butting out
What would you think of a person who makes it their life hobby to “research” and observe other people’s families and post their opinion of these families online? The peak into the window of the neighbors down the street and jot down notes about what they see. The dig through the trash to find out where money is being spent. They make judgment calls on certain family practices and traditions. Now, you might wonder why they would be so obsessed with a community that they aren’t even a part of. Sounds crazy, huh?
We have been over and over and over this here at CRN.info, but I cease to be amazed at the ODMs relentless infatuation with other people’s communities. For me, the concern and anger hit an all time high while listening to this slice cast. I mean, here is a group of people who have made it their life ministry to critique and harp on everyone else’s church. And, when a church like the one in question is dealing with personal, in-house business, they stick up their noses and say “I told you so!” It’s absolutely asinine to me.
I love the Olympics. I have been watching as much as possible (and TiVo’ing th rest). One thing that I love to see is the sportsmanship between the athletes from different countries. They get along so well — no one is giving dirty looks, throwing elbows or firing off some crude language. Then the connection hit me… When you are so busy doing what God has called you to do, there is no room for criticizing others. You’re so focused on the task that you have to accomplish that there isn’t room to stop, look at the guy next to you and make snide comments.
Look, I may be way overstepping my bounds (and I love this community here, because they will put me back in my place), but I don’t feel like many of the ODMs have a strong sense of biblical mission. I just cannot imagine that God would call people to major on the mission of critiquing other churches (which should never be confused with “contending for the faith” or “defending the faith” — they are very different things). I wonder what would happen if ODMs focused on the biblical mission that God had for them, and gave their life to that. They actually might become the change that they want to see in their own cities and communities. The fact of the matter is, they are doing no good critiquing communities and churches that are a plane ride away.
…just some thoughts for the day. I’m gonna go hit the beach for the night. Peace
August 15th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Nathan,
When you get back from the beach check out what Chris L., had to say about this in the “Submissions” page.
Amazingly, while he was asking people not to discuss in those comments, he made a couple quick comments about this story and reduced it to pure irrelevance.
Neil
August 15th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
ROFL!!! This is the most pathetic things I’ve read in a long long time. This post reminds me of that video made by that crazed Britney Spears fan Chris Crocker that made the rounds on YouTube last year.
Was Nathan typing this while he was under a sheet?
Give me a break.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
OK - here is where everyone reassesses how they feel about me. I received an e-mail a day ago from a blogger who called me “the most double minded man” they had ever seen. This is due to the fact that I am often unpredicable and do not seem to have any lockstep allegience with any one “camp”.
I listened to the entire podcast. I found Chris R. to be measured and articulate and I also find that even if the statistics are only generally accurate, there is a significant problem in that church. Can the pastor point to his many messages that specifically outlined these truths and thereby attribute his flock’s Biblical ignorance to their own distraction, or, must he take responsibility for their seeming lack of Biblical knowledge?
As a pastor I would be devestated to see such lack of basic Christian knowledge in my flock. If many of the people polled were new comers with no spiritual history then the figures can be understood differently. Even if that is the case the pastor should address the problems exposed in the survey.
I do give him credit for taking the survey, asking the right questions, and revealing the findings publicly. But I also continue to notice that other questions more pertinent to “orthodox” churches were not addressed, such as:
1. How deeply do you love sinners?
2. If your church believes and teaches the core of Biblical truth, why do you not mirror the power of the early church?
3. Do you believe baptism saves?
4. What is the ratio of your time spent researching, reading, listening, writing, talking, thinking, and generally being consumed with other churches, preachers, teachers, and those you disagree with - as compared with - the time you spend in the prayer closet interceeding for them, weeping for their souls, fasting, repenting yourself, worshiping God’s holiness, praising the Risen Christ, and allowing the Holy Spirit to filet your self righteous heart by His Sword?
PS - there are not enough hours in the day to do both adequately.
The answers to those questions notwithstanding, I still found the statistics disturbing.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Rick,
Maybe there are significant problems in that church.
There are also problems in my own church.
Which should I focus on?
I think I will help my own church. I don’t have time to worry about a church that I’ve never heard of that’s across the country from me. I know that in my church, there are a lot of young Christians who are searching, and don’t know what they believe. I hear every week questions about what the differences are between the Christian and Morman religions are. Lots of young Christians at my church don’t know what all the sins are yet. There’s a LOT they still need to learn. Maybe it’s the same situation at Granger. Maybe there are a lot of people still searching, and still learning the basics.
From what I hear, the leaders in that church are working towards taking care of the problem. A lot of blog posts on this recently are a lot more hurtful than they are helpful.
We can pray for Granger, but telling them that they’re doing everything wrong, like many people on blogs are doing? Unless you’ve been there and know for yourself, it would be arrogant to do so.
Maybe the ODM bloggers don’t have much experience with young Christians and the things they do (and don’t) believe? I’ve been there. It’s a whole lot different when you’re actually in the situation, and not just on the outside commenting about it.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
When you are baptizing adults (many of whom did not grow up in church) it takes time for them to learn, grow, and mature.
The very fact that that church is looking at it shows they mean to do something with it.
