CRN.Info and Analysis

This is a great post by Coop over at his blog.  It once again shows how Silva and others turn a blind eye when it comes to confronting their idols mentors in the faith.  I will say this, both articles linked were written by “editor”.  Ken Silva is listed as the general editor, which would naturally lead us to believe that he (the editor) wrote the articles.  Although it seems that someone is definately hiding behind the ambiguous title of “editor” over at CRN.  Regardless, using CRN logic, John MacArthur is in partnership with the publishers of the Satanic Bible!  Oh my!  Here’s the article:
If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan then so should John MacArthur.

In recent posts (here and here) over at Christian Research Network, Rev. Ken Silva calls on Rick Warren to boycott Zondervan, the publishing house that prints his book The Purpose Driven Life. His reasoning behind this is that Zondervan is owned by News Corp, which is in turn owned by Rupert Murdoch. News Corp owns several pornography channels in Europe, and Rick Warren has apparently claimed to be Murdoch’s pastor (this is still hotly contested, and is not an issue I’m going to get into here). Among its other holdings, News Corp also owns HarperCollins, which publishes The Satanic Bible. So what?

I’m glad you asked.

Zondervan, owned by News Corp/Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the company that publishes The Satanic Bible, publishes two of John MacArthur’s books: The Gospel According to Jesus, and Charismatic Chaos. If Rick Warren should boycott Zondervan because of it’s connection to The Satanic Bible, then Ken (and other discernment ministries that have picked up this story) should call on John MacArthur to do the same. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Apparently it is a slow “news” day with Slice 2.0.  Not content with the crass condemnation of an outreach ministry of ‘The Journey’ (which meets in a pub) from CR?N back in March, Ingrid decided to post a “news” item on the exact same reference article today.

I won’t take up much space here, since we responded to their tired legalism back in April, and since we tackled the subject of alcohol a second time - TWICE - when Ken went ballistic over Mars Hill (Seattle) Church’s use of the word ‘cervesa’ in a celebration flier, other than to say that Ingrid’s new article is a perfect example of how little she understands what a ‘church’ is. 

(Also, to note, she can’t even get the basic facts of the story correct - The Journey is a St. Louis church which has one outreach ministry called “Theology at the Bottleworks” which meets in a local pub.  They don’t consider this ministry to be a separate church, but just that - a ministry.  Ingrid acts as if this ministy IS the church, itself, in her rush to gossip judgement.)

That is a lot of things but it just isn’t church. Church is for the worship of a holy God by those with regenerate hearts. We don’t take church and worship to the local bar.

Uhm, Ingrid, the church is not a building or a meeting at a specific time and place during the week.  Each church is a local group of people who work together for the Kingdom and, as part of that kingdom living, worship their Creator.  Unfortunately, this single sentence reveals Ingrid’s stark ignorance of what the church is, and gives a glimpse into modern legalism which is only concerned with externals.

In this particular case, ‘Theology at the Bottleworks’ is a ministry OF the local church (The Journey), which seeks to find lost sheep at a place where lost sheep might congregate - rather than expect that those sheep might wander in to a meeting of the church, say, on Sunday morning.  It is the opposite of the “Seeker Sensitive” services she loves to sneer at, because it does not seek to attract non-Christians to come to where Christians are gathered, but instead to send Christians to where non-Christians might gather.

Unfortunately, as is par for her course, Ingrid completely misses the point in order to smear and snipe at Christians.

Over at Slice 2.0, Ingrid was beaming with the news of a Purpose Driven pastor being kicked out of his church for the changes he was making.  She had this to say:

“Last night I received a phone call about a large Southern Baptist Church that sent its starry-eyed Purpose Driven pastor packing. The congregation grew alarmed when the pastor, following Rick Warren’s church transformation checklist, followed the tiresome course of dumping the hymns, etc. etc. etc. What he could not have anticipated was the backlash from the church members who basically told him, “NO WAY!”.”

I found it interesting that the only thing she took time to type out was “dumping the hymns”.  It wasn’t “implementing worship, evangelism, ministry, fellowship and discipleship” or “the theology is self serving”.  It was about the dang music.  This once again points to the fact that the argument is more over style than substance.

In the last post there has been a discussion comparing the writings and ministry of Reverend Ken Silva to that of Reverend Fred Phelps.  Phelps leads a ministry known as God Hates America, with various splinters of this such as god hates fags, Canadians, Swedes, Jews, Catholics, etc.  He and his congregation comprised mostly of his family members, picket funerals and other national events with outrageous slogans and songs.  Their website will leave you either fuming mad or saddened for the reputation of Christ.

