"Stop the Social Networking, Students"

A principal in New Jersey has asked parents of the school's students to voluntarily talk to their children about the danger of social networking sites (i.e. Facebook). He also asks them to take their children off of these sites and tells them how they can do this. So why is he doing this? I thought the following paragraph from his letter to the parents says it all, though I found the high percentage a bit shocking.

Meredith Wearly, the school's guidance counselor, said about 75 percent of her day is spent dealing with social networking issues with students.


75%! Wow! To read the whole letter go here.

Great Quote about Christian Leaders

As a follow-up to my post on how our Christian leaders are selling us out, this quote from Phil Johnson is priceless.


The gospel’s most dangerous earthly adversaries are not raving atheists who stand outside the door shouting threats and insults. They are church leaders who cultivate a gentle, friendly, pious demeanor but hack away at the foundations of faith under the guise of keeping in step with a changing world.

— Phil Johnson

Great Quotes from DeYoung and Kluck's Book

Here are two great quotes from one of the best books I've read in awhile, Why we’re not Emergent (From Two Guys Who Should Be) by Kevin DeYoung and Frank Kluck.



From Kevin De Young:
"Christians don’t get killed for telling people that God believes in them and suffers like them and can heal their brokeness. They get killed for calling sinners to repentance and proclaiming faith in the crucified Son of God as the only means by which we who were enemies might be reconciled to God. "


Then DeYoung quotes H. Richard Niebuhr:
"[liberal Protestants believe in] a God without wrath who brought man without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross"

We Need Better Leaders

As I have said here before, our evangelical so-called leaders are selling us out.

Some members of Intervarsity clubs have left because of what they perceive as a change in the gospel.

Intervarsity leaders: "Duh, huh?"


Many younger Southern Baptists asking the leaders of their denomination why there are so many emergent pastors in their midst and others NOT practicing the faith statements of the Southern Baptist Convention

Southern Baptist president: "Duh, huh?"


A Nazarene pastor is nicely trying to warn his denomination about all of the eastern religious gook entering his denomination.

Nazarene leaders: "Duh, huh?"


Our leaders don't seem to know or care what is going on.

In that vein, Mormon Glenn Beck will be the commencement speaker at.....get this.....Liberty University. Liberty University as in Jerry Falwell. I guess they couldn't find an evangelical speaker. Mormonism used to be a cult group to evangelicals but I guess now it's just "another denomination."


From Ingrid Schluetter at Crosstalk Blog:
It is both revealing and prophetic that American evangelical Christians would have to look to a member of the Mormon church for moral and spiritual leadership. At a time when the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be held up as the only sure cure for our nation’s woes, officials at Liberty University, like so many others, have chosen to promote a therapeutic moral deism instead. Rather than bring a faithful preacher and Christian leader to issue the challenge of a lifetime to these graduating young people, Liberty offers a Mormon talk show host.

Working with Generations in the Church

I've just started to read a fascinating book entitled, Reaching People Under 40 and Keeping People Over 60 [in church, that is]. Since I've studied various generations for years now, here is my analysis. If you're a church leader or might be someday, I hope you'll take the time to read this.

There are 8 generations alive today.

*The oldest is over 110, but most of them won't be in church (they're usually homebound or in assisted living or nursing homes). They were born in the Victorian era, in the late 19th century.

*The next oldest are those that were born between 1900 and approximately 1919. They would be between 91 and 110. This generation is called the Optimistic generation and grew up in the Edwardian era of invention and opportunity, peace, and a fair amount of prosperity (there was only one "financial "panic" that lasted a year during that time). This is a bridge generation. Bridge generations get swallowed up by the next large generation and they lose their generational identity. This forces them to choose between being and thinking like the generation before them or the generation after them.

*Now we come to the "Greatest" generation as Tom Brokow calls them--the WWII generation. They are between 73 and 90 and is a large generation, even today as many of them have already died. They weathered the Great Depression and WWII and survived.

*The smallest generation of the 20th century is called the Gap generation and is between 65 and 72. I am in that generation. This is another Bridge generation. The younger ones in this generation often get confused with Baby Boomers and the odler ones get confused with being in the WWII one.

*The Baby Boomers were born after WWII between 1946 and 1964 and actually are between 46 and 64 years old today with the median being 55. They are the largest generation in American history and probably are the most affluent.

*Gen Y is another Bridge generation and are between 36 and 45. They are the first postmoderns.

*Gen Y is made up of those between 18 and 35.

