CRN.Info and Analysis

There are lot of crazy christians on the internet, and I am not one for posting tons of videos.  But, after watching this, all I could say was wow.

Ken Silva posted a great video from Erwin McManus at the 2007 catalyst conference on his site today. McManus does a great job of explaining why we should not be relevant, but the ones who are actually creating the future. We, who have the living God within us, should be the ones that are leading culture, rather than always trying to keep up with it.

Silva and others have always had a hard time with McManus saying that we are the ones who need to create the future or shape culture. Silva writes

God doesn’t “imagine” anything, the Bible clearly says — Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps (Psalm 135:6)… And as far as leading “culture,” this comes from the huge misunderstanding inherent in the man-centered emerging church and the new evangelicalism that the Church is to bring into fruition God’s “dreams” for the earth. The problem created by this false teaching, as we see above, is that God doesn’t have any dreams or goals.

Although, later he writes

As Dr. John MacArthur and others have correctly pointed out its true purpose is for edification. The Body of Christ, the Church universal itself, is to represent Christ as ambassadors in this fallen world. We are to follow His Example to seek and save that which is lost.

So now I am confused on where he stands. In one paragraph he says that God has no dreams or goals. Then in the next paragraph he says we are to fulfill God’s goal to seek and save the lost. So which one is it? Does God have goals and purposes that he has called us to fulfill, or do we serve no purpose in the grand scheme of things?

As for creating the future, I think that Silva really doesn’t have as big an issue with this as he thinks. Every morning he wakes up and writes several articles in an attempt to do just that. You see, Ken sees where the world is heading, and attempts to create a different future by warning those who are potentially headed for destruction. He believes that his websites have the ability to create the future. If Ken really did believe that God did not have goals and dreams for humanity, he should apply his words to his own ministry

“Whatever the Lord desires He brings to pass according His will. Nothing can prevent this.”

You see, the problem that most reformed watchdoggies are unable to address is this issue. They say God is all sovereign, and nothing can change his plans; that we are unable to create the future. Yet their whole ministry is based on the idea that they are warning people who are potentially going to be swayed by false doctrine. They educate churches and individuals on the impending dangers, so they will not fall into the trap. If you cannot create the future, and everything is predestined, then the watchdoggies are just spinning a bunch of wheels. Also, if nothing can prevent God’s will, then the emerging church will continue “corrupting the world” and his true church will continue to decline. It is all a huge paradox.

I’ve always been somewhat amused/bemused/confused with Online Discernment Ministries (ODM’s) and their fetish with dead theologians who might (or might not) have agreed with them, had they only been alive. In some cases, idol worship almost fails to go far enough in describing the slavish devotion paid to these past thinkers, some wise, some pompous. (Don’t get me wrong - there are a number of things useful to learn from the past, but these lessons are not holy writ, nor are they 1:1 comparisons with our current cultural context.)

What becomes really perplexing, though is when ODM’s resurrect these men from the history of the church to condemn Christians or movements not yet born before the theologian’s date of death.

Even more perplexing, still, is when the facts don’t bear the comparisons, or lavish post-mortem praise is incongruent with the response the deceased would have received had he or she still been living today. In this article, I’d like to reference a few examples of this phenomena, and then take some guesses at why such behavior might be so prevalent from the sad, sick, paranoid corner of the web inhabited by these ODM’s…

In this article, we will examine what seem to be the primary drivers and pitfalls of this rather overused practice:

The Dead Can’t Argue

Probably at the top of the list is the basic fact that, once dead, famous theologians cannot defend or argue on their own behalf. Therefore, the longer past the date of their demise, the easier it is to cast theologians as being “on our side”. In essence, for ODM’s, it allows them to take these Dead White Guys (DWG’s) and re-make them into WatchDWG’s. Once recast, these WatchDWG’s, who represent little more than a caracitures of their actual selves, can be wielded as clubs with which to decry Christians, Christian movements or cultural movements of the day.

In the process, you get stupid titles or pronouncements like “Tozer Speaks out on the Emerging Church” (A.W. Tozer died in 1963, 36 years before ‘emergent’ was even defined as a movement), “Spurgeon Was Right About Modern Evangelicalism” (C. H. Spurgeon died in 1892, about 100 years before Rick Warren put pen to paper for The Purpose-Driven Church), and other rediculous attempts to lend gravitas to an argument that should stand or die on its own. In reality, the need to resurrect a WatchDWG as a primary source to support your cause demonstrates a lack of faith in your own argument and a bankruptcy of ideas.

Where it really gets bizarre is when WatchDWG’s are brought into arguments to argue things that even surface-level examination of the DWG’s life would reveal to be the OPPOSITE of what is being argued. For example:

• There are certain sites which moan, wail and gnash teeth in defense of modernist culture over postmodernism, quoting Spurgeon in their defense. In the real world, during his life, Spurgeon rose a hue and cry against modernism, fighting it tooth and nail. In doing so, he and other leaders paved the way to pit science vs. religion in the 20th century, making Christianity seem to be anti-science. To quote Spurgeon in defense of modernism is like quoting Marx in defense of religion.
• Other sites like to quote Walter Martin in denunciation of the Catholic Church as a cult, when Martin weathered legions of criticisms during his life for NOT doing the very thing his reinventors attempt to do.
• Other ODM sites like to quote Tozer from one face, while decrying anything which smacks of mysticism from their other face. In the real world, Tozer was a self-described ‘mystic’.
• Still others will legalistically scorn Christians who meet in pubs, or who smoke or drink, all the while quoting Luther left and right (who used gutter language and drank, along with being an anti-semite) and Spurgeon (who smoked and drank).
• Humorously, sites that would drop dead before quoting Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Rick Warren or other Evangelical leaders will liberally quote C.S. Lewis, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other dead theologians who would be far more likely to be found at Saddleback, Mars Hill or Mosaic than at Grace Community Church…