I will admit that the writers of Christian Research Network and Slice 2.0 have not gone this far in their hate blogs and divisive writings.  I have held back on this post for a week, but have realized these men and women do not hold back on their divisive communication for anyone.  The theology and practices that these two groups share is strikingly similar and their bitterness and hatred seem to come from the same source.

Both preach a gospel where the elect are very limited.  It seems that only a few are destined to heaven and the rest are mocked by the elect as they walk into the fires of hell.  Living missional and evangelistic lives seems to be looked down upon.

Both parties also believe that they know (or have heard personally from God) which Christian groups are the true elect and which are not.  This is usually not based off of biblical reasoning, but simply personal preference or a twisted interpretation of the scriptures.

Both parties also believe that their mission has been given to them directly from God.  It often flies in the face of biblical teaching and other believers have a hard time confirming that their purpose is from God.  When confronted on their work, they often point back to the fact that God is the one giving them direction each day, or flaunt their title of pastor/teacher

Both parties speak with arrogance and pride, finding great pleasure and joy in demeaning and putting down those that they disagree with.  Whether it is calling some one a fag or calling someone an apostate member of the Ecumenical Church of Deceit, both groups find great pleasure in attacking their enemies.

Both parties use shocking language to get their point across.  Whether it is making outrageous claims about the Swedish, mocking Christian American Idol contestants, or simply publishing tabloid-esque captions, their shock-centered ministry leaves many with their jaws dropped.

The list goes one and one… but it all starts with a faulty theology.  Hypercalvinism basically gives someone the permission to treat those who have yet to accept Christ as they please.  God simply has a small elect that he is going to save, and so we might as well let the world know that they are destined for hell (God apparently finds extreme pleasure in seeing the unregenerate suffering).  They are right and everyone else is wrong.  It is this theology that allows the writers at CRN / Slice 2.0 to speak as they do.  Again, I do not put Silva or others on the same level as Phelps, but their shared theology and mindset fuels the same hate speech.  As I read through the anger and hate on CRN towards Warren, Bell, McManus and Kimball, I think they are only a stone’s throw away from picketing.

I stumbled across this video today. To be honest it makes me sick. The best lies are always the one’s that have a little truth mixed in. The perversion of Scripture found in what they are saying is sick. I tried unsuccessfully to upload the video here so I’m just going to have to link to it. (Chris, can you email me on how to put it up here. I tried the HTML button but no luck.)

Anyhow, go here and watch this video. God forgive them.

Video added below: (Joe - just put the YouTube reference between the brackets - not all the HTML)

Have you seen the many CrossTV videos on CRN?  What do you think about them?  It’s probably about the only modern technology that these people would allow into the church.  I for one think that the creepy voice with a British accent that reads the scriptures  could go.  Why  does Jesus and scripture readers in Christian movies always have to to speak in british accents?  Oh well… gimme your thoughts.

One of the mantras that the watch doggies chant over and over is the idea that the world hasn’t / isn’t changing.  They plug their ears and close their eyes, singing “la la la la la” when experts show we are definately living in a postmodern world.   They are doing their best to preserve hymns, pews, and the “us four and no more” way of doing church (and no, I am not against hymns for those of you who will try to argue that).

All that set-up to say check out this video that is pretty eye opening when it comes to the cultural, technological and global shifts that are taking place.  Then come back and tell me it’s the same song, second verse.

… they are still going at it over the Warren / Murdock issue at CRN! Guess the Christian Tabloid business is slowing down for the summer. Here are some titles posted just in the last 2 days!

Purpose Driven Pastor Rick Warren Claims To Be Rupert Murdoch’s Pastor: Here Are The Facts

What the Bible Says About Discipline

Asking the Right Questions About Warren & Murdoch

As the 4th-year “silly season” approaches, we can expect religion and politics to start inter-mingling yet again.  As a Christian and a voter, weighing ones civic responsibility with the give-and-take nature of politicians, 2008 sizes up to be a year of few clear choices.  To wit:

Democrats: For many Christians, the Democrats support of abortion rights is enough to eliminate any thoughts of voting for one (I never have in a general election - though where I live there are few Democrats who run for local positions, as ‘Democrat’ and ‘Communist’ are semi-synonymous.)  Besides this, the D stance on homosexual marriage, religion in the public square and economic issues rule many of their national candidates out for Christians.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner, and as Jezebel reborn (remembering her tenure as First Lady), she’s one of the clear candidates that most church-going folks I know would rather eat broken glass than vote for.  Her stances on family issues, her hostility toward those serving in uniform (on a personal level), and her involvement in the vast corruptions of her husband’s administration make her unpalatable, to say the least.