*Then there is a yet un-named generation of between just-born and 17 years of age.


Now for relationships:

The optimistic generation are the parents of the Gappers who are the parents of Gen X. That makes the Optimistic generation the grandparents of Gen X and the great-grandparents of the yet un-named generation under 18. The Gappers are the grandparents of that generation with Gen X being the parents.

The WWII generation are the parents of the Baby Boomers who are the parents of Gen Y. That makes the WWII'ers the grandparents of Gen Y.

Are you completely confused now?.....


Those who are over 18 can be put into three generational groups to ease the confusion.

*The Optimistic and older Gappers can be folded into the WWII generation to be called the WWII GROUP.

*The younger Gappers and the older Gen X'ers can be folded into the Baby Boomer generation to form the BABY BOOMER GROUP.

*The younger Gen X'ers and all of Gen Y (and probably in the future the older ones in the under-17 generation) can be folded into the POSTMODERN GROUP.


Now a word about these three groups. I think you will understand them better and perhaps, even how to do church with them.

The WWII GROUP has grown up in Rationalist Modernism philosophical concepts.
The POSTMODERN GROUP is growing up in Postmodern philosophical concepts.

The BABY BOOMER GROUP is the Transitional group from Modernism to Postmodernism and that is why they are often "confused and rebelious." Philosophical shifts only come about every 500 years. The last shift was at the end of the 16th century. So, this isn't a generational change about clothes and music; it's a huge philosophical shift. If pastors and elders do not understand this important fact, then they will tend to be thrashing around in the dark in "doing church" for each of the generations.

Reading the Torah Through a "Bent Lens"

If you have followed this blog for the past year, now and then you will have had a primer in postmodern philosophical thought. One of the foundations of this philosophy is called structuralism. This consists of something called binary oppositions. Binary suggests the number 2 and...well...you can probably guess what oppositions means. A binary opposition is written like this:

good/evil

A hierarchy is when one part of the opposition is above the other signifying more importance:

good
evil

Today, postmodern Christians and other religious people are trying to fuse together the oppositions. This is called synthesis. So, the statement, "people have some good and some evil in them" would be an example of this. Here is another example of this fusion or synthesis. Who would ever guess that the Jewish Torah (the first five books of our OT) would be synthesized with "gay-ness." Here is what a professor from the University of New Hampshire is doing,


Marla Brettschneider, professor of political science and women’s studies at the University of New Hampshire, [is interpreting] the Torah through a “bent lens.”
“Torah Queeries” [her book] offers cultural critique, social commentary, and a vision of community transformation, all done through Biblical interpretation. Written to engage readers, draw them in, and, at times, provoke them, “Torah Queeries” examines topics as divergent as the Levitical sexual prohibitions, the experience of the Exodus, the rape of Dinah, the life of Joseph, and the ritual practices of the ancient Israelites. Most powerfully, the commentaries here chart a future of inclusion and social justice deeply rooted in the Jewish textual tradition.
The book has been praised by the Jewish and LGBT communities.

Rainer's Post on the Seven Traits of Those Who Evangelize

This is such a great post I had to share it with you. Thom Rainer (I read one of his very informative books) has listed seven (7) traits of those in our churches who evangelize and love to do it. Here is the list. To read the complete descriptions of each trait (the complete post is not very long), the link is below the list.


1. They are people of prayer.

2. They have a theology that compels them to evangelize.

3. They are people who spend time in the Word.

4. They are compassionate people.

5. They love the communities where God has placed them.

6. They are intentional about evangelism.

7. They are accountable to someone for their evangelistic activities.


The complete post by Rainer is here.

Good Buddhism Source

I am getting more and more concerned about the influence of Buddhist thought into our churches, especially through what is termed, "Contemplative Spirituality."

Here is a good site to explain Buddism (They also explain other religions). The Buddhist part is here.

And, the last part of their Buddhist teaching is how to evangelize Buddhists which I found fascinating. If you don't wish to read all the other parts, do read this short
part.

No Love For Me

I am getting a bit weary of hearing the postmodern Christians telling us how they love everyone. They don't love me.

First off, they don't like old people.

Second, they don't like "fundamentalists" (actually most "born-again" Christians are evangelicals, not fundamentalists, but nice try).

Third, they haven't a clue as to how to heal people, physically, or for that matter, emotionally.

Fourth, well...the list can on and on.

Since I am an old person who is a "born-again" evangelical and am having a few, although thankfully not serious, health challenges (it goes with getting older).....I don't think I qualify for the love fest.