I hate it when people talk about a church that is reaching people and saying it is a mile wide and an inch deep. I’d rather be a part of a community that is a mile wide and an inch deep than an inch wide and so deep that nobody can take a drink.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Christian P -
Very well said!
Merry - great points as well.
One of the main problems I find with ODM’s is the O - it is ONLINE and therefore, not relational.
While I can agree that relationships can be forged online to a certain degree they can never replace the face-to-face, sit-with-me-when-I-need-a-friend sort of relationship. Therefore, discernment is going to always be skewed and completely biased. ODM, by its very definition, is an excercise in futility.
This case is just one more reason among many. People so eager to throw the first stone and most if not all don’t even know the whore Jesus has already embraced and forgiven.
Obviously this church is courageous enough to do such a study and brave enough to put the results out there for the scrutiny of others. It is a shame that the body of Christ in some parts would find more joy in ripping off it’s injured limb rather than pray for its healing. What an odd sort of gospel that is.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
There was another quote, that Muslims see Jesus as a great prophet.
So is Jesus somehow going to offer the resource of love and acceptance to Muslims who reject and persecute those among their own who choose to believe that Jesus is more than a great prophet? Is he going to help them tolerate instead of reject and fight against those who blaspheme God by acknowledging that He has a Son?
And why would God choose to offer resources to make Muslims loving and tolerant towards Christians and others?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:54 am
The above comment is addressed to Chad and is a quote from the Mclaren article he cited. Understand that I have had close Muslim friends whom I deeply respect in many ways and take my above comment in that light.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
amy,
You’re taking two unrelated quotes, twisting them both, then combining them to create a heretic. I suggest you search your heart and motives before searching McLaren’s words.
The only problem I see with the actual quote given is the touch of hysteria McLaren has about the future being worse than the past. Of course that’s something he has in common with many Christians, most of them of the dispensational pre-millennialist variety.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Bo,
I see now that in going to his article and coming back here I placed it under the wrong post.
Creating a heretic never crossed my mind and I hope I am incapable of doing such a thing.
I took two quotes from Mclaren’s article. Something that he believes and something that Muslims believe. I’m not trying to twist anything. I’m simply asking, how does one use “Jesus’ resources”to get Muslims to change things that they (”they” - not all, but many) believe that affect how they treat those of their own who come to Christ?
Another way to look at it: How can one work together in “global issues” with people of other faiths if family issues aren’t first addressed? It’s difficult to picture a Muslim father who has turned his son out of the community, or worse, working with a Christian pastor to promote peace on a global level.
And this question remains: “And why would God choose to offer resources to make Muslims loving and tolerant towards Christians and others?” It’s something worth discussing.
Apart from any “position,” and even apart from scripture, do you see the future as getting better somehow based on past events and current events?
August 16th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
We are all capable of condemning individuals unjustly.
That depends on what we’re evaluating. In evaluating traditional quality of life standards things seem to be getting better. The average westerner lives like kings compared to the average westerner 100 years ago (and I much more so than my family 100 years ago).
But if we’re evaluating the work of the gospel, then things are going on much as they’ve gone on since Jesus ascended. The church is persecuted, the gospel spreads, Judaizers attack the brothers and sisters, tares exist alongside wheat, and God is still on the throne.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Rick,
I was not commenting on the subject matter. I was commenting on what they were doing. Who are they to do a whole podcast, critiquing someone else’s church? What gives them the right to do side-line commentary on a community they aren’t even a part of. We have a word for that… it’s called being a busy body.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Amy-
Maybe. Afterall, he did something crazy like die for those who were his enemies and forgive them in the midst of their brutality.
Radical love and hospitality can do some crazy things.
Um, I think the better question would be, Why wouldn’t God?
Do you believe God is active in the world? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is convicting the WORLD of sin and drawing people to the one who was lifted up, promises to draw ALL men unto himself? Do you believe that God is love and that love ultimately wins?
I do. I think McLaren does as well.
One thing we so easily forget or place to the side (and it has been wisely pointed out by Bo, nc, corey and many others in many ways) is that evangelism is relational. And we are talking missions here, right? Whether we like it or not we all come with our baggage and our bias and our cultural hang-ups. We strereotype people even when we say we are not. People outide the Christian faith have stereotypes of us -some are true, some are false. We stereotype them as well - some true, some false.
What I see McLaren and others trying to do is cast missions in a relational model (how it should be) by starting us all off on the same foot - we (muslim, jew, gentile, pagan) are human beings created in the image of God and things are broken, but God is putting them back together. We start there. I think that is a good starting point. Starting here I can befriend anyone. I can become all things to all people. By starting here I can truly love someone without an agenda apart from working alongside God to bring about peace and healing to the world (God’s desire).
The world has problems that people who believe in God ought to be trying to remedy. Hunger, orphans, disease, health care, widows, care of the earth, and much more. I see no problem working alongside people of any stripe who desire to see God’s desires come to fruition.
But in the context of this relationship I give space for the Holy Spirit to really do the Spirit’s thing. I shut the Spirit out when I make it my perogative to first and primarily convert the “other” to the way I believe. All this does is reaffirm in the mind of the “other” the stereo-type they already hold: Christians don’t care about anything but telling me how wrong I have been and how right they are. However, if I have begun with relationship and show I love without agenda, God can begin to soften an otherwise hard heart. Now, to the “other”, Jesus is not just some belief I use to badger someone or make them feel guilty but Jesus is a real live person, incarnated for the moment before them and drawing them deeper into the story. They just might begin to see the kinks in their own narrative as they look at ours.
