As inviting as ever!
HT to Marko
This entry was posted
on Friday, June 27th, 2008 at 7:35 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
100 Comments(+Add)
In the legalist church bulletin:
By faith we welcome our visitors since we cannot be sure if indeed you are living right. Please do not do anything in this service without first asking someone. Our dress usher will give you a visitor’s card as he examines your clothing to make sure it is approved. Be advised that we do not exhibit open emotion including visible relaxing.
Again, welcome…we think.
Sign in the foyer of the legalist church:
Welcome Visitors!
Please take a seat in the balcony, one of our associate pastors will be up soon to interview you about vital theological topics such as what bands you listen to, the last movie you’ve seen and how much your clothes cost.
After your interview is finished and you’ve passed the comprehensive Biblical test (KJV only) We can’t wait for you to join us in worship in the next 8-10 weeks on a probationary basis.
No teenagers.
Welcome!
The elect visitors sit on the right, the non-elect on the left.
Is there such a thing as an Legalist church? have you guys ever visited one?
or is this another one of your mocking post?
Jose,
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Yes
13248 Roscoe Blvd.,
Sun Valley, California 91352.
Have fun.
Jose,
One large Church in Indiana required anyone with pants on to wear a paper dress over their clothing.
Such Churches are everywhere and I even pastored a couple for a long time.
Go to your average Independent, Fundamentalist (the words usually are on the Church sign along with KJV 1611) Baptist Church to enjoy the fruit of legalism.
Bruce
Wow. In my experience, I’m left asking myself the opposite – is there such a thing as one that isn’t?
Rick – you are a bad, bad man…
and I guess I am too, since I laughed.
Are legalist churches not worhty of us showing them love?
If you want point someone in the right direction, don’t do it mockingly.
How would you showed them through scripture the love of christ,grace and hes mercy by mocking them?
Jose – I believe Chris was mocking legalism by satire, not any individual church. If you are interested in major league mocking of sinners, check out the posters about the emergent church.
Those are mocking Rembrandts.
Well, sometimes the most loving thing involves being pretty harsh. I mean Christ was pretty harsh with the legalists of His day.
I mean, calling someone a “brood of vipers” isn’t a good way to win friends and influence people.
Oh, now I get it!….yea that’s very funny. So I guess is ok then.
Carry on!
An eye for an eye. Very funny. LOL
Yep!
On a deeper level; I’m left asking myself when or how am I a legalist?
Working to avoid double-negatives here… They are worthy of showing them love, yes.
I’m not sure anyone specifically was pointed out here, and the ‘mocking’ was a general condemnation, not a specific one – more humor than cursing. It is more like the same vein Jesus used in referring to straining gnats (gamla) but swallowing camels (kamla) – a play on words and a ridiculous picture of what legalism is like.
We could just use his words directly, regarding legalism:
Does that work better for you?
See? Now you get it! I love this game. Come on, Jose, join in – mock us!
A merry heart and all that stuff…
cris L,
are legalist an enemy to the kingdom of God to deserve being mocked?
or as long as we generalized it is ok?
Oh, but jesus did it too. So yea we can mocked them.
Rick,
I will try not to mock you brother.
We may disagree but i will try not to.
Sorry don’t want to play today.
I am not even a legalist.
According to scripture they are an enemy to the kingdom of God. You know that whole part of “blocking doors” and “sons of hell” stuff.
Well, apparently Jesus did think legalism was detrimental to the Kingdom. I’m pretty sure He didn’t see the people as actual enemies, though. I think He was mocking them to get a point across to them that their behavior was ridiculous.
Jesus died for legalists, too…
Legalism is counter to the kingdom of God, and condemnation of it is appropriate…
There are multiple ways of influencing someone and still being loving – most often based on context. When done in a general way (which then centers more on the behavior than any one individual), mocking works better than when specifically aimed at an individual.
In this particular case, I don’t see that the OP makes any specific denomination/church/individual a target (nor, as noted, does it remove its own author from being targeted). When it is done so generally, how much it ‘hurts’ is based upon your own self-selection/categorization of yourself…
For a much more in-depth look at the subject of humor, mocking and using such things in an appropriate manner, I’d refer you to Mark Driscoll’s sermon on humor from earlier this year.