The Wrong and Right Way to Plant a Church

In the past decades, I've noticed a troubling trend in many churches, especially those pastored by younger men. The teaching is shallow because they want it to be relevant. I think relevance is good too, but not at the expense of depth. I also have noticed that in many of these churches, in the past, as soon as the church starts, within the first six months, the congregants are "pushed" to evangelize. Today, they are "pushed" to help The Poor. I wonder if it has ever occurred to these young men that most of their congregants are no more ready to do this than fly to the moon. Here is the correct way IMO to "plant" a church:

*First, you need to start with mostly very mature Christians of all age groups. That means you aren't catering to one age group only. That means you cannot suddenly change the music from one form to another form. Why not mix it all up?

*Second, at least 6 months to a year should be spent in foundational teaching from the pulpit and mentoring discipleship. YOu could certainly start a seekers kind of class or group like Alpha after a few months IF there are mature ones to lead it. BUt, unless you have some very mature "eager beaver evanglist" types, wait a while for evnagelistic outreaches.

*DON'T TRY TO PUSH THE CHURCH MEMBERS INTO HELPING THE POOR! When they are ready, they will ask you if the church can organize this. If you "help" the poor too soon, you will end up hurting the poor. This is being done all over the United States today. I do think that many younger people today, when they get older, will look back on these efforts and realize that they spun their wheels mainly for very little results and needed to wait until they really understood from GOd how to help the poor.

*DON'T PUSH MEMBERS INTO EVANGELIZING. If they do it too soon, they will end up making a mess of things. When they are ready they will do it.

So when and how will church members be ready for these tasks? This is where the programs in the church must be done to accomplish the emotional healing, phsyical healing, spiritual maturity and anything else that would "torpedo" evangelistic and outreach efforts in the future. Once the church gets going there will usually be some who will be ready to do these types of outreaches. Not everybody has to do them all at the same time.

I think it's cruel to "push and prod" church members into doing these things before they're ready. Why? When they fail, and they usually do if they aren't ready, how are they going to feel about themselves then? How will their emotional health be then? How will their faith be then? This is exactly the kind of thing that makes church members feel they don't quite "measure up" and either quit church or get very discouraged and depressed. A works program always does this, whether its a "don't do" program of the past; or, a "you-better-do-these-things" program of the present day.

Who Did Jesus Actually Die For?

Charisma magazine is highlighting younger movers and shakers in the evangelical church today. In the article everyone of them, except one, is centered on reaching out to the poor. While this is noble, there is nothing about what we should be telling the poor in these descriptions. I wonder why this doesn't surprise me. Of course Charisma could have edited things to look that way, leaving out comments from the pastors. We have no way of knowing. That aside, I want to focus on one phrase in one of the descriptions -- the one of a church in Baton Rouge, LA. I'm not criticizing the church. The phrase in Charisma's quote from the church's pastor just jumped out at me. I am not critizing this phrase, I just wish to use it to illustrate a key difference between the doctrinal center of the past more Reformational (as well as Arminian) theology of church, contrasted to the postmodern more emergent/emerging church belief system. I don't know if this is what this particular pastor meant, but it's what I want it to mean for just this post. The phrase is the second sentence in the paragraph. I'm putting it in italics, emphasizing two words in bold font.

"We were serving because of the cause of Christ in our hearts. We felt like that was the best tool to reach people who Jesus died for in our community."


What I want to point out is Jesus died for indivicual people who happen to be located in geographical communities. But here is how the second sentence would probably look if it came from the emergent postmodern philsophical viewpoint,

We felt like that was the best tool to reach the community who Jesus died for.


Got it now? I hope so. Note (an individual) person vs. (an aggregate) community. Who did Jesus really die for? That is the BIG question that should be asked today.

As I've written here before, it seems to me that more and more denominational and parachurch organization leaders are "selling us out." By this I mean allowing apostate pastors/directors function within their organizations. Often when confronted about this, leaders "pretend" they don't know this was going on. So, it is almost rare when a leader does stand up and have the courage to say, "NO!"

This happened recently with George Wood, the General Superintendent of the Assembly of God denomination. He asked that his name be taken off the Covenant for Civility, which was signed by all sorts of emergents, seeker sensitives and others. Here is what Dr. Wood wrote to the Covenant framers,

“The statement on civility was distributed at a board meeting of the National Association of Evangelicals that I hosted at our Assemblies of God headquarters in Springfield, Mo. There were approximately 65 or 70 at the meeting. I was not aware of other signatories that must have been added later. I understood the document to be one committed to by fellow evangelicals.


