It makes me happy to see that finally!----many Christians are seeing the emptiness of the Christian Right movement and how it has not followed the Holy Spirit or even Biblical passages in the New Testament as to how to change people and thus, a nation. Now, sadly, we have the mirror image - the New Christian Left which will do the same type of DUMB things the Christian Right did. Here is a blog post which puts it better than most I've read,


Let's Take America Back

How to Really Preach the Gospel

When I find someone who presents clearly when and how the Holy Spirit brings people to Christ, in contrast to when and how men's fleshly ways "try" to bring people to Christ, I always want to present it to you. Here is the latest one I've read in this genre,

The Gospel.

But Moral Decisions Do Matter

I am in an interesting class for senior adults paid for by the state of California and given throughout my city by our junior college. They are free and very stimulating. They last two hours and are mostly discussion with some lecture if they are that type of class. One of my classes is Contemporary World Issues where we discuss the news of the day, whether it be international, national, state or local. I am surprised by the mostly very liberal people in the class. There are also some atheists who are veyr angry with God. Oops, I forgot. THBey don't believe in God....:) Remember, these people are almost all over 65. But then I do live in S. California. There is one woman in my class in her early 90's who constantly says that a person's "personal life" (read that - morality) has nothing to do with how they govern or legislate if they are in politics. I beg to differ.

You've probably heard about the governor of South Carolina and his high jinks. Of course his political decisions can be qustioned because of his moral and personal ones. Are you telling me he is two people? That he makes one type of decision in his personal life and another in his professional life? It may look that way at first for these types of people, but it does catch up with them later in their professional decisions IMO. I feel he should resign from being governor and I hope the people of S.C. make sure he does. This is the guy who ASKED his wife if he could go see his mistress. She told him to leave for a while and think about their marriage. He left all right,and then went to see his mistress in Argentina. So, I don't think this is a person who should be in a decision-making job, do you?

Women Are Not As Happy as They Should Be?

The National Bureau of Economic Research released a study that shows women's happiness has measurably declined since 1970. Added to this, in one of the best books I've read, Generation Me by Dr. Jean Twenge, she says that studies show that despite the BIG self-esteem movement in schools in the 1970's and beyond, high school girls in the 1950's seemed to have more self-esteem than college-aged girls do today. As a feminist, this alarms and saddens Dr. Twenge.

Why do you think women are having so many happiness-image problems today?


Sources:
1. http://www.worldviewtimes.com/article.php/articleid-5069/Brannon-Howse/Phyllis-Schlafly
2. Generation Me by Dr. Jean Twenge

NPP is Really Hot...Sadly

The Christian Carnival is now open at the Fathom Deep blog.

One of the carnival entries is at C. Orthodoxy. He lists the top ten books that have influenced 50 Christian bloggers.

I am very disappointed that three of the top ten listed are the triumvirate of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP) guys - Wright (at #1), Sanders (at #3) and Dunn (at #8). I remember when there were theological disagreements that were contained within the framework of "normative" evangelical Christianity. No more. Now every apostasy in town is sticking its head into Christian colleges, seminaries, churches and even Christian blogs. The following got two and were not on the top ten -
Michael Horton, John Piper, and D.A. Carson. On my list, they would be at the top. Oh well. Ultra-libaral Protestant Spong also got two and Bart Erhman got 4 (YIKES!!). Four????

Thankfully, there was one salvage on the top ten list - Gordon Fee at #4.

Sigh........

The New Evangelicalism Review-3

The theme of the book I've been reading, The New Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity by Soong-Chan Rah, is the white population of the United States is diminishing which has obvious implications for the future of the white church. In the last part of his book Rah discusses second generation immigrants as the logical bridge between first generation immigrant church memebers and the older white middle classes ones. He includes two other groups within what he calls, the ones with "liminal" experience. Liminals are those who are operating within two cultures - one American and the other a Third World one. Included as liminals are second generation children of immigrants, children of Third World country missionaries evangelizing America, and children of overseas American missionaries, those children who grew up in Third World cultures and now are back in America. He points out that missionareis from immigrant countries in America usually end up in poorer sections of the country since they might be limited through education, race/ethniticty and funding to live anywhere else. But their children are often upwardly mobile and may end up in more white middle and upper-middle class communities.

At the end of the book, Rah once again informs us that white Americans are going to have to begin to share church leadership power and include immigrants and immigrant churches in the "conversation" as well as in church life.

