation a lot better than "usn's" over 45 do. Some of their pastors have actually studied philosophy at the university level. They understand what's going on, but sadly, we often do not. In a nutshell, we may need to see HOW they are doing church to reach the 18-35 age group. BUT, we must NOT adopt many of their liberal Protestant doctrines. In other words, we need to keep a lot of our own content but perhaps present it in a different way. Many emergents are conflicted, or at least seem conflicted about the [penal] substitutionary atonement. We must not allow that to be conflicted or we lose the entire gospel message's foundation.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us--Part 2
Before reading this post, you probably should read or review my last post here.
Continuing what I started in the last post, today I want to talk about two more postmodern philosophers. In the last post we met the "father " of Deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. In this post we will meet Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard.
As children, most of us naturally accepted what our parents, church, civic and educational leaders told us as was THE Truth. In the last post, we saw that there might be several truths in a certain society. For example, we saw that if you listened to the "silent" part of the binary, or as the structuralists and deconstructuralists call that part, the marginalized, there might be a different story with a different truth. So for example, in the binary of free/slave, we've heard mostly America's story from the free white male standpoint. But wonder if we heard it from the more marginalized black male slave viewpoint? Would it be a “different truth?” Or, would different truths be contained in that version?
Now, here is a further question which will propel us into the work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984). If we accept a certain truth, why are the people pushing that truth doing it ? In other words, what is their agenda? Let me tell you about Foucaults work and you will understand what he was getting at. As you probably noticed, after I typed Foucault's name, I put his dates. You will notice he died in 1984. He actually died of AIDS and was gay. Being gay at a time when it was not acceptable and even subject to arrest, he naturally questioned this "truth." That is, the truth that being gay was bad and subject to punishment. This being the foundation of his outlook, in France, he studied two main systems - the French prison system and the French mental hospital system. He basically asked why certain truths were accepted as such by prisoners and mental patients. In other words, here are the binaries he was dealing with:
In the Prison: Binary 1=warden and guards/Binary 2=prisoners
In the Mental Hospital: Binary 1=doctors and nurses and orderlies/Binary 2=mental patients
His question was basically this--why aren't the truth of the prisoners and the mental patients as valuable as the truths of the warden/guards and doctors/nurses/orderlies? Further - and this is what Foucault is famous for - what is the agenda of the wardens/guards and doctors/nurses/orderlies to foist this truth upon the prisoners and mental patients? Is it to hold them down and make them docile and orderly? Are other truths to be silenced in order for these other truths to be in control? If you ever read the book or saw the movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you are very familiar with Foucault's thinking since this book is a good example of it.
The next person we shall consider is Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998). He’s famous for his work in what is called meta-narratives, also called the Grand Narrative, or Universals. A meta-narrative is one BIG story. Lyotard believed there is no one Big story, and like Foucault, he felt that the imposition of one BIG TRUE story was an imposition of control over certain groups. He believed in this postmodern age there were several micro-narratives. This has serious implications for ethics since a phrase like "don't steal" might not apply in certain cases. The "don't steal" would be the universal or meta-narrative. But micro-narratives might be, "steal if you have no food." Or, you can steal from John because he is rich, but not from Sue as she is poor."
By now you might be seeing a pattern in all of these three men - Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard. They were very much into people controlling others through speech and writing and especially in the use of THE truth and the first part of binaries as well as meta-narratives.
So, what does this all have to do with Christianity and the church, especially when dealing with young postmodern evangelical Christians (18-35)? This age group has grown up in the postmodern world, unlike we who are over 45-50. They have been inundated with these principles and thoughts, especially in the public K-12 schools, and even more, in the university where many professors are avid followers of postmodern philosophy.
For example, if you tell a postmodern evangelical, "Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,'" although they might pay lip service to that, what is really going on in their subconscious? Remember, according to what they've learned, there is no ONE truth, no Meta-narrative, no story from the ONE half of the principal binary. So they might be conflicted wanting to believe this but having problems with someone who not only claimed to have THE Truth, but someone who said he WAS THE Truth, And that is one BIG reason why postmoderns are having some conflicts coming to our “church as usual.” It isn’t really about the music, although that could be a small part.
In my next post, let's see how many of the emergents are bringing in Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and others into the evangelical church.
Continuing what I started in the last post, today I want to talk about two more postmodern philosophers. In the last post we met the "father " of Deconstructionism, Jacques Derrida. In this post we will meet Michel Foucault and Jean-Francois Lyotard.
As children, most of us naturally accepted what our parents, church, civic and educational leaders told us as was THE Truth. In the last post, we saw that there might be several truths in a certain society. For example, we saw that if you listened to the "silent" part of the binary, or as the structuralists and deconstructuralists call that part, the marginalized, there might be a different story with a different truth. So for example, in the binary of free/slave, we've heard mostly America's story from the free white male standpoint. But wonder if we heard it from the more marginalized black male slave viewpoint? Would it be a “different truth?” Or, would different truths be contained in that version?