Three cheers for Dr. Wood!

The "Historical Jesus" Argument

If you've ever wondered what Marcus Borg has in common with the New Perspective on Paul three-some--that is,Sanders, Dunn, Wright, I've found out and will tell you. At the Christianity Today magazine website, theology professor Scott McKnight has a fascinating 6-page article about the "Historical Jesus." I knew the Jesus Seminar guys like Borg were trying to find the "historical Jesus, but I didn't realize that the NPP guys were also. In addition to this, I knew that the Jesus the emergents present to us is somehow not quite the real Jesus, and after reading this informative article by McKnight, I understand why. They too are speaking about he historical Jesus.

Now, the historical Jesus isn't a bad thing to investigate, but McKnight outlines what is involved in finding the "Historical Jesus." First, they differentiate between the "Jewish Jesus" and the "Greek Jesus." I have just finished Brian McLaren's new book, A New Kind of Christianity and he talks a great deal about his rejection of the Greek Jesus and his embrace of the Jewish Jesus. In fact, he rejects any Greek influence to the whole Bible and reads it from a Jewish viewpoint. There are two problems with this. First, many epistles were written to GReek-oriented Christians who probably needed to be written to in that mode. And, they were. Second, if you want a Jewish point of view, make sure you have a correct one. As theologian D.A. Carson points out, the whole NPP is based on a faulty historicity of first century Judaism.

McKnight writes about how Bible scholars study the Historical Jesus,

Most historical Jesus scholars assume that the Gospels are historically unreliable; thus, as a matter of discipline, they assess the Gospels to see if the evidence is sound. They do this by using methods common to all historical work but that are uniquely shaped by historical Jesus studies. The essential criterion used in most historical Jesus studies is called "double dissimilarity." Even though it is riddled with holes, this method is still used by many historical Jesus scholars.

According to the criterion of double dissimilarity, the only sayings or actions of Jesus that can be trusted are those that are dissimilar to both Judaism at the time of Jesus and to the beliefs of the earliest Christians immediately after Jesus. One of the most noteworthy examples is Jesus' characteristically calling God Abba, a title for God rarely found in Judaism or in earliest Christianity.

I don't know about you, but IMO this is a crazy way to study Jesus if you really want a true historical outcome. But many of these "scholars," most of whom are quite liberal Protestants (Wright and a few others excepted of course), have an "agenda." McKnight, whom I at times disagree with, has hit a great "home run" with the last paragraph in this article, summing up the entire argument,

This is what I said to myself: As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. At some point, historical methods run out of steam and energy. Historical Jesus studies cannot get us to the point where the Holy Spirit and the church can take us. I know that once I was blind and that I can now see. I know that historical methods did not give me sight. They can't. Faith cannot be completely based on what the historian can prove. The quest for the real Jesus, through long and painful paths, has proven that much.


Amen to that.

Present Day Legalism

I've written here often that both the Third Wave Charismatic movement as well as the emergent movement is full of legalism. They fool people into actually thinking they are against legalism. The real fact is, they might be against the "old" legalism which is only one side of the legalistic coin--the "don't doism" side. But there is another side of the colin--the "do-doism" side. Here is a great quote describing how this do-doism legalism begins.

When, as believers, we forget the gospel, we usually resort to futile and useless attempts to supplement the grace of God. We, almost unconsciously, do little extra things to try to secure the Lord’s favor. But, this kind of behavior places us in direct opposition to the cross of Christ. It’s just another way of snubbing the Lord. We, in actuality, by our efforts to show Him how worthy we are, are saying that the grace found in Christ’s doing and dying is not sufficient for us.

_________Miles McKee

Source: The Justification by Grace blog

The Intergrity of the Bible

There is a great article in this current edition of Modern Reformation magazine (March/April, 2010). The article, by Michael J. Kruger, Associate Professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC, is entitled "Textual Criticism: The Achilles Heel of Inerrancy?"

How many of you know who Bart Ehrman is? He attended Wheaton College and seemed to be a dedicated evangelical. Then he went to Princeton for his grad degrees and completely lost his faith. Why? He found that we don't have the original texts of the books of the Bible. In fact, some copies we have is as late as the 10th century. Since some of them say different things, Ehrman felt we couldn't depend on these copies to maintain the intergrity of an inerrant Bible. In this great article, professor Kruger makes a defense of why we can rely on the texts found. He makes three Theses.