The New Evangelicalism Review-2

This is the second part of my review of the book I'm reading by Soong-Chan Rah, The New Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity.

The second part of Rah's book deals with what postmoderns would call binary oppositions and hierarchies. I've gone over this in some of my previous posts, but basically they are opposites with one opposite having more influence and power than the other one. For example, historically the binary opposition....male/female....has seen the male OVER the female in terms of influence in the larger culture. It is then written this way....

male
female


Rah's binary opposition would read like this:

White Western Protestant Church (esp. in America)/churches in Third World countries (including immigrant churches in the West)

and the hierarchy of course would look like this:


White Protestant Church
Third World Churches (+immigrant churches)


Rah presents an interesting propostion to the First world churches - why not invite Third World church leaders to our churches, seminaries and Christian colleges to share their view of Christianity and how it's played out in their cultures. Why is it always "white" people teaching and holding seminars and running missions? I have thought about this very same thing in years past. I had wished many times that churches of which I've been a member would ask churches in the same denomination or ministry stream to come and talk to our church. The closest that a church I've been in has come to this was about 3 years ago when my church's missionary pastor would bring us pictures and news of the church we were helping (financially and prayer-wise) in the Sudan. The thing that was satisfying to me was the fact that we weren't telling the Sudanese church what to do. They were in a terribly precarious position. Their church had already been set fire by marauding bands of Sudanese muslims and so we sent money for brick and stone which couldn't be burned. But it was the church there that really reached out to their poor muslim neighbors in the nearby town and helped them. We stayed out of it - just sent money and prayers and encouragement. We allowed them to run their church and reach out to their neighbors. And after seeing the success they had, as well as the joy they showed on their faces despite the horrid things going on around them, I felt that people couldn't help but treat these Christians as equals. I think missions has begun to go this way - allowing the nationals to do it. But Rah does get to the insidiousness of the subtle arrogance of the Western church when dealing with Third World churches.

The third part of the book is a look at how the Third World churches are different than the Western ones. He particularly shows us immigrant churches in America as most readers I suspect will be Western. He wants us to see the function of the immigrant church to their immigrant community. It's much different from white" churches as they serve as a community within the community. Tomorrow I will be reading what second generation immigrants that are more assimilated into the American culture are doing for church.

The New Evangelicalism Review-1

I'm reading Soong-Chan Rah's book, The New Evangelicalism:Releasing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. As you can probably guess from the author's name and the title, this is about how the Third World way of doing Christianity can come into the Western "white" church - in other words, real diversity and true multi-culturalism. I will be reviewing this book all next week, but I just had to quote some excerpts on his chapter on the emergent church. I've been yelling here alot lately about how I don't feel the emergents understand the difference between empowering the poor and regulating them with white (mostly liberal Protestant-type) methods and programs. Rah repeats this theme somewhat in his emergent chapter. Rah is invited to participate in many conferences including emergent ones. He finds that it is not diverse at all. I would term it this way - the emergents' talk about social justice and helping the poor is not getting input from the very ones who they wish to help. That is what I am calling regulating instead of empowering. Here are some excerpts from that chapter. He opens by describing an emergent conference he attended.

So there I was, sitting in another workshop led by yet another blonde-haired, perpetually twenty-nine, white male with a goatee....the workshop leader was focusing on church planting among postmoderns and the documentation of "pomo" churches throughout the United States. As he was listing these exciting "pomo" ministries, I noticed that not a single church on his list was a nonwhite church. In my nonconfrontational, Asian Amercan way, I raised my hand.
"Excuse me, but could you talk about some of the pomo churche plants in the
Asian, Latino and African American communities?"
The workshop leader didn't miss a beat in his answer.
"We have found that there are no Black, Asian or HIspanic pomo churches of any significance."

Rah goes on to say there are 50 emergent books out there written by an almost white authorship but only 150 emergent churches in the USA. In his opinion there is way too much influence from these emergent leaders for the number of churches they have. He then relates that there are between 300 and 700 Asian churches that are ministering to second-generation Asian Americans in the USA but just a handful of books, none of them under the "emergent rubric."

