Barna Findings--Nothing Much New

The Barna report came out with a report on who attends adult church Sunday School classes, small groups and house churches. Here are some interesting stats,

1) -->A little over half of attendees of churches as well as small groups/classes are women.

2)-->There is a lack of singles and especially never-marrieds in these groups.

3)-->Older adults dominate church events.

4)-->Personal Bible study and reading is more prevalent among small group attenders.


But isn't this the continual problem in the evangelical church?
1)Mostly women
2)Singles not included nor treated with respect so why should they even come
3)Younger adults not even coming to church anymore (a few years ago Barna gave these stats: only 9% of evangelicals between 18 and 30 attend church).

Ok, now we know the problem, and the first two we've known for decades. But nothing changes. Anyone know how to change this that churches HAVEN'T tried yet?


Source: http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/400-who-is-active-in-group-expressions-of-faith-barna-study-examines-small-groups-sunday-school-and-house-churches

More Nastiness, Anger, Sexual Comments on Internet

This is a good description, IMO, of how society is changing. It's a rapid change I think, because of the constant segregation of the young from the old. This is also true in our churches.

On the Renew America blog, the writer thinks the Internet has promoted this. Here are some fo the things this blogger says:

Anyone who has posted to an Internet message board knows how quickly interactions can sour. This is because the coldness and anonymity of the medium removes inhibitions and the incentive to be polite. That is to say, it's relatively hard to look into someone's eyes and be condescending, dismissive or downright nasty, and not just because you have to worry about a punch in the mouth. But it happens as a matter of course when he is reduced to a screen name and bits and bytes, because he is then disassociated from his humanity.

This brings us to the most important point in this piece: This anonymity breeds not just nastiness but also vulgarity and lewdness. Yet even this understates the problem, as, in reality, it destroys every wall of propriety that should exist among the family of man.

For example, go into many Internet chatrooms and you will see new acquaintances making sexual comments to one another that, were they to have met in person, would never have passed their lips.


This blogger is probably talking about society in general, but believe me, if you go into Christian Internet chat rooms, you will see this same thing. And it isn't just once in a while either. I finally had to get out of these Christian chat rooms and forums, especially the theological discussion ones because there were so many angry hateful "Christians" in them.

The blogger says near the end of the post,

The young today are immersed in a virtual world in which coarseness, nastiness, decadence, perversion, superficiality, egoism and nihilism are the norm. They are instilled with moral relativism's only guide, "If it feels good, do it," and then their feelings are twisted in the worst possible way, through vile entertainment, so that what feels good is cultural poison. The result is that we are breeding barbarians wholly incapable of sustaining a healthy constitutional republic.

Along these same lines, I am currently reading a book by the author of Generation Me which I think is one of the best books I've read in the last 5 years. Dr. Jean Twenge is the author and professor of psychology at California State University San Diego. Her new book written with another psychology professor is entitled The Narcissism Epidemic. I will report on it as I read it, but it certainly pertains to the above blog post as the reason for all of this unpleasantness, especially from the younger generation.

Transformationalism is Probably the Right Word

I knew the "Progressive" evangelicals were trying to change the world but I didn't know the term. Many are saying it is dominionism but that didn't strike me as exactly right. Today I found a good blog post that I think more correctly describes and names this--Transformationalism. This is actually the social gospel in disguise complete with its social justice atonement. And, the blog at Daniel's Place is a good read.

Great Quote

This is a great quote that I think very well applies to our country today,

In the last days of Rome..."all religions were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosophers as equally false, and by the politicians as equally useful."

_____Edward Gibbons

Great Description of Liberal Protestantism from the "Horse's Mouth"

One of the early liberal Protestants of the 20th century was Alrecht Ritscjl. Here is what he believed and I think it is a fairly accurate description of liberal Protestantism.

The following is taken from 20th Century Theology by Stanley J. Grenz and Robert E. Olson.

According to Ritschl the kingdom of God is the unity of humanity organized according to love. In Ritschl’s words (from his Christian Doctrine):

"The uninterrupted reciprocation of action springing from the motive of love—a kingdom is which all are knitted together in union with everyone who can show the marks of a neighbor; further it is that union if men in which all goods are appropriated in their proper subordination to the highest good."