Paul had some pretty tuff things to say about legalists. I believe in Gal.3 he accused them of witchcraft, so chris you still have a ways to go before you are Pauline in your post!
And you all know what I think about Paul!!
Maybe you should read the whole book of proverbs to see what the bible tells about people who mock.
maybe you should stop beign funny ( satire ) and maybe use the Cris L way and be direct like jesus was. Jesus knew their hearts we don’t know peoples hearts. He knew why and to who he was referring to.
Proverbs 29:8
Mockers stir up a city, but wise men turn away anger.
(sorry for using scripture)
Are you satrically mocking?
No i was actually serious.
Jose,
No, we can’t perfectly know people’s hearts, but we can certainly get a glimpse of them. Their mouths speak from the overflow of them.
I’m a little confused as to why you seem to be taking this so personally. Are you or someone you love a closet legalist?
It’s time to come out of the closet. Many legalists are born with that attraction, even as young as two years old. There are ministries that can free a person from that bondage, I believe it’s called the gospel ministry.
Phil,
My church use to be a legalist when I was young and I know what it is to be laugh at.
We are no longer legalist God showed us the way.
But the legalism falls to the pastor not the sheep.
Jesus, if you say he mocked them for being legalist was always directed to the leaders of that time.
So when i see a post about legalist ( General ) you include the sheep.
In our case it was the pastor who was the legalist we just followed.
Now who’s mocking?
Perhaps you’d best listen to Driscoll’s sermon (which answers a number of your questions) before continuing down this course.
The “mockers” (ltzun) in Proverbs (and Psalms) are specifically ones who scorn – which centers on contempt. This is also the root Jesus’ comment on calling your brother a ‘fool’.
“Mocking” can have (at least) two primary functions – as satire (where the intent to bring about improvement) or as derision (where the intent is to hold one as an object of contempt – someone to be cursed or damned – where no improvement is desired). In the cases of Jesus’ use – and in Chris’ original post (in case you didn’t pick up that I’m not the Chris that posted this) – it would be the former. In the case of the Proverb you quoted, it would be the latter…
That’s part of the problem with the translation into any language – it often conflates different ideas into the same word, making it difficult to discern the meaning between two concepts which are treated differently in scripture.
The church divide it self in half, the legalist left ( with my parents ) I stayed with my siblings. Later on God re-united us again as a church and family.
When Jesus is addressing Pharisees, he’s not just speaking to leaders – he’s speaking to followers of a particularly religious/political ‘party’ – which included both leaders and followers…
I have a friend named Robert Wine.
The Bible calls him a mocker
Perhaps the simple test for the type of ‘mocking’ present is intent –
Is the desire to bring about improvement or to deride with no desire of improvement? Typically, this intent is displayed in a larger context, not in a closely-parsed quotation…
Cris L,
see post #25 and 26. Are this two primary function your Ideas?
Maybe the post does come is derision to some. You know lost in translation, which happens alot in bible verses.
Jose – you asked was there such a thing as a legalist church and then you say it divided your family. So you are familiar with their work?
I hear those ministries have a high recidivism rate – those people can’t get over their innate attraction to John Calvin…
CrisL
how do we know it was directed to both followers and leaders?
Was the post was supposed to bring improvement?
Rick,
Yes I am, but my whole point is that mocking them would not bring about a change or an improvement. I know what legalism can do, but i will not mock them to show them they are wrong. You bring them to scripture, jesus, grace and mercy. Am i wrong to be this way?
The original post was pure satire and very light at that. Some of the comments are more substantive satire with a sprinkling of mocking and a unbroken thread of truth.
Jose,
It sounds like you’re reprimanding Jesus, really. I mean it seems pretty clear that Jesus was mocking the Pharisees in various passages in Scripture.
I do think it is possible to mock something without being mean-spirited. Perhaps you don’t think it is.
Jose – sometimes literary devices are a form of correction and has a teaching effect to those not yet entrenched in a graceless system of self righteous bondage.
FYI – I have met “sheep” who are more legalistic than their pastor.
I can recall Elijah mocking bthe prophets of Baal. I can recall John the Baptist mocking the Pharisees. I recall Jesus mocking the long prayers of the Pharisees that draw attention to themselves.
I do not recall Jesus mocking unbelieving sinners, which, is sometimes done by the legalists.