Rah talks about the conversation emergents like to have, but it is usually between whites (mostly males), thus shutting out other races of emergents. A few years ago he was asked to be on a panel of emergents discussing globalization. He relates that the all white panel (except for him) got into a heated discussion for about 20-30 minutes about the emrgent's church's role in globalization. The moderator noticed Rah had been silent and asked him for his take on this situation. I just love what Rah responded...here it is:

White people talking to other white people about a problem white people created in the first place -- why would I care about that conversation?

And then he writes,
I personally find the use of the term "emerging church" offensive. I believe the real emerging church is the church in Africa, Asia and Latin America that continues to grow by leaps and bounds.

He asks why these white emergents, being disgruntled in Baby Boomer churches, didn't join African American or immigrant churches instead of clustering together in a "white" club. Good question for those who supposedly seem to "celebrate" diversity.

In studying this movement over the past three years, I have found so much dishonesty (read that inauthenticity) and intolerance as well as horrible doctrine that will hurt people up the line, that I am absolutel amazed that Christian colleges and seminaries are panting after this so passionately.

In the next posts I will continue reviewing Rah's book. Right now I am half way through it and am looking forward to the last part where I think he will be telling us how Christianity here in the USA must change to fit a multi-cultural way of doing church, not the diversity tokenism that we see now and Rah takes to task in this very seminal book.

Are You Tired of.....?

Are you tired of...........


*The word authentic when the person using it is the most INauthentic person you've ever seen or heard?

*The word tolerant from those who are so INtolerant it makes your head spin?

*People who talk incessantly about the "Kingdom of God" but never define it and then when you don't catch on, accuse you of not participating in the "Kingdom of God?"

*People who criticise white, older evangelicals for their stances on:
--other races
-homosexuality
-and other "politically correct" topics

BUT, then turn around and parody white, older evangelicals in snide and sarcastic tones? (Hmmm...maybe this can also be under the second item - tolerance and INtolerance).

Some Great Thoughts From M. Horton

In my continuing search for how to reach postmoderns in an authentic (yes, I know - I hate that word too) postmodernly way WITHOUT losing the gospel message of substitionary atonement, I would like to share some thoughts from one of my very favorite writers, Michael Horton, in the May/June 2009 issue of Modern Reforamtion magazine. He wrote a short article, entitled Responding to Today's Nathans.

Here are a few snippets from that article,


We have to stop thinking in terms of "our Judeo-Christian" culture and acknowledge the value of 'political pluralism' and toleration. And then we can talk about the unique, non-negotiable, and true claims of the gospel. In other words, we must be culturally tolerant of other religions (incuding secularism) but theologically and spiritually intolerant of assimilating Christian faith and practice to the idols of our age.

The gospel is the greatest story ever told. It does not need to be "juiced up" with clever gimmicks. We don't need to make it relevant and useful or translate it into metanarratives that we think are more ultimate. The history of the covenant of grace - centering on Christ and culminating in his person and work - is not a means to some greater end; it is the end. The gospel doesn't illustrate a point; it is the point!

Two Areas in the Church Greatly Needs to Improve

Over the years I see Christians having problems they should never have IF the church would just do what the New Testament says. First of all, the church should be a family that takes care of its sicker and poorer members. This includes widows, [singles] and orphans. Yet we force our members onto the world systems to take care of them. "Go to the doctor/dentist/chiropractor/psychologist, etc., not to us. "Go to the government for money, not to us." "Get married since we get nervous around single people." And what has happened to American Christians because of this stance of our churches? They are sick, confused, and in bad marriages, just to start this discussion.


SINGLE CHRISTIANS

There is little or no support for unmarried Christians in our churches. In fact in some, they are joked about and/or treated in derision like garbage. Then we wonder why they get married to anybody they can find in order to be "accepted." I've asked my Christian who were single and then got married, if they felt any difference between the day before they were engaged and the day after they were married on the part of the church. Almost all report that they finally felt accepted and a part of the church after they were married. For singles who are far from home, or have no families, or because they are from Islamic or Jewish families or other religions where they will literally be threatened and thrown out of the family - they depend on the church being their support, not making fun of them and isolating them because they are single. That is just plain mean and cruel. Many Christian singles report that they never or rarely have these kinds of attitudes shown them at work or anywhere else in the world. Just in their church.