For Ritschl sin is not a willful wrong act nor an inherited disposition. But it is a “kingdom of sin, a "whole web of sinful actions and reaction, which presupposes and yet again increases the selfish bias in every man." In other words, sin is primarily selfishness. It’s essential character lies in its contradiction of the ideal of human unity centered around love, which is the kingdom of God. Sin is not inherited. It is universal, but no other reason can be given for its universality than that all individuals do sin.

Salvation, according to Ritschl, is primarily the full fruition of the kingdom of God on earth. Consequently, Christianity is not an otherworldly religion but a religion of world transformation through ethical actions inspired by love. Ritschl interpreted Jesus’ divinity as the unique “vocation” given to Him by God His Father to be the perfect embodiment of the kingdom of God among humans—a vocation He fulfilled to perfection. Because he took this life task as his exclusive vocation and realized it perfectly, his very person became the historical influence that makes possible the achievement God’s and humanity’s highest good. Ritschl did not believe that Christ made atonement as the bearer of divine punishment for the world’s sins. He felt the death of Jesus was simply part of his vocation of utter loyalty to the cause of God’s kingdom.

And there you have it--a perfect description of liberal Protestantism, and also, in many ways, describes what many of today's emergents are saying. When emergents tell you they are evangleicals or even post-evanglicals, that is simply not true. They are liberal Protestants.

Evangelicals Cannot Seem To Talk to Visitors

Well, I visited another church today...ugh! It's in a more blue collar town, two towns away from me. I can see why churches are losing people. I go alone because I am not married and I don't know anyone who wants to church visit at this time. I pulled up to what I thought was where the church met because there was no sign on the rented building the church meets in and no address. I just guessed this might be the place I saw on their website which is a terrible site, obviously meant only for the regular church attenders. It certainly was visitor-unfriendly. Do pastors ever find out how visitors are treated? Do they ever look at their websites? I guess not. There were no greeters at the door or ushers. I was talking with a friend later that afternoon and she agreed with my assessment, as she goes through the same thing. She, like me, thinks it's really a socio-economic-educational level problem. What do I mean? As an example, in the middle of the service this morning the pastor asked us to hug someone. Not one person came over to me. I am not crying about it--I'm just saddened that almost every church I visit is like this. However, one person finally came over. She actually knew how to carry on a conversation with a visitor. And guess what? She grew up in the wealthy part of the town I live in. Isn't that interesting. I find that pattern continually--the more high-middle/upper middle class folks seem to know how to talk to a stranger but those in lower economic classes (in which most evangelicals in this country are) don't. I also notice this among all socio-economic classes of those under 35. They refuse to talk to anyone outside their age group. Why don't pastors help train their people? Or at the very least, find a few who are adept at talking to strangers past "Hi, how are you? I'm Mildred, who are you?"...and then after that, walk away. Here is the sad part. I never encounter this in any secular meeting or organization--or in liberal Protestant churches. I just encounter it in evangelical churches.

I've noticed that churches that I've visited a few years ago that I've visited again really haven't changed. The pastors stand up and declare how much God loves them and how the church is going to help them. But, obviosuly it doesn't. People as a whole seem to be as dysfunctional 5 years later as they were 5 years before and this is really reflected in the greeting-of-visitors problem. I believe when the true gospel AND the true heart of the Pentecostal message of God's power coming from the cross is preached, people change. And when people change they gain more confidence. When they gain more confidence they are able to reach out to strangers. So, until then what to do? Well, as I said above, either train them or select a few to carry on that work. But for heaven's sake--do something. It's cruel to treat visitors this way.

Claremont School of Theology Announcement...So What?

I really do not understand all the hub-bub in the evangelical camp over the announcement this week that the Claremont School of Theology will begin training Hindus and Muslims for their faiths' ministries. Claremont has always been one of the most liberal seminaries around. What did you expect them to do? In liberal Protestant land "anything goes."

Here is a sampling:

*From the schools website:
...the students at Claremont School of Theology are actively involved in various on-campus clubs and organizations such as The Arts Council, Claremont Association for Spirituality and Music, Hispanic Student Association, The Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Queer Students Association.....