That is my brief answer
By the way, I lived in Bahrain for 4 years and had many Muslim friends as well.
peace,
Chad
August 16th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Just for clarity - I’m not sure you understood my question and realize now it can have two different meanings. I mean, do you think Jesus is going to cause Muslims to love and accept those of their own who are rejecting the truth as they see it; in fact, blaspheming Allah.
I worked with a group of Muslim people who had zero known believers. The ones I knew personally were hospitable and giving in ways that I have never experienced before. It was a two-way relationship because we also had to give much to build the relationships. One of them told me I was more of a sister to her than any of her Muslim friends in the community.
In our case, my husband could have talked about Jesus and “religious” things to his heart’s delight - because the men wanted to convert him.
For me, it was harder to bring up my beliefs simply because women don’t talk about such things.
The “kink” in one of my friend’s narratives (as you put it) was, at one time, that she saw that our boys obeyed us - she couldn’t understand that. (A young son could slap his mother in the presence of the father, with no correction.) Her observation of our by no-means perfect family gave me a good opportunity to say why we raised our boys the way we did.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I don’t know that I would say Jesus is going to “cause” or not “cause” persecution to take place. If you are asking me if Muslims will be perfectly fine with one of their family members embracing Christ than probably not. But could they? Perhaps.
I would venture to say this is a conversatoin that would not have arose if relationship had not first been established and both parties knew that they other cared for the other, right?
What you describe is what I see McLaren and others hoping and praying for.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I’ve been in missions a long time and with most of my colleagues I have always heard and seen put into practice the fact that relationships must be made, not just so that whatever “work” one is doing can be done, but because having genuine love and friendship with others who don’t know Jesus as well is with other Christians is a fruit of the Holy Spirit.
Even the old missionary biographies I have read stress relationships. So I don’t see the idea of the necessity of relationship building in missions as something new.
(But I am NOT saying that one shouldn’t share the gospel or something else about Christianity with one whom one barely knows. )
I do see other new things in Mclaren’s ideas. I read “A New Kind of Christian” a couple of years ago; I have watched Mclaren’s video with the “grace” church - can’t remember the name of it. I honestly don’t know if the Jesus that Mclaren talks about is the Jesus of the Bible.
My biggest concern at the moment in missions is that people will think they know Jesus and are Christians when in reality they know only a counterfeit. Thus the need for scripture and using it, for discipleship, for prayer, for obedience.
As far as Christians and Muslims working together, one particular case where I can’t see this as a possibility came to my mind. I gave birth to one of my children in a mission hospital in a very closed-to-the gospel country. The sacrifice I saw from the Christian staff was amazing. They didn’t have Muslims on the staff; it was difficult enough to have Christian nationals on the staff, because of persecution. As far as I know the national workers all came from a different area of the country that was “allowed” to have Christians. What Muslim national would have chosen to work at this hospital simply for the sake of working with Christians?
And in so many other places those who have contacts with Christians -sometimes even unintentionally, or doing something as simple as sharing a meal -are persecuted. On a purely practical level I don’t see how this “working together” would work in many places.
It could work if “Christian” began to mean a person who believes that there are many paths to God. Because then Muslims, Buddhists, etc wouldn’t feel “threatened.”
August 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Amy,
sounds like you’re engaging these people in a deeply incarnational way. I hope you see the fruits of your loving them.
Be encouraged.
Seriously.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
should read “as well as with other Christians”
August 16th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Thank you nc. I hope. I have to admit I’m not sure what “deeply incarnational way” means to you - but it does have a nice ring. Too bad an ODM didn’t come up with it first. :).
And may I say that there are a number of authors/pastors today who try to present conservative evangelicals, regular old evangelicals/fundamentalists/ whatever name they don’t like - as being people who try to cram the gospel down people’s throats and don’t really care about people.
It’s a gross misrepresentation. I can personally say that I know of noone who is working overseas who fits in that category - and I know people of just about every label you could come up with.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Amy, I echo what nc said.
This thing you said though is curious to me. What I hear you saying is that the Jesus Mclaren talks about might not be the Jesus you see in the Bible.
People in all times and places have claimed that they know the Jesus of the Bible better than the next guy or gal. The Pharisees thought they knew pretty well what the Messiah of the Bible would be like and they were quite wrong as it turned out.
What is the Jesus you see McLaren getting from scripture? Which Jesus do you see in scripture? How are they different? How are they alike? In what ways might both perspectives better serve to get a fuller picture? I think it is helpful if we drop the illusion that any one of us knows the Jesus of the Bible fully and perfectly. No doubt McLaren might emphasize aspects you do not and vice versa. That does not mean McLaren or others do not know Jesus.
peace,
Chad
August 16th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
I guess what I mean is that you are engaging them as people, in very personal ways, relationally, making visible in the flesh (incarnating) the person of Jesus even before you say anything about Jesus.