THE SICK AND INFIRM

People are sick all over the church in America today because we still do not accept the fact that Christ is the "same yesterday, today and tomorrow," which indicates what he did yesterday (on earth) He will do today and tomorrow. There are so many scriptures on healing for the New Testament church I wouldn't even know where to start. Add to that writings on healings from early church leaders the Apostles put into place and led the church after the Apostles died, and you just cannot keep refuting this. It isn't loving to not pray in faith for those that are sick in our churches. Frankly, it's just plain mean and cruel. James 5:14-15 makes it absolutely crystal clear that elders of our churches are supposed to pray the prayer of FAITH for the sick and that they should expect "God to raise the sick one up." No, this doesn't mean the resurrection, not in this context. It means being raised up out of the sick bed. I'm wondering if we need to raise our standards for selecting elders. If they cannot or will not pray in this way for the sick, why are they elders? And, if the elders do not actively include singles in their planning and actively see that singles are as honored from the pulpit as married people are, maybe they shouldn't be elders.

I was in two churches where singles were treated normally. Both pastors would often relate how their sermon/teaching of that day would affect students; single people; the retired; and so forth. In other words, these pastors actually looked out over their congregations and saw who was REALLY there, not who they wanted there. These were the largest churches I had been in during the eras I was attedning them. I wonder why. Maybe because people actually felt loved, accepted and respected?

In one of those churches we saw people healed, especially from cancer, all the time. Since we knew these people, we saw it was the real deal, not some "annointed" con job. The pastor prayed general healing prayers at times during the service, but it was the elders after the church service who laid hands on the people and prayed for them. And that is the way it should be. Frankly, no one should have to go to the "Benny Hinns." Healing should be done locally in every church by the elders. That is the way it was done in the first century chruch. And that is the way it needs to be done today.

So, we need to desparately get back to how God set up the church for these two important areas (as well as others too of course) - the treatment of unmarried people and the treatment (and healing) of the sick and infirm.

Interesting Posters

There are some very good posters parodying the emergent movement over at Emergent See/Po-Motivators.

Here is my favorite (you can probably guess why if you've read my blog a while):

Church Growth - Now and Then

There is a clever chart at an Internet Monk post about church growth since Jesus' time. But I want you to note the 11th comment down from a reader named John. He lists how to get a church to grow in the 21st century and what it took in the first century. Classic.

Christian Carnival CCLXXX

Want this badge?

Yes, many of you know what the above picture means.....it's that time again.....time for the weekly Christian Carnival. We have today 20 very good posts. Your BIG mission, if you should accept it, is to read all 20. (Or, maybe just those that interest you). So here we go,


*First up, here is a fascinating question that I frankly have never pondered. But, after reading James' post, Sinful Certainty at his blog, Exploring Our Matrix, I am now thinking about it. The question is: Was Jesus mistaken about things he could know during his time as He was also human? And, would mistaken knowledge be the same as sin?


*I believe that once again we are getting mixed up with how to be acceptable to God. Jason has written a really simple, but effective post about what made Abraham acceptable by God, and what didn't in his post, Meditating on Justification at his blog Pastoral Musings.


*I don't think what Suzanne describes at her blog In Him We Live and Move and Have Our Being would ever fly out here in the Los Angeles area where I live. And thankfully, she doesn't quite think it might be so great either. So, what is going to happen in a church in Louisville, Kentucky on June 27? Since I want to leave you in suspense, I'm not going to tell you the title of her post but you can find it here.

*Paul at Brushfires of Freedom discusses how Christians need to be paying attention to the new worldview change by President Obama and the ideology of George Soros in his post, Waking Up from the Soros/Obama Nightmare.

*A hot topic today in the church is how to really follow Christ and do what God thinks is important. Ann of the A Light for My Path blog presents to us a really simple, but Biblical answer to that question in her post, Godliness is Profitable.

*I always enjoy reading Jeff's work at Returning King. This installment is entitled, The Wrath of God. Sadly, this is a topic many churches wish to avoid today but Jeff, as always, Biblically tells it like it is.

*In his post, Who are the most generous givers? Christian PF of the Money in the Bible blog presents the startling results of a recent survey telling us who does the most charitable giving. Wait until you read this!

*Annette has presented a very interesting take on Covenant and how man failed his end. So God had to do something about that. Please read this post, as we are losing the centrality of the gospel today, which is what God did do to remedy this situation. Annette's post is entitled, A new Covenant despite our forgetfulness at her blog, Fish and Cans.