*And at least 24 of the original Jesus Seminar people (150 in all) had their training or taught/teach at the school.

So, once again, I ask, why all the fuss? What we should be concentrating on is the number of evangelical colleges/seminaries like Wheaton, Fuller, etc. that are getting into this liberal bent, not expending our energy on schools like Claremont.

Some Great Quotes from CT

I was reading through my June issue of Christianity Today magazine and on
p.44 they have some very interesting quotes that I hthought I would share with you.

*"It is the job of the church--not the White House or Congress--to call Christians together in prayer."

Boy, isn't that the truth!


*"The pressure that [Jennifer] Knapp labels as condemnation from the church is in reality the hard truth of the gospel, which is that the gospel requires change."

Note: Knapp is the "Christian" singer who came out as gay recently.


*"Paul perhaps writes about unity more often, but he writes about justification most deeply. The core of the gospel...must be guarded for unity to have any integrity."

The One Church is a-Comin'

Now and then I show how many streams of the more "apostate" evangelical wings are getting together into one synthesized, fused mess. The other day I posted a revival church (NAR) that now has nothing at their website about revial as they had beore, but suddenly they have always been a "help the poor church," although they never had that at their website for the past 10 years. Almost every evangelical church in America is getting on the social justice/social gospel bandwagon so I guess it isn't surprising the NAR churches might get on it too.

So, here's my next "prediction." I read in my hometown paper today (the Los Angeles Times) about the Claremont Grad School of Theology (traditionally a fairly liberal place) now about to offer training for Muslim and Jewish clerics. They also hope to offer training for Buddhist and Hindu clerics in the future. What do you bet some of the traditionally evangelical seminaries are next with this same thing? Want to bet on Fuller anyone? I mean, a seminary who has just hired Tony Jones as an adjunct professor must not far behind the Claremont Grad School of Theology.

Interesting Question About Sin

Here's an interesting dilemma that I've thought quite alot about in the past few years. Today on the radio, I heard a Christian program on which the host said,

God hates sin. But you aren't sin; you have sin.


I have been questioning that idea recently. The Bible said we are "in iniquity." This would explain many things, especially the homosexual question. Homosexuals are constatnly telling us that homosexuality isn't something they have--it's who they are. And, I believe they may be correct, at least for some of them. But for some reason, the evangelical theological community thinks if you are sin then you are stuck there. Perhaps they need to read the Bible more carefully and talk to thousands of people who have received Jesus as Savior and the incredible testimonies of how they were changed. Yes, changed! I think this is a failure of the Pentecostal/Charismatic community to help us understand the power of the Holy Spirit correctly and how it really works. If sin is something "we have," then we can work hard to get rid of it, sort of like a cold. Do the right things, get sleep, eat right and the cold perhaps will go away quickly. But eat junk, get little sleep, and perhaps the cold will hang around.

If sin is something we are, then we definitely need a change from outside ourselves to change, not simply to get rid of it for a while. And that outside source needs to be a strong one indeed.

Thoughts to ponder.

Traveling Down Memory Lane--3rd Wave Charismatic Revisited

Today we are going to travel down memory lane. I started this blog in the summer of 2004 so it is almost 6 years old now. I started it because I was alarmed by the Third Wave Charismatic so-called "revival" (Toronto, Brownsville, etc.). I wrote about this movement as a Pentecostal, not an anti-Spirit or anti-gift Christian. But I could see and sense a very strong occultic spirit in this movement. I was reading an article today that reminded me this so-called revival did not revive America and Europe like it was suppose to. In fact, things have gotten worse. But then, that is what happens when you think the occult spirit is the Holy Spirit. After a while, when things began to fall apart, they began to call themselves a "Renewal." Well, the "renewal" hasn't seemed to work either. But the most astonishing thing I think I've seen is what I saw at the Harvest Rock Church homepage recently. Harvest Rock was one of the main Third Wave churches with its pastor having his own apostolic network of other churches. Now they are calling themselves the HR church and boy, did they ever do a revision (and that is putting it mildly) on their history. When they were a revival church the history told how the pastor had gone to Toronto and gotten the "Spirit" there and he would never give this up or stop preaching it. Now they've taken all of that out of their history and want us to believe they started as a church that wanted to help the poor. I never read anything about helping the poor before there. But since every other church is on the "Helping The Poor" bandwagon I guess they wanted on too....I don't know.