To call this practice “intellectually dishonest” would be like calling professional wrestling “rigged”. You make the call…

The Dead Can Be Safely Worshipped

The most important thing about WatchDWG’s is that they’re dead. The dead can’t have a change of heart, or have a Road to Damascus experience - or issue corrections when taken out of context. This makes slavish devotion to them - on the level of idol worship - a faithless experience, where there is no worry of them growing wise with age and decrying past, rashly spoken words. It is really embarrassing to have a living idol who flubs up and either forces you to throw him under the bus, or to pretend he didn’t flub. So, in this regard, dead idols are best.

Additionally, since they died in the past several centuries, chances are we have more of WatchDWG’s writings to meld to whatever purpose might be deemed appropriate. As a friend of mine once noted, tongue in cheek (and I’ve heard several times since), ‘who needs Jesus’ words when we have Charles Spurgeon?’ Jesus said far too many inconvenient things. You know, like “love your neighbor as yourself”…

Along with this finality of death, WatchDWG’s inconvenient beliefs and practices (see above) can be easily swept under the rug as time goes by, so as to hone these WatchDWG’s as tools to be wielded in victory over those one disagrees with. Additionally, with the inconvenient truths of their lives swept under the rug, these figures become figures of higher-than-human authority that cannot be questioned without ’speaking ill of the dead’.

The Dead Allow The Living to be Lazy

It is pretty hard writing new devotional material, particularly when it requires study from multiple sources and deep delving into the scripture. For ODM’s who worship their WatchDWG’s, though, this is a problem solved. Simply do the following:

1. Go to one of many web repositories of Spurgeon/Pink/Tozer/Etc quotes
2. Highlight the quote you want, and hit CTRL-C
3. Go back to your blog and hit CTRL-V
4. Type the attributed author’s name (preferably witout the full source reference so that people can’t see if you’re quoting out of context - see below)
5. Publish!
6. Go about the real work of attacking other Christians for not believing everything the way you do (which is, of course, the only possible correct way)

The irony meter has a chance to peg out from time to time when this same ODM publishes the semi-annual criticism of preachers who share sermons - in part or almost the whole - because it is lazy. Pot, meet kettle.

The Dead Were Prolific Writers/Speakers

One of the most overused tools in ODM-dom is the prooftexted scripture, followed closely by contextomy of those they criticize. The only problem with these two illicit tools of ODM-ery is that people who are likely to disagree and (often easily) disprove their criticisms, is that the Bible and the works being misrepresented are often readily available to them for quick refutation.

Everyone has quick, ready access to scripture, but not everyone has quick and ready access to the complete works of Tozer - especially not the complete, unabridged works. With this advantage, most saps who read Tozer speaking out on why XYZ is wrong with the emergent church won’t know that a) Tozer is being taken out of context, and b) the actual context of Tozer’s comment might likely be the opposite of what is being portrayed.

The Dead Lived in Better Times

Human beings hate change - especially when it is happening to them. In this regard, yesterday is almost always better than today, and the time in which your grandparents lived is always a much more respectful and righteous period of time. If only we could go back there…

…but we can! One nice thing about WatchDWG’s is that the lived in generations past where things were better than they are today (for whatever reason). This bask and glow of nostalgia allows ODM’s to get warm fuzzies from ‘if things were only as they were in the days when Calvin was teaching (let’s just not mention that enough Calvinists hold to teachings far enough apart from Calvin that they would have roasted at the stake by his hands for their heresy. These are not the droids you’re looking for. Move along…)’, or ‘if only the family was the way it was in the 50’s when Tozer was the champion of the faith’.

Regardless, pulling in the WatchDWG’s is ‘comfort food’ for today’s ODM watchdoggie, reliving the days when Spurgeon roamed the earth, free of the trappings of postmodern culture and Christians with tattoos. If only we could go back there…

Moving On

So, while we are on the topic of the dead and comparative religious studies, perhaps it will be good to go 2,000 years back to do some contextual comparison, rather than 200 years ago… But we’ll save that for Part II, which might be tomorrow, next week, next month or next year… no promises

[NOTE: I've put the complete article here, as the link to the story on my site wasn't working for everyone.]

Therefore, it must be Catholic and if it is Catholic, it must be bad. Once again, the logical fallacy of guilt by association is used here to take a pot shot at Christianity Today for having the audacity to promote a “method of prayer and scriptural reading” that was formalized by Origen in 220 AD.

So what are the components of Lectio Divina (divine reading)? There are four:

1. Lectio–Reading the Bible slowly to hear the still small voice of God
2. Meditatio–Reflect on the passage, thinking about how it has personal life application
3. Oratio–Pray, have a conversation with God about the passage
4. Contemplatio–Listen to God and what he has to say about the passage

Sounds pretty scary doesn’t it? At the risk of proof texting, David and Paul both seemed to practice this form of prayer and Scripture reading:

² But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Psalms 1:2 (KJV)

¹² I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings. Psalms 77:12 (KJV)

¹¹ Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11 (KJV)

⁶ do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. ⁷ And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. ⁸ Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things (to consider, take account, weigh, meditate on a thing, with a view to obtaining it—Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon). ⁹ What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. Philippians 4:6-9 (ESV)

If it was good enough for David and Paul, then it’s good enough for me. Yep, you guessed it: I use the practice of lectio divina in my quiet time on a regular basis making me guilty by association.