*Richard of the dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos blog, tackles the historian Josephus' mention of Jesus, son of Sie and asks (as well as answers) the question as to why this Jesus was suddenly dropped by Josephus with no explanation as to what happened to him since Jospephus usually was quite detailed about people. And, what does this have to do with Jesus, the Son of God? If you're with me so far, then read this intrigue in his post, The Mystery about Jesus.

*If you are Jewish (especially Orthodox) you have to pay big bucks for lots of activities, from schooling to religious dues. FMF of the Free Money Finance reports about this in his post, The Price of Faith, Being Jewish.

*I found this blog, CM Buzz to be a storehouse of good ideas for family Bible studies, family activities and family worship ideas. And it is this latter topic that is addressed by Keith in his post entitled, How to Lead a Family Worship Time.

*How do you help your children avoid harm without teaching them to trust no one? Shannon of the The Minority Thinker tackles this difficult topic in her post, Stranger Danger.

*Here are some of the questions Michelle of the Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus... blog tackles in her post, Psalm 37:5:
What should you do when you are faced with an enormous problem, trial, situation?
What do you do when it seems as though God is not answering prayers?
Why should we trust God?
How should we trust God?
She has a nice blend of Scriptural answers along with her own commentary.

*Teresa of the New Mercy blog wonders if we are being too hard on people in the limelight since we really don't know what is going on behind the scenes. What is the Christian response. She offers some ideas in her post entitled, Gosselins Marriage and Pride Issues

*The Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength blog presents its post, Liturgy and the Gospel of Matthew. If we were writing a new liturgy, could we actually consider long ago Saints and form our liturgy around their writings and lives? And, what would a Matthew liturgy look like?

*This post was kind of a coincidence for me. Let me explain. The State of California, which is where I live, is very good to it's old people (like me). They have free junior-college-like classes for us at different easy-to-get-to venues. One class I take is Philosophy and Ethics and the class was discussing the very same thing yesterday that Jeremy's post discusses in today's Carnival. So, what is that? Is there a level of morals between humans and animals? And what does that imply for animal rights? Jeremy talks about one philosopher's view in his post, Humans, Animals, and Souls at his blog, Parableman.

*Garret at Forever Christian has one of the most interesting view I've heard yet as to what Jesus did (or did not say) about homosexuality. You can find this n his post entitled, Jesus Never Said Anything About Homosexuality!.

*Here is an astounding statement! Everyone worships God. Yes, there is a slight catch. To find out what this is all about, please do read Trent's post, Everyone Worships God Right? at his blog, CHristian Men-Christian Warriors.

*Rodney of the RodneyOlsen.net blog challenges us to follow the example of a very well-known philanthropist. And what does Rodney challenge us to do? And who is this philanthropist and what is he doing? Find out in Rodney's post, Giving it all away.


*We need a dose of Spurgeon now and then, and Barry of the Who Am I? blog gives us Spurgeon's very first sermon on the text I Peter 2:7, in his post, Shamed (again) by Charles Spurgeon.


*Rey of The Bible Archive discusses the topic of what Adam as our Federal Head really means in his post,
Adam And Us: Romans 5.

*My submission for this week is How NOT to Interview an Emergent Leader. Sadly, anti-emergents who interview these people need to understand the emergent-postmodern philosophical mindset better and prepare for the postmodernistic trap laid for them. Otherwise they come on as narrow-minded bigots.

Quote of the Week

"Frequently, I hear persons announce that they are "really passionate" about this or that. What they mean is that they feel quite strongly about a particular issue, subject, or belief. Increasingly, Christians are determining the rightness or wrongness of their belief based upon how passionate it makes them feel. Bypassing revelation and reason, they feel their way to faith. Theirs is a religious epistemology by experience (The word epistemology concerns how we know what we know, and why we believe what we believe.). I think of the person who declared, "I refuse to believe in a God I cannot feel!" As Dabney observed, 'People are ever prone to think that they are feeling religiously because they have feelings . . . about religion.'

So the pan-evangelical movement has and is continuing to develop spirituality, not based upon the clear teaching of the Word of God, but rather upon manufactured sights, sounds, signs, and sensations that generate religious feelings within them. Theirs has become a faith based upon desires, not doctrine."


______Pastor Larry DeBruyn

How NOT to Interview Emergent Leaders

In the past year I've heard some radio interviews (on the Internet) of emergent leaders by basically anti-emergent radio hosts. The two interviews went the same way as I suspect they always do in this type of situation. Here was the basic scenario they had in common,

First, the radio host "baited" the emergent by asking him a question relating to a very orthodox Christian (and what the host believes is a very Biblical) belief.