It’s actually quite “emerging” of you…
August 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Even the iMonk will not discuss MacLaren and his teachings, and he is no fundamentalist. I find it quite revealing that MacLaren calls the penal substitutionary view of the cross as “false adverstising for God”. Now for someone who desires a respectful dialogue of different views that seems to be extremely harsh and does not even allow for the possibility that the view is correct.
I have often dicovered that some emergent types are just as intolerant as the ones they accuse of intolerance, they just apply it to different people. When Brian MacLaren recommended the book “The Last Week” written by Marcus Borg and John Clossan, two bone fide heretics, I can no longer view him as evangelical.
Among other things that book suggests the body of Jesus was buried in a shallow grave and probably eaten by wild dogs. Both of the authors are members of the Jesus Seminar, a coven for heretics.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“Now, you might wonder why they would be so obsessed with a community that they aren’t even a part of. Sounds crazy, huh?”
That’s the catch. Although they might not be a part of these communities, these communities are affecting them. The teachings and principles of churches like Saddleback, Willow Creek, and Granger are not limited to those areas of Southern California, Illinois, and the Midwest. Their methods and ideologies are prolific across America, and every time something new comes out (e.g. the up-and-coming “40 Days of Love”), the influence of those churches spreads all across the country.
You can love these churches and their methodologies, or you can hate them and shout from the rooftops that they lead people astray, but you cannot deny the widespread influence that they have on the nation and world at large. Therefore, there is some vested interest in people keeping an eye on what is going on in those circles.
–
CS
August 16th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Unless it is in their churches it isn’t affecting them. And if its in their churches, being used by their leadership, perhaps instead of whining and slandering people on the internet they should be addressing… their churches.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Granger holds itself up as a model church that is especially effective and one that others should pattern themselves after. Although they lack tact, to say the least, the ODMs are primary critiquing the philosophy of Granger. That is hard to do without also critiquing the specific example of the philosophy.
Granger and similar churches have criticized traditional church for years. They may not use a specific church as an example but their words are critical of every church that fits the description of the churches they criticize.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
What did the study from Grace Community Church say again?
Oh. Right.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Regardless of what “flavor” of Christian church it is, the statistics presented are unacceptable.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Maybe, maybe not. In statistical studies of these sort the devil is (or isn’t) in the details.
My point being that I haven’t seen too many ODM approved ministries being straightforward with the fruit of their ministries.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
frankly, if I had to choose…
I’d rather have a church with those discipleship challenges than have a church like J-Mac’s whose rep. in the city is awful and makes ministering the gospel more difficult than it already is…
and you can bet his church is filled with people who are doing things “right”…at least to ODM’s…
August 16th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I totally agree, and in fact, I have often remarked about how little (none) posts on the discernment sites are about their own sin or shortcoming. It seems as if humility is understood as weakness in some circles.
Let me be very clear and remove the emperor’s clothes - NO ONE PRACTICES WHAT THEY PREACH BECAUSE WHAT WE PREACH IS CHRIST WHO IS OUR PURSUIT AND NOT OUR ACHIEVEMENT.
The claims and commands and responsibilities of following and reflecting Christ are infinitely greater than anyone’s ability to personally fulfill to the extent He deserves, and following Christ is much greater than either written creeds or having an endless stream of identifying shortcomings in OTHERS. Following Christ is more about indentifying shortcomings in OURSELVES than in others.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I have a question for anyone who would like to give me a well thought out answer:
I’ve been told recently that the attendees of Granger are “false converts”, “evil” and need to be “purged out” from the church. That idea made made me so amazingly angry, but my question is this:
What, exactly, are “false converts”? I have heard two very different views, ironically using the exact same Scripture. (You know the passage in Matthew, ‘Not all who cry ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heaven but only those who do the will of God’ . . .) Is it even ANYONE’S place to judge who a “false convert” is or isn’t?
It seems everytime something like this comes up the ODM’s harp about “false converts” and it makes me so angry for some reason. Would someone maybe like to tell me why it should make me so angry?
I don’t know . . . the person I was talking to seemed to think the stastics were the whole story and the end of the story.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
^That’s statistics, not stastics.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
This is pathetic. It’s not as though they are highlighting some small town congregation, it’s a huge church who’s influence spreads far beyond South Bend. It’s clearly an example of the failure of the “seeker sensitive” model in properly leading people to, and teaching them about Christ. A church with those kind of statistics is in serious trouble and the blame can be set squarely on the pulpit. It comes from pastors abandoning solid Biblical teaching for a watered-down, feel-good, slow-pitch softball gospel that’s more about self-esteem than Jesus Christ.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Jesse,
You assume that other churches are doing better. I wonder what a statistical survey of the Corinthian church would have looked like.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Bo and Jesse,
Yep. Why don’t we all start taking surveys of our own churches and see what those results are? I bet a lot of churches are in a lot more sorry shape than it appears on the surface.
Most churches are about looking good on the surface; putting on a happy face Sunday morning and pretending we’re perfect. But when you start digging deeper, you start finding things wrong with the whole picture . . .
Jesse, the point is, worry about your own home church, which I’m sure is far from perfect as well. If you are so worried about Granger, why don’t you contact them and ask what you can do to help?
