CRN.Info and Analysis

I woke up this morning to this. I have to say it wasn’t the best thought as I sipped my extra dry cappuccino at Pete’s Coffee and Tea. I actually began to feel incredibly sorry for the many people who read this and will actually believe it. I mean, imagine walking through life wondering if the purpose God has for you is a good one, or one that will lead to total destruction. How would that change how we live… in complete and udder fear of the future. I mean, life becomes one big turn of the dice. Will God give me a good purpose in life, or will He not?

You see, this is the God of illogical predestination. He randomly chooses some to have a good purpose in life, and randomly chooses some who will not. And, you will / can never know which one he will choose for you. We are simply pawns on some divine chess board.

Now, we may not have the ideal life by human standards. I am sure that Jim Elliot was not planning on being speared to death, leaving his family behind at such a young age. But was his purpose still good? Sure. Hundreds came to the faith. And, if you ask Elisabeth Elliot if she has any regrets over the situation, she would probably tell you the same. His life had a beautiful purpose. Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. was probably not planning on being assassinated. But the good and blessed purpose of His life has left ripples in eternity. For those that follow the Lord, there is a great purpose for our lives (and Rick Warren would agree that following God is the prerequisite for having a good purpose in life).

If course, the ironic thing is that most of the people who would hold to this view probably believe that they all have a good purpose in life. This poster and ideology would only apply to anyone other than themselves and their pack of Christian friends.

I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphs, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.  And they were calling to one another:

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;

the whole earth is full of his glory.”

At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

Then one of the seraphs flew to me with a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar.  With it he touched my mouth and said, “See, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away and your sin atoned for.”

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”

And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

While it’s somewhat old news (at least to many of the writers here), Ray Comfort has the dubious distinction, not only of speaking at an upcoming Health & Wealth Gospel conference, and not only of being a royal jerk in his actual witness (i.e. the way he treats the other street performers at Surf City’s Pier Plaza), but today one of his old bits of insanity received a dubious distinction:

It made the front-page of FARK, probably the only news-blog I read with any regularity (though I try to avoid many of the comments threads, which are long, nasty and brutish, to be nice). It was also FARK that picked up Ingrid’s attack on VeggieTales a couple years back that brought SoL briefly (and sadly) into the secular public eye.

Now it’s Ray Comfort and his banana act.

Which is pitiful.

It seems that an atheist site took hold of this and ran with it, and it’s been posted to FARK (which has also been demonstrated to be the #1 source for comedy writers of late-night TV and talk radio). So, don’t be surprised if this shows up in embarrassing places in the coming week or so. With some luck or providence, there will be better things out there to make fun of.

Here’s the running commentary on FARK on the article in question. To be clear, though, I don’t endorse anything that you’re likely to find there - it was already pretty bad 10 comments in - so proceed with caution.

—UPDATE 8:00 a.m. 7/3—

After sleeping, praying and reflecting on it, I should not have submitted this article in the shape that it’s in.  The key message I was trying to get across -

that when we purposely engage the public square, we should do so in ways that are not offensive (even though the message of the gospel may bring offense) or pathetic

- was completely muddled and ill-thought-out in its presentation.  A lot more thought and prayer should have been engaged before hitting ’submit’.  However, since we do not try to cover up mistakes here by deleting things and pretending they didn’t happen, please feel free to stop by and say “Chris, you should have been much more considerate and reflective before hitting ’submit’” because, if you were to say this, you would be correct.

In a recent post over at Slice, Ingrid returns to a common theme - music. Her take is that certain styles of music are acceptable and certain styles are not - and this seems to apply to everyone. She offers a polemic by her husband to make her point.

The essay by Tom Schlueter reminded me of the comments by John MacArthur regarding the wearing of suits in church. On the one hand both the opinion of MacArthur and the opinion of Schlueter make sense… they even have some validity. Yet the shared flaw that renders their opinions incapable of being applied universally is their ethnocentric position.

In other words, their instructions may have value – in their narrow context. The problem is they both elevate their preferences to universal codes that all must follow.