Second, the emergent gave the wrong answer. But remember, in postmodern-land, my truth may not be your truth. So, the answer was only wrong according to the radio host.

Third, the radio host threw a Bible verse or verses at the emergent proving the emergent's error.

Fourth, the emergent came back with a snappy postmodern answer that left the host and the audience in limbo. The very best answer I've heard was when Tony Jones told the host that by using the particular Scripture the host was using, he was doing "violence to the text." And, if you read my post of May 27(2009), you would know that is a very post-modern philosophical/literary theory expression.

So, now both the host and the emergent guest are at an impasse. But the host thinks he has won because the emergent didn't throw back the "correct" interpretation of the Bible verse thrown at him. And the emergent thinks he has won because the audience will see he is more tolerant and open-minded. So, who has won?

Sadly, the emergent has won with most of the younger listeners (if they are listening to this type of program that is). And that is proven when you look at who is in the hosts' churches. Not too many young adults because they are flooding into emergent churches. I appreciate the Scripture--centered and Christ-centered and cross-centered doctrine of the hosts. However, they do not understand how to interview these people. So, while they might have won the war with their listeners, I believe they are losing the war with the younger adults and youth. So then, who are the real winners here? And, do I know how to interview these emergents without allowing them to get away with their desconstruction of texts and Christianity as a whole?

I'm working on it people, I'm working on it.

Anyone want to give me a radio program to practice on (half-kidding)?.....

Helping the Poor: Who First?

All we hear from the evangelical church today is "reaching out" to help the poor, both in your own country and in others, mostly Africa. And there is certainly nothing wrong with this. However, I've seen many of these types of churches (not all ) for years now, whose real agenda is they love to brag about how they help the poor. They are the ones that like to brag how they are helping AIDS victims in Africa, not praying for healing for them, but just sending money for AIDS drugs. I guess it doesn't occur to these churches that without a change in lifestyle, which will only come from a change in their belief system, the AIDS situation won't change much, no matter how much money or how many drugs we send in there. My question is, are there any conversions there? And if so, are they being discipled? That will change the situation a lot. However, we can still send money and drugs too, IF these things are truly reaching the patients and NOT the leaders in charge of countries and tribal areas. Methinks many pastors are naive when it comes to these things.

But what I really want to talk about today is when churches help the poor in their city (or the city next door if no poor are in the church's town). Here is the acid test for me. I want to see what these churches do for their own congregational members in need. See, I've been in these types of churches and many of them are a crock. By that I mean that they don't do squat to help their own members but they are always out helping everyone else. The reason for this, IMO, is a low-esteem pastor (it's always the pastor of these kind of churches who promotes helping the poor in the city). This type of pastor wants to be the BIG cheese in the town's eyes and he thinks one way he can accomplish this is helping the city's poor. So, I always look to see if a church really helps their own needy members; their widows and singles who are alone; their unemployed; their sick with high medical bills. And sadly, most churches really do not do much for their own people. Much of this is due to poor organizational structures. As I talk to Christians all over the country (USA) on the Internet, it's astonishing to me how many of their churches do not have any structure to help their congregations. Their only recourse is to call the church where they usually encounter the church receptionist/secretary who tells them they have to talk to the pastor and he isn't in right now. There has to be a better way, folks, and there is. Just read the 6th chapter of Acts. And, you also might wish to consider a structure found in my church. I have to admit I rarely have seen anything like this in any other church I've attended (around 15 in the past 43 years).

First of all, our deacons are actually deacons; not elders who are called deacons. These deacons are divided into three groups according to what they do"

caring deacons - these deacons visit the sick members (or relatives of members) in the hospital; some visit shut-in members who cannot get to church, and serve them as well as providing companionship and prayers; some send cards and phone those who are older to check on them. The caring deacons also reach out to the homeless congregated around our church.

financial deacons - these deacons provice some financial help to church members who are in difficult situations.

hospitality deacons - these deacons take care of our welcome room, information booth, greeters, reception for new members, and other duties of hospitality.

Each of these three areas are overseen by a deacon so it will run smoothly and there is a deacon over the entire deaconate.