August 16th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
I think its hilarious that Jesse and everyone else seems to think that discipleship/maturity/whatever you want to call it is a direct 1:1 relationship to what is going on in the pulpit, as if its a mechanical assembly line. As I pointed out before, look at all the problems the churches Paul founded had, if we’re judging the preaching of churches based on the state of the church Paul was a prurient, seeker sensitive, milque toast, light and fluffy, felt needs kind of preacher.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
As a resident of Indiana, who for years lived a little more than an hour south of Granger, I’d never heard of GCC until Ingrid started whining about them.
As a statistician, the results don’t surprise me at all for a church that is growing.
1) If your church is growing at any appreciable rate, you will expect that the spiritual maturity of the body as a whole will be declining. It’s just like if you had a body of believers with a median age of 80 and started adding members who were 20 - your average is going to start dropping like a rock.
2) If your church is stagnant, your rate of maturity will increase - to a point - and then stagnate at the relative maturity level of those who are leading. So, your church may “score high” on such a survey, but it would be a awful story to tell, because you’re a dead church with no real impact on the surrounding community.
3) If your church is only a way-station for semi-churched “church-hoppers”, then your score will be perpetually low, across the four demographics used in the survey in question.
Bottom Line: Chris R should stick to something he knows, which isn’t anything to do with statistics, and little to do with “discernment”
August 16th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Well, apparently anyone who becomes a Christian and can’t give a dissertation on orthodox faith and have it stamped per Chris R’s approval is a “false convert”.
The message that “you’ve got to have it all together to become a Christian” is the insidious underlying message of Chris R’s evil diatribe against the body of Christ.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Rick - you can’t say that if you don’t know the people. You don’t fully understand the demographics, or why the results are what they are.
Yes, anything less than 100% is unacceptable, but - per the statistical mini-comment above - 100% actually says much worse about a church than 53% does…
August 16th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
A false convert is a person claiming to be Christian and then denying the grace of God that saved them. You can’t claim to be a Christian and in the same breath deny essential doctrine. If that’s the case, you arent’ a Christian, hence a false convert.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Sort of what the ODM’s teach others… “Come to Jesus by Grace, then forsake Grace and be like us!”
Making false converts… those who start by grace but think they can finish by works…
They are the seed that shoots a root is shallow soil, then dies… they never grow from the Law to Grace.
iggy
August 16th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
ODM is what exactly? Sorry, this is a new geeky subculture for me, I don’t know your acronyms.
August 16th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
ODM/ADM = “Online”/Armchair “Discernment” “Ministry” (ex. Slice of Laodicea, Christian Research? Network, Apprising ‘Ministries’, etc.)
Believe it or not, not everyone is a junior theologian, and Christianese is not bestowed upon them the moment they decide they wish to follow Christ. You would expect they would grow to understand this (which, by the way, GCC’s statistics bear out).
Without a follow-up survey a year or two later, with tracking mechanisms to tie individuals from the first survey to the same individuals in the second survey, there is no statistical way to “prove” that GCC is a “success” or “failure”. Especially if you want to compare them to a church that hasn’t undergone a similar survey.
Who knows, if you gave the same survey to Johnnie Mac’s church in CA, you might have the same or similar results…
August 16th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
actually, in the above comment #43, “bear out” should be “suggest”…
August 17th, 2008 at 12:06 am
Oh I get it, so the ODM’s write articles pointing out theological problems in the church. And you guys write articles about how the ODM’s are causing problems in the church.
How is this site any different? It’s just bitching from the opposite end of the spectrum, throwing back the stones that are thrown in your direction. Sounds really constructive.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am
“Oh I get it, so the ODM’s write articles pointing out theological problems in the church.”
Do your research thoroughly, Jesse. Go read some “ODM” blogs for yourself and form your own impression . . .
August 17th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Jesse,
1) We cover a wide variety of subjects. One of the key subjects isn’t “bitching” about the problems ODM’s cause within the church - it is defending those brothers unfairly and savagely besmirched from those who claim to be brothers in Christ.
2) We allow free and open discussion to sort out conslusions, whereas most of the ODM sites refuse to allow comments, or find excuses to allow almost exclusively those in agreement with them.
3) We admit that we get it wrong sometimes.
In this particular case, you’ve got a group of nib-noses with no understanding of statistics taking some transparency from a church they don’t attend, 2000 miles away from them, and casting aspersions with the integrity of a Chicago politico.
There are good stories and bad to be had within the data gathered by Granger. And, part of the good news is, you don’t normally collect such data and you especially don’t allow it to be published unless you seriously plan on looking for ways to improve. Of course, if all you get for your honesty and transparency is character assassination from within the body that is supposed to be cheering you on, you’re going to be less likely to be as up-front as time goes on…
August 17th, 2008 at 12:22 am
I get what a “false convert” really is, I just don’t know why the ODM’s have to scream “false convert” at everyone who doesn’t agree with their theology. I’m going to get sick of that title very, very fast.
If there was as many “false converts” as some people make it seem, there sure aren’t going to be very many people in heaven.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:24 am
John saw a multitude that no man could number. Perhaps he just couldn’t count all that high (or he just couldn’t see anyone hiding behind Spurgeon, so he just guessed)…
August 17th, 2008 at 12:28 am
^He was dazed, confused, and seeing double!