Jose, legalist pastors breed legalist sheep. I see it over and over again. People are usually a product of their churches
Jose,
Let me recommend a good book:
I’m Fine with God. It’s Christians I can’t stand by Bruce Bickel and Stan Jantz.
Great read about legalism and the many of the other issues we face as Christians.
The legalist wouldn’t mind being mocked. I know I didn’t. I took it as a badge of honor, being mocked for by stand on the truth. (the truth of no pants on women, no booze, no TV, no long hair, no Movies, no no no no no……..you get the drift.
I think Jose makes a good point about pastors. As I look back on my legalistic years I am shocked at how easily people conformed to whatever BS I spouted from the pulpit. I think fear played a factor and most of us want to “fit in” so we conform.
As I have said before I hurt a lot of people…….good people that just happened to be different from me.
Bruce
I remember that from my legalist days too, taking the slings, the humor, the outright attacks as a bonus, like somehow I was more Christlike because people didn’t like me, and there where plenty of verses to stretch to back that up.
On the pastor/congregation thing, I think a lot of that comes from people not wanting to live by the Spirit, but people wanting to live by what people tell them to do, I think that’s why legalist pastors make legalist congregants so fast, living by the Spirit is the antidote to legalism and just buying what your pastor says and applying it uncritically is the opposite of living by the Spirit.
When God will judge the Legalist it would mostly fall on the leader. Like Bruce said sheep tend to follow and want to fit in. I lay the blame squarely on the pastors for legalist sheep. And that’s why I think jesus was reprimanding the pharisees not the followers.
Rick,
” FYI – I have met “sheep” who are more legalistic than their pastor.”
I agree, but where did they learn to be legalist. I mean shame on the sheep for following man, but it happens alot.
arent legalist churches those who take John 14:6 literal
cause brian McLaren says that is legalism
I’m not sure there’s ever a good time to mock someone even with ‘good intentions’. Where in the course of the Biblical narrative are we commended to mock others? Even other believers?
Sure, you could point to Elijah mocking the Baals, who he then later killed, all of them, like…10 verses later. Which actions can we take as appropriate to copy and model after? How do you know? Does God approve of all the actions his people do in the stories of the Bible? If Elijah, being a prophet, has the same Spirit we do, and we can sin, can’t he? And John the Baptist?
Jesus knows all men and their hearts, he also cannot and did not sin. And the point has been made that he never mocked unbelieving broken sinners. This is a good point to make. We are not Jesus, how do I know what my mocking will do to someone? Showing someone they are acting ridiculous by means of satire, which is really just taking what their doing, changing the names, and giving them some perspective, is a different beast.
So, I don’t find mocking an appropriate action for Christians to take. However, I didn’t find this post mocking at all. I suppose then you also have to consider that what one person considers ‘mocking’ another would not consider it that. Context, intent, and audience is everything. It’s a lot like our ‘naughty words’ debate. Ha ha.
What do you think?
Avengers Assemble!
Yeah…
J
My experience as a legalist and a member of a church full of legalist is that most people are legalist because “mentally” it gives them this ascent to Godliness because they kept all the prescribed requirements.
I’ve known people my whole life (christian and not) who need rules and regulations to feel as though they are more righteous than those around them.
Jose,
Does your keyboard have an “H”?
Just wondering because Cris L. is actually spelled Chris L.
As a Chris I felt the need to come to the defense of another Chris.
I heard McLaren eats babies too!
Ummm…care to share where you got this info?
In a lot of respects being a legalists is also easier… the more black and white things are the less concerned you have to be, the less discerning you have to be… just follow the rules and don’t think about so much.
Neil
Sorry Chris and chris L.
Neil,
You are so right!!
When the strings of legalism were cut away I felt lost. Now what? Instead of everything decided for me, I had to make choices.
I have told my wife several times “there are times I pine for our fundamentalist days. Much easier. Everything decided. Black and White.”
One of the biggest dangers in legalism is that it is a “man” that tends to be the final authority. What the pastor says goes. He is God’s anointed. The pastor becomes the stand-in for God. In fact, who needs God as long as we have the pastor (the baptist version of the pope?)
The H make the Cris’s one letter closer to Christ
They both have an infinite number of steps to go.