In the early days of this movement I saw the deception, dishonesty and frankly anger at those who opposed it. Many of you might remember the "prophecy" by the pastor of Brownsville AG against Hank Hanegraff who exposed this movement and especially their church in his book Counterfeit Revival. Bad things were going to happen to Hank. But Hank is still with us going strong while the pastor of Brownsville fell off a ladder. Also, he soon left Brownsville as did the head of their revival school after a very bad feud between the two. Other Third Wavers, including the two big "gold dust" people, have either died of or have cancer. I'm not trying to be trite here at all, or unfeeling, but when a Christian dibbles dabbles around with this kind of stuff, things might not turn out so well for them or their churches. Meanwhile Steve whats-his-name who moved to Kansas City or the vicinity therein, I guess is so desparate for people to partake of his "ongoing" revival he is putting full page ads in Charisma magazine. I cannot tell you how many letters I received a while back about former members of his church. Talk about a cult and abuse....wow!

So, since this movement is falling apart except for Peter Wagner's NAR (The New Apostolic Reformation), which is still trying to be "something improtant," I officially pronounce this movement fairly dead.

That is why you haven't heard from me about it in a long time. Now is time to concentrate on the emergent movement which IMO is one of the most dangerous one in 100 years (since the Liberal Protestants).

Combining Religions

Continuing with the previous post's thought, in my local paper today, there was a column by a local high school history teacher. Each year he asks his classes to imagine the earth is inhabitable due to a thermonuclear holocaust and everyone who is left has to go to another planet. He asks them how they would set up society on this new planet. He asks them to consider laws, religion,the military, weapons, etc. Here is what he writes about the religion question:

The question of religion often gets brought into the discussion in this brave new world [he means the new planet]. There is an understandable tendency to cling to any aspect of their lives that brings them spiritual comfort, especially after the cataclysmic event that brought them into extinction [he means in the make-believe exercise]. But recognizing that religious differences also caused much of the misery back on Earth, the proposition went forward in two of the classes that a new religion of the people be declared, and be formed by recognizing the comonalities that exist in all religions.

Well, that isn't surprising as this is certainly the thinking today, even in many Christian groups. But here is the surprising twist in his students' thinking. Listen to what he says next:


[the new religion] did not pass [in other words, it was not adopted] by either of the two classes. Some differences they decided, could not be reconciled or ironed out, but a person's relationship with God is sacrosant and is not given to compromise.

It's sad when the unbeliever "gets it" and the Christians don't. In this case, I would surmise, living in So. California and the fact this is public school, not a private Christian school, that the majority of these students are not born-again Christian believers (this isn't the Bible Belt). But they get it. They get that there is something inherently wrong and off about trying to combine religions. They did seem to have understood this fact themselves. Sadly, in Christendom today, we are hearing more and more about how we need to "reconcile" with Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims, liberal Protestants, Mormons and so forth. Also, how we need to incorporate some of their beliefs into ours. It was Jesus who said,

"...the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." (Luke 16:8)

So true. So sad.

Finding Common Ground?

People who think different faiths can find common ground are naive. That was a great statement from the Boston Bible Geeks blog. Of course you cannot find common ground between Christianity and other religions. Peple are very naive to think that. Please do read the link above as it's a great post. Here's the last part of it and do I ever agree with this,

Christianity is not another ethical framework to which humankind must comply in order to blessing after death. Christianity is not about following a great leader (Jesus) who came to show us the way. Jesus is the way (Jn. 14:6). Jesus is the one who lived the life we should have lived, and died the death we should have died. His sacrifice on our behalf is what releases us from the need to comply to another set of rules and human striving to reach God. Christian faith isn’t placed upon the hope that we got our theology right, or that our performance will bring us reward, or that we have a better worldview than others. Christian faith is placed in a person. Even if the commandments of each world religion were identical, we could never say they are the same, because in Christ, these commandments are already met. Christianity is the only faith where the “doing” is already done.