August 17th, 2008 at 12:31 am
Merry,
I’m familiar with Apprising and Slice, and while I tend to on their side theologically, their style and tone is often overly harsh and prone to exaggeration. I get it.
Chris,
I’ve been lurking here for a little while, call it what you want but it usually reads like childish bitching, not always, but quite often.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:26 am
Jesse,
I ave never known one ODM to pray for me… here we call for prayer for these people often…
Our heart is for reconcilation… while it seems most ODM’s still live under the Law which was the ministry of Judgment and Condmnation.
My prayer is that they come to know the loving kindness of our Great God and to realize that the grace, mercy and kindness God showed them, is ot be extended to others… even those who are still unsaved… or they disagree with.
You even stated that you do not like their tone… yet, this is not about Calvinism versus other traditions… it is about misuding Jesus to judge and condemn others… when he did not even do that Himself… if Jesus did not condemn us but came to save us, do you think then that we have the right to do so…
The typical ODM calls people names, judges them by their own standard… which they see as better than God’s I guess, and then condemn people that are alread condemned or that they simply do not agree with their methods.
Really this site is quite different… if you truly are a lurker, then you might see this.
Be blessed,
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Jesse,
Just so Iggy knows, he is on my prayer sheet every day. I am considered an ODM, but really, I am a reconciliationist and am reformed, so that makes me an ODM.
merry:
Actually, Merry, I would use the scripture in Luke 8:5-8 to describe the soil of the heart and the response to the seed sown of the Gospel. There are four soils (heart/response) and one seed (the Gospel). The fear is that many churches- not just Granger- can produce a sort of false soil or ecology, one where the fruit (the Christian) will seem healthy and happy, but when the harvest day comes, many will run into the response of ‘I never knew you’ (Matthew 7)
This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert. That is not for a human to judge, though we do have the ability to look at fruit, we have the ability to examine actions that those who claim Christ take and determine if they should be fellowshipped with. If I see what I perceive to be a false convert, I don’t judge him or her, I witness to them! I simply encourage them to examine themselves under the light of 1 John.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:07 am
I think it is a very mature of GCC to reveal the results of their REVEAL survey. How many times do we actually take the time to asses the success or failures of our methods? Humanity love to stay ignorant about its failures. We are planning to do the REVEAL survey of our church next year. I am nervously looking forward to the results.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Pastorboy, I must say that your tone has improved a lot since I first started reading/commenting here. Iggy’s prayers for you must be working…
As for the results of your prayers for him… 
August 17th, 2008 at 10:14 am
=)
igs
August 17th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I am still waiting for PB’s response to the Tozer quote where Tozer disagrees with PB’s theology…
It is on the bait and switch post.
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Iggy, click on THIS link and be enlightened.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:22 am
But I am old school… what’s wrong with old school?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Old school…? Very emergent… Some more of that ancient practices?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Who have you reconciled with?
August 17th, 2008 at 10:45 am
As long as there are also some large plasma tv sets present.
igs
August 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Bo Diaz,
I am a reconciliationist, working with God by the power of the Holy Spirit to reconcile lost people to Him by proclaiming the good news.
http://www.pastorboy.wordpress.com explaines it very well.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Only the Elect of course… the rest be damned!
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Best line in the Slicecast, “Hey Jesus, pull my finger.” Classic Chris. Classic.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
So none then.
A stunning display of double speak on your part, worthy even of Orson Wells. Especially considering all the hit pieces you’ve written on individuals, you have more than a few people to be reconciled with.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Compare and contrast:
August 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
August 17th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Pastorboy,
“This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert.”
You’re doing a whole lot better than the ODM’s I’ve talked to who seemed to think they get to decide who is and who isn’t.
Maybe you could gently tell them what you just told me?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“This being said, no one should ever call someone a false convert.”
Sure you can, you should qualify the statement with “only God knows,” but there’s nothing wrong with telling a person that their salvation is in question. If you claim to be a Christian but live a completely unregenerate life, are you really saved? If you claim to be a Christian but deny essential, salvific doctrine, are you really saved?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Some of the comments had to do with a form of inclusivism, in other words can someone who has never heard the gospel still be saved? I do not believe that.
But my witnessing and intercession for the lost falls short of substantiating my doctrinal view. And in that light, I totally confront this preamble on CRN about inclusivism:
The actual piece was balanced and well witten, but the overt tone of doctrinal self righteousness in that statement leads me to ask this:
I am sure you’ve knocked on every door in your city, right? I am sure you spend many hours daily praying for missionaries to reach those who’ve never heard, right? I am sure you work a second job just so can send more money overseas to help reach those in darkness, right? I am sure you hand out scores of tracts every day, right? Your doctrinal view of those who’ve never heard has made you a witnessing spectacle, right?
I’m thinking wrong. It is acceptable to see Scripture as teaching some truth, it is never right to be prideful about it and belittle those who see it differently, especially when your behavior doesn’t seem to reveal a remarkable difference enanating from your Biblical view.
Oh yea, you probably believe in unconditional election and limited atonement so, really, who cares if they hear anyway.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
If you claim to be a Christian but ADD TO essential, salvidic doctrine, are you saved?