As do I…
I think that’s why some guys find it easier in a sense to be Christians in prison or some other very regulated environment. When they get out and our forced to make decisions on their own, they often don’t have the proper training to do it.
I see the same type of thinking in some of the people I know who went to Bible college. If you challenge something they were taught there by someone, they don’t have much of an answer besides, “that’s what so-and-so said”. It’s like they were really taught to research things themselves. They in turn go pastor churches where they teach the people in the same way.
Phil,
Nice analogy about prison.
We have extended family that are very much still in the fundamentalist/legalist camp. Several are preachers and evangelists.
To the outside world we are very conservative. To them we are liberals and if they didn’t believe in eternal security they would consider us unsaved.
I like the old southern gospel song Thank God I am Free…….not only from sin but from the clutches of killing legalism.
Legalism still raises its ugly head in my life from time to time. I have to “work” at grace
Bruce
Conservative?
I believe in these:
* Jesus is the only way to heaven and that is the passion of the Great Commission.
* The Bible is God’s Word to mankind.
* Christ died for every sinner
* Salvation is by faith alone in Jesus Christ
* There are two eternities, heaven and hell
* Jesus will return – soon
* The church has become enamored with this world
* Sinners must be reached not condemned
* Politics is obstructionist to the gospel
* We should never hold one sin or group of sinners as beyond grace
* I believe in using some methods in evangelism
* I believe that any theology that excludes people from the offer of redemption is heresy
* I can dialogue with anyone
Does that make me a conservative?
Let me ask my pastor.
Amen!
No Rick that is NOT what I mean. Not sure what your point was……is……will be…….
I used conservative in the sense that my neighbors view me as one who live conservatively.
Quietly. (unless the stereo is too loud)
Honestly.
We don’t party. Are kids aren’t hellions. We are good neighbors. Our love for family shows.
We care about what others think. We know we bought a house that was the neighborhood dump for years, so it is important for us to fix it up, clean it up, keep it up.
My neighbors know nothing of my theology. They know I pastored Churches but I haven’t tried to “recruit them” Maybe that’s why my one neighbor said to my “hey let’s get together sometime.”
So conservative to me is about lifestyle and not necessarily theology. And that’s why I used it in the contrast to fundamentalists in our family thinking we are liberal.
To them we are liberal because:
1. The women wear pants.
2. We don’t think drinking is a sin.
3. I use swear words from time to time.
4. I don’t use the KJV Bible
5. I listen to secular music, In fact I prefer it to “christian”
6.We go to movies.
7.We watch American Idol.
8.My oldest sons married Catholics
9.We don’t go to Church every week
10.We are tree hugging environmentalists
11.We are Democrats voting for Obama
I could go on and on. That’s how they decide what liberal is. To my neighbors we are normal but on the conservative side and that is exactly where I want to be.
Bruce – I was not addressing the titles in actuality because I reject all those titles. Conservative and liberal are politically contrived monikers that usually are self serving attempts to paint people in the most unflattering light.
I find it ironic that that blog that derives its name from Mattew 16:5 is so full of do’s and don’ts.
There is not any action there anymore. Does anyone know why?
“We don’t party. Are kids aren’t hellions. We are good neighbors. Our love for family shows. ”
We’ll dad, we are screwed if this is the standard!LOL
Jonathan,
I doubt it
We don’t party in the sense of the way many in the world party,
When all the kids (6) and grandkids are here it can be lively, but Christian lively
The emergent church… the most inviting church ever.
Be sure to pick up a six pack on your way out as a token of thanks for visiting.
Here we don’t care about what you wear, even God does disapprove. We don’t care what music you listen to, even if it is filled win sin and blasphemy.
We don’t care what you believe (as long as you don’t ever think that we are wrong about anything)
Ah, yes,
Inquisitor… err… Sinog, when you can’t say something nice about them, just slander them instead…Please – show me worship music from an emerging church filled with win and blasphemy…
If you can’t sign your name to something, the best response to it is just…
whatever.
+ whatever
Chris,
I find it strange that you create a thread about slandering the “Legalistic church” but you have a problem with me doing the same about the emergents.
Can’t take your own medicine??
I am never afraid to sign my name to anything. The area where the name inquisitor usually appears was blank since I haven’t posted a comment since you updated the site.