Now, here is a further question which will propel us into the work of Michel Foucault (1926-1984). If we accept a certain truth, why are the people pushing that truth doing it ? In other words, what is their agenda? Let me tell you about Foucaults work and you will understand what he was getting at. As you probably noticed, after I typed Foucault's name, I put his dates. You will notice he died in 1984. He actually died of AIDS and was gay. Being gay at a time when it was not acceptable and even subject to arrest, he naturally questioned this "truth." That is, the truth that being gay was bad and subject to punishment. This being the foundation of his outlook, in France, he studied two main systems - the French prison system and the French mental hospital system. He basically asked why certain truths were accepted as such by prisoners and mental patients. In other words, here are the binaries he was dealing with:
In the Prison: Binary 1=warden and guards/Binary 2=prisoners
In the Mental Hospital: Binary 1=doctors and nurses and orderlies/Binary 2=mental patients
His question was basically this--why aren't the truth of the prisoners and the mental patients as valuable as the truths of the warden/guards and doctors/nurses/orderlies? Further - and this is what Foucault is famous for - what is the agenda of the wardens/guards and doctors/nurses/orderlies to foist this truth upon the prisoners and mental patients? Is it to hold them down and make them docile and orderly? Are other truths to be silenced in order for these other truths to be in control? If you ever read the book or saw the movie, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, you are very familiar with Foucault's thinking since this book is a good example of it.
The next person we shall consider is Jean-Francois Lyotard (1924-1998). He’s famous for his work in what is called meta-narratives, also called the Grand Narrative, or Universals. A meta-narrative is one BIG story. Lyotard believed there is no one Big story, and like Foucault, he felt that the imposition of one BIG TRUE story was an imposition of control over certain groups. He believed in this postmodern age there were several micro-narratives. This has serious implications for ethics since a phrase like "don't steal" might not apply in certain cases. The "don't steal" would be the universal or meta-narrative. But micro-narratives might be, "steal if you have no food." Or, you can steal from John because he is rich, but not from Sue as she is poor."
By now you might be seeing a pattern in all of these three men - Derrida, Foucault and Lyotard. They were very much into people controlling others through speech and writing and especially in the use of THE truth and the first part of binaries as well as meta-narratives.
So, what does this all have to do with Christianity and the church, especially when dealing with young postmodern evangelical Christians (18-35)? This age group has grown up in the postmodern world, unlike we who are over 45-50. They have been inundated with these principles and thoughts, especially in the public K-12 schools, and even more, in the university where many professors are avid followers of postmodern philosophy.
For example, if you tell a postmodern evangelical, "Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life,'" although they might pay lip service to that, what is really going on in their subconscious? Remember, according to what they've learned, there is no ONE truth, no Meta-narrative, no story from the ONE half of the principal binary. So they might be conflicted wanting to believe this but having problems with someone who not only claimed to have THE Truth, but someone who said he WAS THE Truth, And that is one BIG reason why postmoderns are having some conflicts coming to our “church as usual.” It isn’t really about the music, although that could be a small part.
In my next post, let's see how many of the emergents are bringing in Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard and others into the evangelical church.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Postmodern Philosophy for the Rest of Us--Part 1
I don't think I remember in my 45 years of being a Christian so much philosophy being discussed in churches and among Christians. In the past it was usually discussed with non-Christians, especially atheists. But now postmodern philosophy has invaded the church. Therefore, we all need to understand what it is. For the past two years I've delved into postmodernism and believe me, it "ain't" easy. Even philosophy professors in academic institutions admit it isn't easy to understand postmoderns like Derrida. I will try to help you with the little bit I've learned so far. I wrote this myself--I didn't copy it from Wikipedia or Philosophy for Airheads. I realized this is a VERY long blog but I am seeing that understanding what I am writing today is crucial for EVERY Christian in order to understand what is happening in their very own churches today. If you like history you'll like this post. If not, I tried to make it entertaining and funny.
I am what is called a Modernist thinker because I follow the ideas of Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and probably so do you if you are over 45. However, those between 45 and 60 kind of fall into a no-man's-land where they could go either way, or most likely to adopt a little of each philsophical period--both modern and postmodern. If you are over 60 like me, you probably most certainly do. So since I am a Modernist, which is another name for a Rationalist, which is another name for an analytical, reasoning sort of person, I will enumerate. Rationalists do the outline thing---like I. II. III and A. B. C. Postmoderns shudder at that. Modernists love the Four Laws--1. 2. 3. 4. with the stick-like figures. Postmoderns scoff. They want a continuous story and lots of really good art--ditch those cartoony figures.
So, here is the Modernist (me) teaching you Postmodern Philosophy in modernist terms (hopefully). But first, a little philosophical history to see how we got to where we are now.
1. The Greeks--Socrates started in philosophy what is known as reasoning and thinking things out. He also encouraged his followers to question stuff as that is what is involved in reasoning. The Athenian leaders didn't like this so they said to Socrates, "Hasta la Vista, Baby"(they poisoned him). His disciple Plato carried this on and taught that everything here on earth came from the Idea or Form. Augustine, a later Christian pastor and philosopher kind of Platonized Christianity and changed the Idea into God. Plato had a famous student named Aristotle who spent much of his life trying to find out how people could live in a good and right way.
2. The Scholastics--In the Middle Ages a philosophy known as scholasticism prevailed. They believed that Aristotle was "da man" and anything he wrote was truth. Thomas Aquinas was the one who "Christianized" Aristotle. Instead of rational investigation on what they actually saw, the Scholastics would refer back to other books and teaching that they considered authoritative (especially Aristotle, and of course the Bible and writings of church fathers and of course, popes). So, someone like Galileo, who investigated how the universe looked by scientific methodology, was on the outs. For example, Galileo disagreed with Aristotle's view of the universe and boy, did Galileo ever get it. Sadly, the Church (there was only one denomination at that time in Europe--Roman Catholicism) liked Scholasticism.