Baptism saves?
August 17th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Mark 16:16 says that belief + baptism = salvation.
Jesus did say it, doing what Jesus said is generally a good idea.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Show PB shows us salvatin comes by works? Are you saying it is your works that saves people?
Again John, there is so much you are missing.
Not sure who stated this quote… but if it is an ODM… It is very revealing.
WOW! So if you claim to be a Christian and
1. Deny Grace to others
2. Deny Mercy to others
3. Deny God’s loving kindness to others
4. Hate your brothers and sisters ( even struggle with hating them!)
5. Claim Jesus works on the Cross was not enough for all people as well as creation
6. Hold others to a standard of works to prove their salvation… your own standard not GOd’s
Man I could go on, but by this statement every ODM is condemned for ever to hell… by this quote! I would not go that far…
So, I guess yes, if someone denies those things and claims to be a Christian I would assume them misguided, unsaved… or and ODM. And even more shocking is … I agree with the quote completely.
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Rick: I am a Calvinist.
Jerry: I’m sorry.
jerry
August 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Man I could go on, but by this statement every ODM is condemned for ever to hell… by this quote!
Every ODM is guilty of the things on your list? That’s a bold statement.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
He also said sell all that you have to have eternal life. You take Scripture out of context. In your doctrinal view, John 3:16 is an incomplete deception and Paul’s “we are saved by grace through faith” is heresy.
Works salvation at its finest.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
BTW - if I took a church survey and 50% of my members said baptism saves I would be every bit as concerned as those who said that Jesus wasn’t the only way.
I would write a post about it and claim the pastor was doing a poor job of teaching!!
August 17th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
What’s out of context about Mark 16:16? Jesus said it while commissioning the disciples. The other verse you referenced was a directed at and intended for a very specific person, the “rich young ruler.” So yes, that verse out of context doesn’t work.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
John 3:16 is out of context and to a specific person? Paul’s saved by grace through faith is out of context? You cannot take one verse from one of the gospel and proclaim it as foundational upon which all salvation teachings must stand.
Show me where Paul said baptism saves.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
If baptism involves getting dunked in water, then that has nothing to do with being saved.
If baptism involves receiving the Holy Spirit, then yes, that’s a huge part of salvation.
John baptized with water, Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit.
For the record, I have yet to be dunked in water. I do plan to in the future, but for anyone who has not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, the effort is meaningless.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Very good, merry. You are saved by faith, period.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
“Sure you can, you should qualify the statement with “only God knows,” but there’s nothing wrong with telling a person that their salvation is in question.”
Except for the fact that you might be misssing something, come across as being self-righteous, not knowing the entire situation, being extremely rude, possibly prying into personal business that is between that person and God, and possibly taking the Lord’s name in vain, but besides all that, it’s always perfectly acceptable to call people false converts! I can’t imagine how it would ever be taken the wrong way!
August 17th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
I should clarify that I believe if a Christian close to you is seriously falling off the deep end and is in serious danger of harming himself and his relationship with God permanently, then yes, taking them aside and meeting with a pastor to discuss their salvation is strongly recommended.
However, to just use the term “false convert” about anyone and everyone who does not agree with your own personal theology, like I’ve seen happen so many times, is just nothing but rude, disgusting, and should not be happening.
The term “false convert” should not ever be used flippantly. Unfortunately, that’s the only way I’ve ever seen it used.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Merry, I have to disagree about baptism (as in getting dunked) having nothing to do with salvation. I know this conversation has been had before, and I guarentee that not all the writers here even agree. But the word for baptism means immersed. There are many passages referring to immersion into Christ.
I would agree that the giving of the Holy Spirit should be a part of it or else it doesn’t mean anything, but the two are linked in scripture, to separate them as either/or is unbiblical.
Paul did teach about baptism. Gal. 3:27, Romans 6, and I find Acts 22:16 to be very revealing.
Also, immersion into Christ is not a work. The work is done by the Spirit.
Rick has a wierd hermaneutic, so we just ignore him :).
August 17th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
I would also like to point out that faith, confessing the name of Christ, repentance, and baptism are all listed throughout scripture as part of salvation. All of them together are a part of faith and the exclusion of any one of them is a denial of faith. I realize that’s strong language, but even if a person believes that baptism is an act of obedience, to not do it would then be an act of disobedience and therefore not in faith.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
“Rick has a wierd hermaneutic, so we just ignore him :).”
Well then, I guess I have a weirder hermaneutic, so you can choose to ignore me, too!
Sure, I believe baptism is a big part of making a commitment. I’m just saying that I can’t believe that a person who has never been dunked in water but has been a committed believer in every other way would be thrown into hell just for that.
How did we get on the topic of baptism, anyway?
August 17th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
You cannot have it both ways. If Merry is not baptized, she/he is not saved. And if a person gets baptized believing it is just symbolic, that person is not saved. Unless you massage your doctrine with some wierd hermeneutic!
You must be consistent.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
“she/he”?
I’m offended!
I’m a giiirl! *sniff*
August 17th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Sorry sister!
Ken called me a tattletale. I am calling his ISP. I demand satisfaction.