Barak Obama, who has received some discussion here as a result of his speaking on AIDS at World AIDS Day at Saddleback, is currently in a distant second place (according to some polls). His stances on key issues, coupled with his relative inexperience make him a weak candidate.  His ‘newness’ (compared to the rest of the field) and more techno-savvy image have given him a boost to this point, but - looking beneath the surface - he’s not someone I’d ever consider voting for.

Republicans:  Despite suggestions to the contrary, God is not a Republican.  While a number of issues claimed by the GOP are much more compatible with a Christian worldview (conservative judicial philosophy, family-friendly policy, pro-life, emphasis on personal responsibility and private/local autonomy in caring for the poor), their record at actually carrying out laws and policies congruent with their stated values is, to be kind, wanting (at best).  In many ways, Christians have become to the Republican party what African Americans have become to the Democratic party - a crowd to which you have to pay lip service, but whose interests don’t need to be served.

In 2008, the front-runners appear to be John McCain (whose policy record is all over the map, and who has some stated antipathy toward Christians in the public square), Rudy Guiliani (who is anti-life, socially liberal and has a number of personal issues that can be paralleled with a certain ex-governor of Arkansas), a Mitt Romney (a Mormon with a mixed policy record).

Of the candidates running, or considering running, the only one I can even register a pulse of interest for is Fred Thompson, who - ironically - does not make his religion (Protestant Christian) a political issue, but whose voting record in much more in line with what I believe to be supportive of the interests of Christians.  He’s not declared himself a candidate yet, but appears to be likely to do so.  Regardless, though, he’s not a front-runner.

A Christian’s Response

I know that there are Christians who, for a number of reasons, do not participate in politics - whether at the voting booth or in office - and that is their choice.  I, however, believe that, as a Christian, we should participate as individuals, but that we should be VERY careful in trying to have the church take on the role of a political spokesman.  It does not behoove us to be linked to any one political party, because we serve Christ - not man or manmade organizations. 

I believe that Christians can and should run for public office, and should maintain a high level of integrity in such offices which they may obtain.  However, with the compromise required in office and the conflicting weighing and balancing of governing, it is dangerous to make assumptions that a Christian in a governing position will automatically be governing as Christ would.  Changing lives happens one person at a time, led by God in community with His people - not via political movements - which is something I think many American Christians have forgotten.

As an individual voter, I think that personal character and a demonstrated record of support and action on issues which most align with Christian principals.  The rub comes when there are trade-offs to make, which the 2008 race is sizing up to force us to make, more so than usual…

2008 will be an interesting year…

**UPDATE**

Ingrid did not write this article, a concerned slice reader did.  Due to using ” ” within a quotation (not ‘ ‘), I thought that the readers question ended after the first paragraph.  My apologies to Ingrid for any harm done.  The issues addressed still stands.  This person is basically leaving their church because of music style (that is what they devoted most of their ranting to).  They walked out when Point of Grace performed at their church.  I wonder if they would have the same reaction if the Gather Singers came and performed.  Here is my original article:

Ingrid recently wrote an article on when to leave a church. She explained that “Over the past year or so I have noticed subtle uncomfortable changes taking place at our church and in how we “have church”. Things I never dreamed would ever darken our doors are now welcomed and endorsed.” What evils could have plagued her community of faith.

Worship was affected for one (go figure). However she failed to show how worship, in the true sense of the word, was changing in her church. She simply talked about how contemporary Christian music was entering into the services and how a list of Christian artists were invited to perform at certain events. Point of Grace even performed during a service (isert gasp here)
The only signs that this church was going apostate was that “at this church Benny Hinn is openly endorsed from the pulpit as well as the Crouches of TBN. There is a huge picture of the pastor and Mr. Crouch (together) in one of the church’s main hallways.” We are given no information on how Benny Hinn is supported. The pastor could have simply made a positive reference to him for all we know.

The comments at the end of the article saddened me the most. People leaving their churches left and right to go find communities that better suited their needs. If the emerging church supposedly makes churches more suited for non-believers, the people that read slice desire churches that simply make them feel as comfortable as possible.

I will give Ingrid this… she is asking the hard question of when leaving a church is acceptable. And, she has not rushed to leaving her community of faith, even when she has disagreed with orthopraxy there. However, the article confirms that opponents of the emerging church are as just concerned with music style and methodology as we are.