3. In the 16th century (the 1500's) two streams occurred, both allowing some rational thinking. On the religious level we had the Reformation where Martin Luther said we could finally read our own Bible and actually think about it. Also, the Rerfomationists weren't threatened by scientific investigation and discovery because they thought it would be neat to discover how God put together the universe and the earth and all of it's inhabitants.
On the secular level we had the Renaissance where some thinking was done too. A lot of technology was invented at this time which helped people think more later on. Examples of this were magnifying instruments such as the telescope and microscope and also the printing press. Musical instruments and various art media was also developed which led to great music and art both in the Renaissance and beyond.
4. Now enter Rene Descartes. He stayed in a bread oven a long time to think things out. He finally came up with a famous saying, "Cogito ergo sum." People in those days wrote in Latin when doing really academic or theological writing. Translated it means, "I think; therefore, I am." Or, "I think; therefore, I exist." You might wonder why he said this since he could just look at his arm and know he existed. But he was hard to convince. His method of investigation to prove something was to be the foundation of thought in most disciplines including Christianity until the 20th century, although there were some rumblings of what would happen in the late 20th century as early as the 19th century with a guy named Soren Kirkegaard who is considered the first existentialist. Then came the other existentialists like Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre. We can also throw in the transcendental poets both here in America and England.
5. Structuralism and Postmodernism--In the 20th century philosophers came up with a whole new idea since before Socrates. It was called structuralism and basically said, from Socrates on, philosophy was always concerned with finding the TRUTH and where it originated. Some thought it originated with the Idea, some thought it came from within, some thought it came from God, and so forth. Now with the postmoderns truth was no longer important. Their focus was on writing and speaking, and what the reader/listener thought was meant in the text. A text is anything written or spoken. They brought to philosphy something called structuralsim. In other words, what is the structure of the text?For them, THAT IS THE TRUTH. This is a very important concept to understand in order for us to know what is being brought into the church today. The structuralists were concerned with what is called binaries. Binaries are two things that are mostly opposites, like:
white/black
free/slave
man/woman
adults/children
God/man
and so forth. If you read western civilization's great books you will immediately see that the first binary half is the point of view. For example. Most western European literature was written AND is from the point of view of white, free, adult men. But wonder if something was written from the view of the second part of the binary. What would it look like if something was written from a black slave woman? What would she say about things? And here is the CLINCHER:
Is her story any less the truth than the free white man's story?
Now, you are probably catching on to how political correctness came about. The academic world in the 1960's up to today really got a hold of this. The '60's children really liked it and as so many of them became professors they began to teach it to their students.
Deconstructionism--In 1966 a man from France named Jacques Derrida gave a talk at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. He rocked the academic world, not only in philosophy departments, but also in almost every other discipline. In a nutshell, his talk was about Deconstructionism. This is where you take apart someone's writing or speech and "deconstruct" it as to what the words mean to you, not necessarily to the author. In other words, here is this truth thingy again. What is truth? What the author means? Or what you think he means? Or what someone else thought it meant? But the really important thing in this philosophy is communities. I don't mean towns. By community postmodern philosophers mean groups you might be in. For example, you are probably in many groups such as your workplace or school community, racial/ethnic community, religious community, hobby communities and so forth. This is being brought into Christianity by "looking at" our historical faith communities.
Structuralism + Deconstructuralism in the church
OK...I am actually at the end of this post. If you combine all of these, what do you get? Well, read Brian Mclaren and other emergent village authors and this is what you get----What is truth really? Who decides truth? Does the medieval church decide? The Puritan Modernists? The emergent postmodernists? These are the questions they are asking. And this brings us to the two main generational conflicts. The over 60's are Modernists for the most part. The under-35's are postmoderns for the most part. The Baby Boomers and others who are in between age-wise, are kind of in the middle of this great philsophical transition, the first in about 400 years. So, this isn't just a generational problem--it's also a change in philosophy problem.
Well, I didn't get to Foucault or Lyotard which I need to so you will understand more how the under-35 mind works today and how that will influence the church and why they don't come to our churches. It isn't the music really. It's the whole mind think. So what do we do then? Well, that is my BIG question too and maybe we can work through this together. So, I will continue this in my next post.
I am what is called a Modernist thinker because I follow the ideas of Rene Descartes (1596-1650) and probably so do you if you are over 45. However, those between 45 and 60 kind of fall into a no-man's-land where they could go either way, or most likely to adopt a little of each philsophical period--both modern and postmodern. If you are over 60 like me, you probably most certainly do. So since I am a Modernist, which is another name for a Rationalist, which is another name for an analytical, reasoning sort of person, I will enumerate. Rationalists do the outline thing---like I. II. III and A. B. C. Postmoderns shudder at that. Modernists love the Four Laws--1. 2. 3. 4. with the stick-like figures. Postmoderns scoff. They want a continuous story and lots of really good art--ditch those cartoony figures.
So, here is the Modernist (me) teaching you Postmodern Philosophy in modernist terms (hopefully). But first, a little philosophical history to see how we got to where we are now.