Since a few people have complained about the name “inquisitor” being offensive to them, I decided that now would be a good time to change it to something a little less offensive.
Perhaps I should have disclosed who I was… I apologize.
But yes, my SN is Sinog, the commenter formerly known as Inquisitor.
But again, do I sense a little hypocrisy? It seems like all I did was exactly what everyone else was doing on this thread. Am I wrong?
Allow me to draw a distinction as one who from time to time finds fault with both groups. While these guys satirize the behavior of legalists, to a man they consider them brothers in the Lord.
But when some satirize the emergents, many times they consider them as unsaved and apostate.
A substantial difference wouldn’t ya say?
By the way, I don’t like legalism. It kills! It’s ugly and un-Christlike.
However, the opposite of legalism, aninomianism, also kills. This is what I have found at most emergent churches.
This is why legalists need to be born again, so that they can see that it is not by works.
This is also why the emergents need to be born again, so that they can see that faith without works are dead.
Both legalists and emergents are in need of God’s saving grace.
*I do not consider all emergents to be lost. However, Jesus said, “you travel far to make one convert and then you make him twice the son of hell as you are.”
I think that the emergent doctrine contributes to leading people into a false sense of security. I do have close friends that are emergent and I see what they have done to others who have not been saved, but yet because of the weak emergent doctrine have told these “converts” that they have nothing to worry about. Even when it is as plain as day that they love their sin and wish to continue in it.
Just so you know, if I knew how to change my IP # I would have had such fun, but alas, that part of my brian dried up on one of my pre-Jesus amphedomine weeks.
The writing thing – it’s all I got man…
Rick,
It is a substantial difference, however the action is the same. Slander!
What if one group handles the slander better than another, does this mean that they have the right to slander the group that doesn’t respond well to being slandered?
That’s just ridiculous.
I think the intent is very relevant. I have seen unbelievably viscious things said about even Rick Warren, much less Rob Bell, and with deep intent to injure. But look at chris’s post, lighthearted compared to other staire and mocking.
There surely are levels. And many of the posters about emergents seemed to depict lost sinners, which will always be an abomination to me!
(if I knew how to make a frown face I would right here)
Jose – gonna try this one more time.
First – this is not my singular interpretation, but rather one from a study of the word ltzun (”mocker”) and its usage in Hebrew – along with the associated teaching by Jesus of calling one’s brother Raca – fool.
The key distinction between “mocking” (as referenced in Psalm/Proverbs) and “satire” is that “satire” is a commentary on how someone acts, whereas “mocking” (in the biblical sense) is a commentary on what someone is. Legalism is a chosen behavior – not a belief system or a race or a disability.
As for the power to persuade, there are three primary modes of persuasion – dramatization, humor/satire, and rational dialog –
Jesus and several of the prophets (think Nathan’s confrontation of David) used dramatization effectively, primarily via the use of parable. This places a person in the story and then forces them to empathize/sympathize with one (or more) characters, and then forces a clear decision. The basic target of drama is the emotion, which can bring about quick change, but is also more apt to change with the comings and goings of ones feelings.
Paul to a great degree, and Jesus to a much lesser one, uses rational dialog. Dialog and reason appeal directly to the mind, which, for many in Western cultures, is seen as the seat of belief. Dialog creates a chain of logic to a conclusion. However, it is only as strong as its weakest link, and can fall apart if the agreement with a weaker link is disproven. Its target is the mind, which tends to bring about slower change, but also tends to shift away more slowly, as well.
The use of comedy/humor is an appeal to emotion through the intellect. Its primary manifestation is through juxtaposition and surprise, which is why it is often more effective as a teaching tool. Jesus and many prophets use this in Scripture – whether juxtaposing a gnat (gamla) and a camel (kalma) as a play on words, or imagining one trying to remove a speck of dust from someone’s eye while dealing with an entire board sticking out of your own. Humor tends to convict more quickly – forcing the user to a decision. Its weakness is that if the user chooses the wrong decision suggested, the emotion against change is greater.
In short – all three of these have uses, with strengths and weaknesses in each.
As for leaders/followers and culpability, you wrote:
1) Perhaps you missed my comment, but “Pharisees” a religious/political party – when Jesus is addressing “Pharisees”, he is addressing a group made up of both “leaders” and “followers”.