Here is how it looks chart-wise:

Head deacon

head caring deacon______caring deacons
head financial deacon_____financial deacons
head hospitality deacon___hosptiality deacons

Quote of the Month

"Isn't it staggering when you think that one sermon on the day
of Pentecost produced 3000 people? And we had some cities
yesterday where 3000 sermons were preached and nobody was
saved. And it doesn't even faze us."

-Leonard Ravenhill

What is Happening Now....and in the Future Too

I've been saying what you read at the link below, for 30 years now. You absolutely must read it to understand what is going on now and in the coming months, and probably years.

The link is here.

"Authentic" and "Tolerant?" Hmmmmm....

The postmodern Christians (i.e., emergents, et. al.) seeem to think they are very authentic and tolerant. I think that should be examined.


Binary Oppositions
A while back here, I posted a 5-part series on Postmodern philosophy and how it's entering Christianity (Evangelical, that is). In the first of those posts I discussed binary oppositions. If you don't know what these are, you might wish to read that post here. In binaries, theopposties are not always put as equal. For example, if we are dealing with the binary opposites - male/female - one of those might be stressed. Up until the middle-late 20th century, it was the male that was stressed in society. Whatever males wrote, thought, composed, drew (as in art, architecture, etc.) were the things heard, read, shown. Females were, what postmodernism calls, marginalized. So, in order for society to "hear, see" the female, they are now stressed more, that is, heard and seen more. This especially has happened in Academia, thus the reason for women's studies. However, the binary was supposed to be equalized at some point in time. But this hasn't been done. Postmodern philosopher Jacques Derrida calls the failure to do this "doing violence to the hierarchies."

So what does this have to do with Christianity? You'll often see the postmodern Christian throwing binaries at us. They wish us to believe they are equalizing them, but are they? Here is an example,


Brian McLaren's book, A Generous Orthodoxy has a very long subtitle. Here it is. Do you see what I see?

:why I am a missional, evangelical, post/Protestant, liberal/conservative, mystical/poetic, biblical, charismatic/contemplative, fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, green, incarnational, depressed-yet-hopeful, emergent, unfinished Christian

Aaaah...me thinks I see some binaries in this subtitle. After reading several of his books, reading articles by him, and reading his blog from time to time, I would say that I don't think this is true (or authentic in postmodern-speak). "liberal/conservative" (meaning theologically, not politically) - Really? You could fool me. I don't think the second part of the binary is true at all to his thinking. "fundamentalist/Calvinist" - Uh, I don't think the first part of the binary is true at all. "Charismatic?" In what sense? Certainly not in the Pentecostal/Charismatic" aspect. But then those tricky postmoderns know how to present their words so you don't really know the meanings as they present them. It's called deconstructionism.


On the other hand, we also see another dilemma in postmodern Christian-land. Here is another binary we hear postmodern Christians talk about and this one should not be equalized..

Christianity/Other religions

Actually they ARE being authentic here, but it isn't appropriate. If Christianity is true and the others are not, then the binary should be hierarchized to read as follows:

Christianity
All other religions

This brings us to realize that we have to really be careful as to what we hierarchize - meaning one part of the binary is over the other part because the higher one is being more stressed and is considered more important, as in:

male
female

-and what we equalize, as in:

male/female

But then in postmodern Christian-land, there are many truths. Therefore, according to their thinking, all binaries should be equal (even when they shouldn't be). But that isn't done many times in postmodern Christianity because as humans, we have the tendency to hierarchize.

So much for authenticity.


TOLERANCE
And now to the matter of the "Christian Tolerance police." It's bad enough we have this in our society at large, and especially in Academia. But now in the church too? Yes, the postmodern Christian is bringing this into church as we speak. But are they really as tolerant as they want us to believe? They are very tolerant of other belief systems but when it comes to Evangelical Christianity (or fundamentalism as the call it, which is either ignorant or part of an agenda - I'll opt for the latter), the "tolerance" goes out of the window. Many of them, when writing or speaking to or about evangelicals, become quite snarky, sarcastic, arrogant and at times just downright mean. Here is where the Tolerance Police fall down. If you are intolerant of people who, either are truly intolerant, or you think are intolerant, then aren't you intolerant of the intolerant ones? And, doesn't that make you intolerant? Hey, I'm not running around telling everyone how tolerant I am. But they are.

So much for Tolerance.



Footnote: I do hope this wasn't too pointy-headed today as I always try to write to the regular lay Christian and not necessarily the "brainy-trust."