1. The Greeks--Socrates started in philosophy what is known as reasoning and thinking things out. He also encouraged his followers to question stuff as that is what is involved in reasoning. The Athenian leaders didn't like this so they said to Socrates, "Hasta la Vista, Baby"(they poisoned him). His disciple Plato carried this on and taught that everything here on earth came from the Idea or Form. Augustine, a later Christian pastor and philosopher kind of Platonized Christianity and changed the Idea into God. Plato had a famous student named Aristotle who spent much of his life trying to find out how people could live in a good and right way.
2. The Scholastics--In the Middle Ages a philosophy known as scholasticism prevailed. They believed that Aristotle was "da man" and anything he wrote was truth. Thomas Aquinas was the one who "Christianized" Aristotle. Instead of rational investigation on what they actually saw, the Scholastics would refer back to other books and teaching that they considered authoritative (especially Aristotle, and of course the Bible and writings of church fathers and of course, popes). So, someone like Galileo, who investigated how the universe looked by scientific methodology, was on the outs. For example, Galileo disagreed with Aristotle's view of the universe and boy, did Galileo ever get it. Sadly, the Church (there was only one denomination at that time in Europe--Roman Catholicism) liked Scholasticism.
3. In the 16th century (the 1500's) two streams occurred, both allowing some rational thinking. On the religious level we had the Reformation where Martin Luther said we could finally read our own Bible and actually think about it. Also, the Rerfomationists weren't threatened by scientific investigation and discovery because they thought it would be neat to discover how God put together the universe and the earth and all of it's inhabitants.
On the secular level we had the Renaissance where some thinking was done too. A lot of technology was invented at this time which helped people think more later on. Examples of this were magnifying instruments such as the telescope and microscope and also the printing press. Musical instruments and various art media was also developed which led to great music and art both in the Renaissance and beyond.
4. Now enter Rene Descartes. He stayed in a bread oven a long time to think things out. He finally came up with a famous saying, "Cogito ergo sum." People in those days wrote in Latin when doing really academic or theological writing. Translated it means, "I think; therefore, I am." Or, "I think; therefore, I exist." You might wonder why he said this since he could just look at his arm and know he existed. But he was hard to convince. His method of investigation to prove something was to be the foundation of thought in most disciplines including Christianity until the 20th century, although there were some rumblings of what would happen in the late 20th century as early as the 19th century with a guy named Soren Kirkegaard who is considered the first existentialist. Then came the other existentialists like Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre. We can also throw in the transcendental poets both here in America and England.
5. Structuralism and Postmodernism--In the 20th century philosophers came up with a whole new idea since before Socrates. It was called structuralism and basically said, from Socrates on, philosophy was always concerned with finding the TRUTH and where it originated. Some thought it originated with the Idea, some thought it came from within, some thought it came from God, and so forth. Now with the postmoderns truth was no longer important. Their focus was on writing and speaking, and what the reader/listener thought was meant in the text. A text is anything written or spoken. They brought to philosphy something called structuralsim. In other words, what is the structure of the text?For them, THAT IS THE TRUTH. This is a very important concept to understand in order for us to know what is being brought into the church today. The structuralists were concerned with what is called binaries. Binaries are two things that are mostly opposites, like:
white/black
free/slave
man/woman
adults/children
God/man
and so forth. If you read western civilization's great books you will immediately see that the first binary half is the point of view. For example. Most western European literature was written AND is from the point of view of white, free, adult men. But wonder if something was written from the view of the second part of the binary. What would it look like if something was written from a black slave woman? What would she say about things? And here is the CLINCHER:
Is her story any less the truth than the free white man's story?
Now, you are probably catching on to how political correctness came about. The academic world in the 1960's up to today really got a hold of this. The '60's children really liked it and as so many of them became professors they began to teach it to their students.
Deconstructionism--In 1966 a man from France named Jacques Derrida gave a talk at John Hopkins University in Baltimore. He rocked the academic world, not only in philosophy departments, but also in almost every other discipline. In a nutshell, his talk was about Deconstructionism. This is where you take apart someone's writing or speech and "deconstruct" it as to what the words mean to you, not necessarily to the author. In other words, here is this truth thingy again. What is truth? What the author means? Or what you think he means? Or what someone else thought it meant? But the really important thing in this philosophy is communities. I don't mean towns. By community postmodern philosophers mean groups you might be in. For example, you are probably in many groups such as your workplace or school community, racial/ethnic community, religious community, hobby communities and so forth. This is being brought into Christianity by "looking at" our historical faith communities.
Structuralism + Deconstructuralism in the church
OK...I am actually at the end of this post. If you combine all of these, what do you get? Well, read Brian Mclaren and other emergent village authors and this is what you get----What is truth really? Who decides truth? Does the medieval church decide? The Puritan Modernists? The emergent postmodernists? These are the questions they are asking. And this brings us to the two main generational conflicts. The over 60's are Modernists for the most part. The under-35's are postmoderns for the most part. The Baby Boomers and others who are in between age-wise, are kind of in the middle of this great philsophical transition, the first in about 400 years. So, this isn't just a generational problem--it's also a change in philosophy problem.
Well, I didn't get to Foucault or Lyotard which I need to so you will understand more how the under-35 mind works today and how that will influence the church and why they don't come to our churches. It isn't the music really. It's the whole mind think. So what do we do then? Well, that is my BIG question too and maybe we can work through this together. So, I will continue this in my next post.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Christian Carnival CCXXXII
Welcome to Christian Carnival CCXXXII.
We have 25 great Christian posts today. So here we go.......