The First Thesis
"We have good reasons to think the original text is preserved (somewhere) in the overall textual tradition."

By this he means that we have so many copies of manuscripts that we can tell fairly well what was in the original. Kruger says we possess over 5,700 copies of the New Testament written by scribes. And that is just the total of those in Latin. In addition they’ve found copies in Coptic, Syriac, Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian as well as other languages.

The Second Thesis
He says that the great majority of variations are very minor,"The vast majority of scribal changes are minor and insignificant."

Thesis Three>/u>
"Of the small portion of variations that are significant, our methodology can determine, with a reasonable degree of certainty, which is the original text."

He is saying that "not all textual variants are equally viable and that our methodology can determine (with a reasonable degree of certainty) which is the original text." After this he gives as an example I John 5:7-8. Part of that is only found in a few manuscripts. What he doesn't make clear (at least to me) is, if that part should have been included in the final KJ text.

Thesis Four
"The remaining number of truly unresolved variants are very few and not material to the story/teaching of the New Testament."

Like most magazines, this entire article will most likely be online after the current issue's time period is up, so look for it in May. Here is the link to the Modern Reformation magazine's web site.

Great Easter Quotes

Here are some great quotes from Facebook friends for Easter:

From Adrian Warnock:
"Christian’s are the greatest proof Jesus is alive. The greatest proof that Jesus lives today is that He continues to change lives."


From The Bible on Facebook
"Jesus died on the cross not for some chocolate egg, but for our eternal salvation!


From a sign on someone's facebook page:
"People use duct tape to fix everything. God used nails."

The Piper-Warren "Weirdness"

Everyone in the blogosphere is talking about it. And, everyone is confused. Including me. I am not a John Piper follower but it's confusing as to why a fairly Calvinistic pastor (one of the idols of the Young Calvinists) is inviting Rick Warren to speak at his conference in October. I watched the video (link below) and felt pastor Piper came on as perhaps.....confused? Of course, I've never heard him before--I've ony read him. Does he sound this way all the time? I'm not trying to be snarky here at all--something seems to be very wrong. In the video pastor Piper reads what Rick Warren wrote to him as to what Warren believes. After hearing what Pastor Warren believes, I became doubly confused since whenever I read Warren, view him speaking or read him at his pastors.com, it sure isn't anything I heard pastor Piper read.

Once more, a national evangelical leader is inviting confusion into their denomination, parachurch organization, church, etc. Why? I think with most it's a matter of attracting more people, especially younger people, no matter how apostate the speaker's teaching is. Then when confronted, these leaders say "Oh, I didn't know." Yeah, sure you didn't know. But in a few cases, and I think Piper's case is one of these, the leader is naive and and isn't too familiar with the speaker.

I would like to make a strong statement to leaders--Please, please do listen and read stuff from people you are inviting as guest speakers.

I am sick of this! It shows these leaders are not understanding their role as gate keepers to the Body of Christ. I've seen it in Intervarsity, Assembly of God, Southern Baptist, and now Nazarene, and even, sadly, Foursquare. It's time for pastors and members in these organizations to revolt and tell your leaders to STOP THIS! God will supply the younger members and the money IF you just preach the gospel in power. Please stop the insanity!


You can view John Piper's explanation as to why he invited Rick Warren here.

How in the World Did Evangelical Churches get on the "Liberal Proestant Road?"

To answer this question, read this excerpt from the 9Marks blog,


"The results were predictable: Churches are now filled with formerly unchurched people who are still untaught and perhaps even unconverted. Multitudes of children raised on a treacly diet of seeker-sensitive religion have grown up to associate the label evangelical with superficiality. Most of them cannot tell you what the term originally meant, and they reject whatever vestigial evangelical boundaries or doctrinal distinctives their parents may have held onto. But they still call themselves evangelicals when it's convenient, and many have remained at the fringes of the visible movement, decrying how out of step the church is with their generation. That, after all, is exactly what they learned from their parents.

This is fertile soil for liberalism to burst into full flower, and that is precisely what is already happening. Evangelicals are blithely following a number of trends that advance the neo-liberal agenda. Unless a faithful remnant begins to recognize and resist the neo-liberal strategy, evangelical churches and institutions will eventually succumb to rank liberalism, just as most of the mainstream denominations did a century ago."

That is a great explanation. No additional comments from me needed.

Source:http://www.9marks.org/CC/ejournal/2010v7-1/article_johnson.htm