You killed my father, prepare to die!!
August 17th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Jesse,
OK I might know of one that may not fit the list… but take one of those things from Christianity and it becomes a religion that has no life… for these only come from Christ… and one must know Christ to receive them.
And yes most are as this list describes and believe me I have talked to more than most people… more than you probably have… and it always ends with them being very mean and nasty… with my salvation even being questioned.
So… I think my statement is both bold and true.
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
But Rick, then I would be calling into question somebody’s salvation and I personally don’t do that (at least not out loud and in public. I try not to do it at all, but sometimes…). I do not question. I do teach and read scripture.
Merry, be very careful with the line of thought that you can’t believe God would do such and such. We see in scripture, who God is, what He has done, some things He will do, and what He wants us to do. Which one of those things are we responsible for?
Why do we have such an issue with these things? Because somebody says something about how it all works that we disagree with? Do any of us really understand how it all works? Rick, we place our faith in Christ, not in baptism. So no, I don’t think a person has to understand it and believe a certain thing about baptism for God to do what He promised He would do. I’ve never met a person who has been immersed that does believe that immersion is necessary for salvtion that fully understood what Christ did for them on the cross, let alone how God works in all of it and how His Spirit indwells believers.
Merry, read those passages of scripture I quoted earlier. Read all of acts and look at the role of baptism (it shouldn’t take you too long.) When were people immersed into Christ throughout Acts? I encourage you to read that, and then think about how to respond. I don’t want you to change how you look at baptism, I want you to change how you respond to God. And I in no way doubt your faith.
I’m glad you both got my joke as well, the smiley face didn’t show up. And Merry, we would never ignore you, you are one of the few females that participate around here. We want to keep you around.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Most tattletalers tend toward the truth and have a sense of justice… so I guess Ken is acknowledging you are right Rick… as most that complain about tattletalers are guilty of something…
iggy
August 17th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
merry, I am not offended you are a girl…
(reading it like an ODM)
iggy
August 18th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Now that the thread is about baptism…
I have been talking to some friends lately about baptism and in these conversations some interesting things came up which I am looking for sources for. Perhaps some of you know of such sources?
- In Jesus’ times baptism was not only a Jewish custom but some pagan cultures also had some forms of baptism that signified either washing off of sins or starting anew.
- Most rabbi’s practiced baptism. A symbolism of their baptism is the laying off of believe in something or someone’s teachings and taking up the teaching of the rabbi.
- This last point is why Peter asked people (in Acts) with which baptism they where baptised (John’s or Jesus’).
August 18th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Christian P, thanks for your concern. I have read those passages before.
Let me pose my own situation to you, plainly, so you know exactly where I am coming from.
I am 18 years old. My parents would prefer me not to get baptized until at least 21 years old, for several reasons. One is that they want me making a serious commitment on my own, so I’m not just “riding” on my parent’s faith. There are other reasons that I won’t get into right now. I’m choosing to honor my father and mother, and waiting till I’m a mature adult. Let me make it very clear that I DO NOT have a problem at all with baptism. I am not questioning God AT ALL about His will on that.
But if I die within the next 3 years, will I go to hell? (That’s a rhetorical question). Will I not be a true Christian for the next 3 years? From what God has communicated with me thus far in my personal relationship with Him, that’s not the case.
Iggy, good, I’m glad you’re not offended that I’m a girl, because I plan to stay that way for a long, LOOOOONG time!
August 18th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Merry-
(psst, you’re fine).
Since your question was rhetorical I won’t offer an answer but you can guess what mine would be
In the early church baptisms were held off until Easter morning. For the year leading up to that catechumenates (those who were preparing to be baptized) would learn what it means to be a Christian and determine whether or not they really wanted to be baptized. Sounds like you are doing much the same thing.
peace.
BTW, I believe in infant baptism and don’t care whether one is immersed or sprinkled. If we truly believe it is God that does it, not ourselves, than the means or times do not matter much at all.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I happen to have unassailable proof that baptism saves. I was saved in March of 1975 - dramatically changed and regenerated - and was not baptized for two more years which I then baptized MYSELF in the Gulf of Mexico.
So all the systematic theology concerning baptism “added nothing to me”.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
The first sentence should read “does not save”. I believe you understood that!!
August 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
for by doctrine AND grace ye are saved through faith AND mental assent to correct opinions…
August 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
not by good works, but the ones about your bedroom activities are still the most important and being angry at people who disagree with you, lest anyone should boast, but you can boast about the aforementioned issues…
beloved.
elect.
amen
August 18th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Rick,
Salt water invalidates baptism. Sorry, yours didn’t count. Do you have a swimming pool? Wait, Chlorine. Dang!
August 18th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Rick,
You wrote: “John 3:16 is out of context and to a specific person? Paul’s saved by grace through faith is out of context? You cannot take one verse from one of the gospel and proclaim it as foundational upon which all salvation teachings must stand. Show me where Paul said baptism saves”
Well, Peter said that baptism ‘now saves us’ (1 Peter 3:21). But Peter probably doesn’t count.
Anyhow, I might agree that Peter’s words can easily be stripped of their theological context. However, I would say this. If baptism doesn’t ’save’ us in the sense of a ‘work’ saving u