In our first post, Free Money Finance challenges us to Become Wealthy by Living Below Your Means.
We find a short, but effective post on what Biblical hope really is, compared to the modern version at
Prophet For Hire in the post entitled, Hope on a Rope.
In his Blindness as a metaphor post, Richard of dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos reminds us that Jesus wants to heal us of spiritual blindness too.
Kim at Kim Staudenraus.com helps us to understand how to
Fireproof Your Marriage.
Yvette at Fresh Wind Ministries, Int´l tells us that in time of need the Holy Spirit knows what answers we need in her post entitled, The Holy Spirits Authority.
Next is a podcast from The Bible Study Podcast about The Bible on Leadership - Leadership and Authority. This particular episode deals with the difference between authority that is bestowed on you and the leadership you exercise.
Know where the statement "separation of church and state" is found? Jennifer at Diary of 1 talks about this in her post entitled, Religious Freedom.
There seems to be an increased interest in Mary, the mother of Jesus in the Protestant world today. I really like this post by Dan of prayeramedic in his post entitled, Mary, Mother of the Church?.
Here is the last three sentences of the post and I think they are the greatest three sentences I've read about this topic:
Mary had a role to fill and she obeyed the Lord and filled that role. Her job is now done. Let her rest in peace.
I love anyone willing to take on Bart Ehrman. So, I really appreciated Weekend Fisher tackling those who discuss the "Lost Gospels" in her post entitled, Interesting fact about several "lost gospels"
Even if you only have $2 to give to someone in need, it is just as important to God as giving $1000 according to Tiffany, author of the blog, Fathom Deep: Sounding the Depths of God in her post entitled, Give 'Til It Stops Hurting.
This next post from Allen of A View from the Nest is a clever analogy of the necessity for passports down here on earth to how we "get" a passport to get into heaven. The post is entitled, Passports Article Blog.
What does unspotted by the world really mean? Thoughts For the Journey helps us to wend our way through this question as well as identifying the root of the world’s system in Unspotted by the World.
The next two posts deal with how to change your thinking. The first one is from Mamie of The Life I Now Live and she helps us in changing out thinking in her post entitled, Changing Our Thinking.
The second post is from John at Light Along the Journey
and is entitled, Simple List, Simple Truth, Big Change.
David at A Boomer in the Pew writes about our relationship to God as a son (or in my cases a daughter) in his post entitled, Learning to be a son of God.
Although I haven't read the book, The Shack, I've sure read some strong reviews about it, both pro and con. Jan at The View From Her has given a mostly positive review of the book as well as some issues raised by its critics in her post, The Shack.
What exactly does a righteous dude look like? I thought this blog from Got Bible? was very original in defining what a righteous person is and what really matters (hint: it has to do with legacy). Read the post entitled, Righteous Dude!.
OK...here is the riddle of the day. How does a frog in a swimming pool tell us something interesting about heaven? You can find the answer in the post, Happiness in the Little Pool or in the Big Pond?. This excellent analogy is from Ronnica of the Tale of a Kansas Girl blog.
When I read this next post I said a BIG amen! I could have written this one but Claudia of the Standing Straight blog beat me to it in her post, What's wrong with this picture?. It's about what Christian colleges are teaching now-a-days (think emergent) and I write about this often at my blog too.
Brian of the Real Meal blog presents in his post, The Risk of the Life of Faith, recognizing how we compromise our faith at times and the necessity of making sure God is our authority no matter what it costs us.
This is a very unique blog post. Wickle of the A True Believer's Weblog tells us it's a thought experiment. Here is the scenario:
Martians invade the earth to destroy abortion clinics but there are mishaps. Find out what the mishaps are and then how Wickle uses the Martian analogy not for abortion, but for something completely different. The post is entitled, Martian Invasion: A Thought Experiment
Have you heard of the recent discovery of a stone from around the first century BC with writing on it about a Messiah being raised from the dead in three days? Tom at Thinking Christian has written a post entitled Gabriel Revelation (The Stone Tablet) about this discovery and its implications.
Henry substituted for his wife Jody at Jody's Devotionals and decided to study Romans 8:25 where it talks about patience. You know what happens when a Christian prays for or studies about patience right? OK.....now you know where this is going..........(hint.....Henry wandering around with gas can in hand....LOL). You've gotta read this post entitled, Waiting Eagerly and Patiently. He even took pics. While you're smiling as you read the post, you'll also learn some valuable insights.
Jeremy of Parableman has undertaken an extraordinary task. He's reviewing commentaries for every book of the Bible. In this post he reviews Commentaries on I Corinthians. He reviews 11 commentaries plus some that will be published soon.
If there are corrections, please do email me at dirob@hotmail.com. All entries received after 9 PM EST yesterday have been forwarded by yours truly to the next carnival host (diaryof1).
We have 25 great Christian posts today. So here we go.......
In our first post, Free Money Finance challenges us to Become Wealthy by Living Below Your Means.
We find a short, but effective post on what Biblical hope really is, compared to the modern version at
Prophet For Hire in the post entitled, Hope on a Rope.
In his Blindness as a metaphor post, Richard of dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos reminds us that Jesus wants to heal us of spiritual blindness too.
Kim at Kim Staudenraus.com helps us to understand how to
Fireproof Your Marriage.