2) While God may hold leaders to a higher standard, it does not remove/lessen the individual culpability of followers and their actions. What you have expressed is an incredibly dangerous belief, as demonstrated in the Milgram experiment.
3) What is taught in the New Testament is a priesthood of all believers, where there is no “clergy” or “laity” distinction, and the only church offices are ‘elders’ (who are primarily responsible for teaching and community decision-making) and ‘deacons’ (who are primarily responsible with organizing ministering to the needs of the people, primarily widows and orphans).
Can someone please tell me why those who completely dismiss the Roamn Catholic Church still use Latin terms? I’ll never understand that. (like a lot of things)
1) I didn’t create this thread.
2) I didn’t realize that the “Legalistic church” was confined to any particular recognized movement, whereas the “Emergent church” is an actual movement of believers…
I didn’t realize that the legalistic church was a recognized body, but rather that “legalism” is a recognized sin and therefore (by definition) a church with a serious problem.
Although too often the “sin” is in the mind of the critic, not in the actual actions of the person “sinning”…
Try a : and a ( together like this
I’m open to a light hearted mocking of the emrgent church.
How can you find the nearest emergent church? Light a candle.
What do you get if you wear a tie to an emergent church? Arrested.
More to come…
Can you perhaps point me to a church that considers themselves to be “the legalistic church”?
I can certainly point you to some that consider themselves to be part of the “emergent/emerging church movement”.
The first, by definition, is a church whose name is defined by sin. The second is a movement of believers who do not always follow the traditions of the 20th century church. A VAST difference.
Which version of the Bible do the emergents use? King Bono Version
What is the favorite emergent game at a cookout? The beer labyrinth.
My experience has been a bit different – though I can name a couple EC churches which I would consider antinomian (as would I the mainline churches which existed before they did…), many of the EC churches I’m familiar with (several which are house churches) would not be such.
That actually made me laugh – you haven’t yet signed your name to something here…
Where do you bring your children when you attend an emergent church? The contemplative nursery.
How many emergent men does it take to preach? Ten. One to speak and nine to keep the incense going.
Where do emergents claim their theology first “emerged”? Atlantis.
What occupation is an emergent morally against? A barber.
What are emergent golf rules? Roll the ball anywhere you want.
Emergent hockey. A lot of skating with no goals.
Why have I not been chastened yet for satirical humor aimed at emergents?
A six pack as a parting gift at a church? Why that’s as blasphemous as wine at the Passover!
What does the emergent pastor wear? A robe. (bathrobe that is)
What do you call the emergent praise band? Led Zeppelin.
(I have trouble turning it off!)
You guys are so self righteous. Your constand satire is as unchristian as it gets, and to tell you the truth, if you really were Christians you would stop and apologize to all you have attacked.
Sad
I’m amazed at how such a generic OP can pull so many pucker strings!!
How exactly?
Constant? Not really UnChristian? No…
If you really were Christians? Ah…the coupe de grace. Frank there in lies the difference between us (you and I). I would never use such a phrase against anyone. And I mean anyone.
Frank did you feel attacked by this post on Legalists? How?
BTW…HI RICK!
Churchs there must be different in America then to here..Of course i can only say as ive found..
But most people ive met at church fall into two groups
One you lot i.e believers,very sure in their faith,very comfortable in their own skin and part of the body…On the whole very friendly and welcoming when ive met them..
Two my crowd smoking, drinkin, ill at ease in our own skin..Most definitely not part of the body,were outside looking in..Always sat at the back,with the look of fear because the crazy flag woman is getting a little to close for comfort ,and oh Lord there starting to dance..
I’m not so sure its about legalist, more our own paranoia ,or God forbid maybe conviction…
And out of interest how does “righteousness that exceeds that of the pharisees” not become a legalist or see that as a warrant to be more baser, as some seem to have here..
wowee seems a tightrope, that not many can balance on..
I just figured it was your medication.
Because we can laugh at ourselves and your no big meanie!
Besides all the real mean stuffs already been stated by Team Pyro and Ken Silva.
iggy
Sorry that is a PDL church…
But I have heard that Devo and Air Supply lead worship a a couple of emerging churches.
All we are aloud to listen to is David Crowder and Chris Tomlin and that Brian McLaren worship CD.
iggy