Yvette at Fresh Wind Ministries, Int´l tells us that in time of need the Holy Spirit knows what answers we need in her post entitled, The Holy Spirits Authority.
Next is a podcast from The Bible Study Podcast about The Bible on Leadership - Leadership and Authority. This particular episode deals with the difference between authority that is bestowed on you and the leadership you exercise.
Know where the statement "separation of church and state" is found? Jennifer at Diary of 1 talks about this in her post entitled, Religious Freedom.
There seems to be an increased interest in Mary, the mother of Jesus in the Protestant world today. I really like this post by Dan of prayeramedic in his post entitled, Mary, Mother of the Church?.
Here is the last three sentences of the post and I think they are the greatest three sentences I've read about this topic:
Mary had a role to fill and she obeyed the Lord and filled that role. Her job is now done. Let her rest in peace.
I love anyone willing to take on Bart Ehrman. So, I really appreciated Weekend Fisher tackling those who discuss the "Lost Gospels" in her post entitled, Interesting fact about several "lost gospels"
Even if you only have $2 to give to someone in need, it is just as important to God as giving $1000 according to Tiffany, author of the blog, Fathom Deep: Sounding the Depths of God in her post entitled, Give 'Til It Stops Hurting.
This next post from Allen of A View from the Nest is a clever analogy of the necessity for passports down here on earth to how we "get" a passport to get into heaven. The post is entitled, Passports Article Blog.
What does unspotted by the world really mean? Thoughts For the Journey helps us to wend our way through this question as well as identifying the root of the world’s system in Unspotted by the World.
The next two posts deal with how to change your thinking. The first one is from Mamie of The Life I Now Live and she helps us in changing out thinking in her post entitled, Changing Our Thinking.
The second post is from John at Light Along the Journey
and is entitled, Simple List, Simple Truth, Big Change.
David at A Boomer in the Pew writes about our relationship to God as a son (or in my cases a daughter) in his post entitled, Learning to be a son of God.
Although I haven't read the book, The Shack, I've sure read some strong reviews about it, both pro and con. Jan at The View From Her has given a mostly positive review of the book as well as some issues raised by its critics in her post, The Shack.
What exactly does a righteous dude look like? I thought this blog from Got Bible? was very original in defining what a righteous person is and what really matters (hint: it has to do with legacy). Read the post entitled, Righteous Dude!.
OK...here is the riddle of the day. How does a frog in a swimming pool tell us something interesting about heaven? You can find the answer in the post, Happiness in the Little Pool or in the Big Pond?. This excellent analogy is from Ronnica of the Tale of a Kansas Girl blog.
When I read this next post I said a BIG amen! I could have written this one but Claudia of the Standing Straight blog beat me to it in her post, What's wrong with this picture?. It's about what Christian colleges are teaching now-a-days (think emergent) and I write about this often at my blog too.
Brian of the Real Meal blog presents in his post, The Risk of the Life of Faith, recognizing how we compromise our faith at times and the necessity of making sure God is our authority no matter what it costs us.
This is a very unique blog post. Wickle of the A True Believer's Weblog tells us it's a thought experiment. Here is the scenario:
Martians invade the earth to destroy abortion clinics but there are mishaps. Find out what the mishaps are and then how Wickle uses the Martian analogy not for abortion, but for something completely different. The post is entitled, Martian Invasion: A Thought Experiment
Have you heard of the recent discovery of a stone from around the first century BC with writing on it about a Messiah being raised from the dead in three days? Tom at Thinking Christian has written a post entitled Gabriel Revelation (The Stone Tablet) about this discovery and its implications.
Henry substituted for his wife Jody at Jody's Devotionals and decided to study Romans 8:25 where it talks about patience. You know what happens when a Christian prays for or studies about patience right? OK.....now you know where this is going..........(hint.....Henry wandering around with gas can in hand....LOL). You've gotta read this post entitled, Waiting Eagerly and Patiently. He even took pics. While you're smiling as you read the post, you'll also learn some valuable insights.
Jeremy of Parableman has undertaken an extraordinary task. He's reviewing commentaries for every book of the Bible. In this post he reviews Commentaries on I Corinthians. He reviews 11 commentaries plus some that will be published soon.
If there are corrections, please do email me at dirob@hotmail.com. All entries received after 9 PM EST yesterday have been forwarded by yours truly to the next carnival host (diaryof1).
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Real Spiritual Warfare
Who said this?
...prayer that is line with the Word prepares the ground of people's hearts so the Word can be planted and bear eternal fruit in people's lives. That is the scriptural way to change cities and nations--not by spending our time supposedly warrign against spiritual forces ruling over cities and nations. Those spiritual forces have already been defeated by Jesus.
Before I tell you who wrote this, let me say I agree completely. I've said this many times before here that the Third Wave Charismatic revivalists are NOT changing places through all of their "warfare." Sadly, their followers will not see nor acknowledge this.
OK...here is who said the above quote. I know many of you will not be real happy but I call 'em as I see 'em. And you would be surprised at the really good things he said in his life.
The late Kenneth E. Hagin in The Triumphant Church
...prayer that is line with the Word prepares the ground of people's hearts so the Word can be planted and bear eternal fruit in people's lives. That is the scriptural way to change cities and nations--not by spending our time supposedly warrign against spiritual forces ruling over cities and nations. Those spiritual forces have already been defeated by Jesus.
Before I tell you who wrote this, let me say I agree completely. I've said this many times before here that the Third Wave Charismatic revivalists are NOT changing places through all of their "warfare." Sadly, their followers will not see nor acknowledge this.
OK...here is who said the above quote. I know many of you will not be real happy but I call 'em as I see 'em. And you would be surprised at the really good things he said in his life.
The late Kenneth E. Hagin in The Triumphant Church
Monday, July 07, 2008
Are Emergent Christians in Rebellion?
I think a good question that has been raised by some lately is the question in the title of this post.
Here is blogger Tim Challies' review of a new book, The Irresistible Revolution by emergent Shane Clairborn,
“His theology is an unbiblical and incoherent synthesis which might be described as popularized Christian anarchism for young, disaffected, middle-class Americans.”
(Source: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-the-irresistible-revolution.php)
After reading 21 books by emergent authors, I find many of them (but not all, especially not Dan Kimball) to be speaking almost like anarchists".....not politically, although I see that coming on the horizon, especially with McLaren's book, Everything Must Change; but spiritual and also cultural anarchism. If it is base, then do it and follow it. And I believe that is a problem for many of us. I like Kimball because he truly tries to explain what he is doing to the older evangelcical crowd without being arrogant, rude, base and smug.
Here is blogger Tim Challies' review of a new book, The Irresistible Revolution by emergent Shane Clairborn,
“His theology is an unbiblical and incoherent synthesis which might be described as popularized Christian anarchism for young, disaffected, middle-class Americans.”
(Source: http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-the-irresistible-revolution.php)
After reading 21 books by emergent authors, I find many of them (but not all, especially not Dan Kimball) to be speaking almost like anarchists".....not politically, although I see that coming on the horizon, especially with McLaren's book, Everything Must Change; but spiritual and also cultural anarchism. If it is base, then do it and follow it. And I believe that is a problem for many of us. I like Kimball because he truly tries to explain what he is doing to the older evangelcical crowd without being arrogant, rude, base and smug.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Christian Carnival will be here at Crossroads this coming Wednesday, July 9.
To All Blgogers: To enter the carnival, send in your blog post from the last week to this link:
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_1551.html
Posts must be from a Christian worldview (please no New Age or Buddhist-fusion) but doesn't need to be about a theolgical topic. They may also be about politics or finance, etc.
And now onto today's post here.
I've told you here before to follow the younger evangelicals as so many of them will switch to the left and some even dabble around with Marxist Socialism. Jim Wallis (New Christian Left) and Brian McLaren both are leading the way on this. McLaren's book, Everything Must Change was one of the clarion calls to this shift. It's becoming more and more obvious that except for the Young Calvinists, the young evangelicals are not going to come to our churches and want a more postmodern philosophical emergent church that is not black and white about truth but "grey, tolerant, 'authentic'" and so forth. Or as one evangelical critic of emergent says, "Trying to nail down what these people believe is like nailing jello to the wall."
George Barna, the Christian pollster, says that based on his polls Obama will win unless he makes a big misstep or a security issue erupts. Barna notes many born again Christians are switching to the Democratic candidate especially the young evangelicals......
Here is the link to see the results of his poll:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=300
Diane
To All Blgogers: To enter the carnival, send in your blog post from the last week to this link:
http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_1551.html
Posts must be from a Christian worldview (please no New Age or Buddhist-fusion) but doesn't need to be about a theolgical topic. They may also be about politics or finance, etc.
And now onto today's post here.
I've told you here before to follow the younger evangelicals as so many of them will switch to the left and some even dabble around with Marxist Socialism. Jim Wallis (New Christian Left) and Brian McLaren both are leading the way on this. McLaren's book, Everything Must Change was one of the clarion calls to this shift. It's becoming more and more obvious that except for the Young Calvinists, the young evangelicals are not going to come to our churches and want a more postmodern philosophical emergent church that is not black and white about truth but "grey, tolerant, 'authentic'" and so forth. Or as one evangelical critic of emergent says, "Trying to nail down what these people believe is like nailing jello to the wall."
George Barna, the Christian pollster, says that based on his polls Obama will win unless he makes a big misstep or a security issue erupts. Barna notes many born again Christians are switching to the Democratic candidate especially the young evangelicals......
Here is the link to see the results of his poll:
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=300
Diane
Friday, July 04, 2008
State of the Church RE: Emergent
I realize that I have spent a great amount of time on the emergent movement. This is because it's literally flooding into our Christian colleges, seminaries and into church youth groups. And, the amazing thing is, almost none of church members over 40 know what is going on. Even many, if not most, pastors don't.
So, with that in mind, I will now pronounce that I firmly believe that the emergents have turned a corner. At first they were willing to "converse" with evangelicals (who they often call fundamentalists). When their doctrine was rebuffed, they tried to ignore us. When that didn't work many of them (but not all) got irritated and began to call us fundamentalists and say other not very nice things about us.
But now I believe they've turned a corner. They were mainly out to change evangelicalism into their postmodern vision and they have done amazingly well. Since they have cornered many major Christian colleges and seminaries and youth groups, they have achieved their goal. So, they are once again ignoring us because they can. And they can because they have the Christian youth in their camp and that is what their goal and agenda was.
We've lost the first round. Now, many churches are waking up to this fact, but most slumber on, or even think emergent is a fad, or a good thing, or something not to be contended with. Let's hope that pastors and denominational leaders wake up from their slumber before it's too late.
One tragic outcome of this is the number of Christian leaders either compromising with the emergent doctrine, or pretending they don't know what emergent pastors in their midst believe as they invite them to speak to their youth conferences and even their area pastors' conferences (are you listening Foursquare and So. Baptist Convention people among others?).
So, with that in mind, I will now pronounce that I firmly believe that the emergents have turned a corner. At first they were willing to "converse" with evangelicals (who they often call fundamentalists). When their doctrine was rebuffed, they tried to ignore us. When that didn't work many of them (but not all) got irritated and began to call us fundamentalists and say other not very nice things about us.
But now I believe they've turned a corner. They were mainly out to change evangelicalism into their postmodern vision and they have done amazingly well. Since they have cornered many major Christian colleges and seminaries and youth groups, they have achieved their goal. So, they are once again ignoring us because they can. And they can because they have the Christian youth in their camp and that is what their goal and agenda was.
We've lost the first round. Now, many churches are waking up to this fact, but most slumber on, or even think emergent is a fad, or a good thing, or something not to be contended with. Let's hope that pastors and denominational leaders wake up from their slumber before it's too late.
One tragic outcome of this is the number of Christian leaders either compromising with the emergent doctrine, or pretending they don't know what emergent pastors in their midst believe as they invite them to speak to their youth conferences and even their area pastors' conferences (are you listening Foursquare and So. Baptist Convention people among others?).
Thursday, July 03, 2008
Some in the Third Wave are Finally "Getting It"
As I watched the Brownsville "revival" in the middle and late 1990's and into 2000 and beyond, and talked in a certain Third Wave chat room with many of them for 3 years, I was hoping beyond hope that many caught in that "revival" would eventually see the light. Now, thankfully a few voices are speaking up. It seems the Bently Lakeland "revival" is so way out there that even some Brownsville fans are questioning and for some, questioning the whole movement....thankfully. Here is a recent testimony from one who was deceived in defending and believing what was going on at Brownsville.
I had my life transformed in the Brownsville revival,
and knowing that many who were offended at Lakeland were from
the same camp as those who opposed Brownsville, I naturally took
what I thought to be "the proper side". Although I did say I was put
off by the hype surrounding Lakeland, I was open to the idea that it
was "from God", and I saw criticism from this board that I chalked
up to mostly phariseeism.
Then a couple of weeks ago I saw this video on YouTube. [-Linked
below]. It changed my mind once and for all. I don't know what
spirit was speaking to Bentley when he was told the revival wasn't
about getting people to Jesus, but it's about getting people to
believe in "the angel", but I've enough discernment to know it
wasn't God's Spirit!
This should be elementary, but since sharing this with others I
know who've supported Lakeland, I was shocked to find it really
didn't bother them in the least! The leader of the revival says it's
not about getting people to Jesus but getting them to believe in
"the angel"- SINGULAR. What the heck? Is this the delusion?
Well, I've seen the devil tip his hand and I've turned the other
direction. If God allowed me to see it and turn, He'll show others
too. I'm praying it happens, and I'm telling everyone I know about this.
I apologise to anybody I might have offended or misled in keeping
my "open mind" about Lakeland. I would exhort everyone who still
thinks this is "from God" to honestly listen to what's being said on
the video. Does the Holy Spirit lead people to Jesus, or angels?
Source: Andrew Strom's prophetic revival email dicussion list.
I had my life transformed in the Brownsville revival,
and knowing that many who were offended at Lakeland were from
the same camp as those who opposed Brownsville, I naturally took
what I thought to be "the proper side". Although I did say I was put
off by the hype surrounding Lakeland, I was open to the idea that it
was "from God", and I saw criticism from this board that I chalked
up to mostly phariseeism.
Then a couple of weeks ago I saw this video on YouTube. [-Linked
below]. It changed my mind once and for all. I don't know what
spirit was speaking to Bentley when he was told the revival wasn't
about getting people to Jesus, but it's about getting people to
believe in "the angel", but I've enough discernment to know it
wasn't God's Spirit!
This should be elementary, but since sharing this with others I
know who've supported Lakeland, I was shocked to find it really
didn't bother them in the least! The leader of the revival says it's
not about getting people to Jesus but getting them to believe in
"the angel"- SINGULAR. What the heck? Is this the delusion?
Well, I've seen the devil tip his hand and I've turned the other
direction. If God allowed me to see it and turn, He'll show others
too. I'm praying it happens, and I'm telling everyone I know about this.
I apologise to anybody I might have offended or misled in keeping
my "open mind" about Lakeland. I would exhort everyone who still
thinks this is "from God" to honestly listen to what's being said on
the video. Does the Holy Spirit lead people to Jesus, or angels?
Source: Andrew Strom's prophetic revival email dicussion list.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Meditation vs. Meditation
In keeping with the continuing discussion of Spiritual Formation, meditation seems to be the most problematic because of what is perceived by some as Buddhist, Hindu and New Age influences into what is passing for present-day Christian meditation. I thought the following quote really helps to understand the difference between Christian meditation and Eastern meditation.
In essence, Biblical meditation is thinking; and contemplative New Age meditation is simply not thinking ... and that is something to think about.
Source: http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1135&more=1&c=1
In essence, Biblical meditation is thinking; and contemplative New Age meditation is simply not thinking ... and that is something to think about.
Source: http://lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/index.php?p=1135&more=1&c=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