For example: Tom Schlueter gives two examples of purely instrumental brass music – in the style of swing and fanfare, respectively. In the first “The trumpets led the brass in a clear call to listeners: get up and dance” the other calls the listeners to “Come and worship God.”

His conclusion: The [fanfare] brass in the second example tells us there is royalty present. The percussion at the end of the fanfare speaks not of dance and flesh, but of honor and respect and reverence. Different message entirely. And he is right – swing brass bids us come and dance, fanfare brass bids us recognize authority and honor.

But his application is flawed. He rightly differentiates the two biddings, but then sets up a false dichotomy – that honor and respect are valid modes of worship, but celebration and dance are of the flesh. His conclusion of swing, if used as a call to worship would be “Get up and dance… Women should start flaunting their stuff in front of men on the dance floor. This would not be worship at all, but rather a gross insult to the Almighty.”

I’ve been in worship services where people danced – I doubt God was insulted.

The problem is not one of style of music, but context and assumption. First the assumption, Schlueter first assumes dance is fleshly and swing calls women to flaunt their stuff – this I will summarily dismiss. The context is worthy of discussion.

Tom Schlueter uses a 9-11 memorial as an example of appropriate music – solemn music would be appropriate, a Broadway tune… not so. I agree. And if the point of worship is the “honor and respect and reverence” of God, then a fanfare might work. Where he fails is the recognition that maybe the point of worship is (at times) to dance and celebrate. And in this swing may work well.

If Schlueter had stuck to an argument that music should evoke appropriate responses given the situation of worship, then I could have agreed. But he could not, he had to insert his cultural version of what is appropriate in style and overlay those expectations on us all.

So, Amazon sent me Coldplay’s new album, Viva la Vida on Tuesday, and I got to really listen to it yesterday.  Now I normally wouldn’t post about a “secular” band’s album here, but listening to the title track, I was struck by how fitting it was to the current predicament a lot of the institutional church finds itself in.  The song, Viva la Vida, is told from the perspective of a king who has lost his power.  His once great standing in the world is gone, and he’s left with only memories of the golden years.

I wonder sometimes if that isn’t why we see the sort of reaction we do from some people in the church.  It is not an easy thing to lose power and influence.  As humans, we naturally crave it.  Evangelicals have held a lot of sway in America for the last 50 years or so, and I think we are now arriving at a place where a lot that power has left or is the process of leaving.  The question becomes, how will the respond?  Will we grasp for power, or we embrace our lack of power and serve others?  Will we be content with “sweeping the streets”?

Here are the lyrics:

Viva la Vida

I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own

I used to roll the dice
Feel the fear in my enemies eyes
Listen as the crowd would sing:
“Now the old king is dead, long live the king!”

One minute I held the key
Next the walls were closed on me
And I discovered that my castles stand
Upon pillars of salt, and pillars of sand

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword, my shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
Once you go there was never, never an honest word
That was when I ruled the world

It was the wicked and wild wind
Blew down the doors to let me in
Shattered windows and the sound of drums
People couldn’t believe what I’d become

Revolutionaries wait
For my head on a silver plate
Just a puppet on a lonely string (Ooooh)
Ah, who would ever want to be king?

I hear Jerusalem bells a ringing
Roman cavalry choirs are singing
Be my mirror, my sword, and shield
My missionaries in a foreign field
For some reason I can’t explain
I know Saint Peter will call my name
Never an honest word
But that was when I ruled the world

By the way, this is the song that is on the new Itunes commercial, and, yes I do realize there is some level of irony in Apple using a song about the loss of one’s power in an ad.

Like many conversations, there are certain subjects which rise to the surface from time-to-time, often (and hopefully) becoming clearer over time. One such subject that probably bears another go is that of the language we use - words and sentences.

Setting the Stage

As part of the baseline for this discussion, I would like to borrow and briefly touch on some concepts from this article last fall. Specifically, there are three ways of classifying behavioral beliefs:

Absolutes - those things which are cross-cultural truths, which are demanded or forbidden. To do (or not do) such things is sinful, regardless of the cultural context.

Convictions - those things which are personally convicting, actions which a person believes they should (or should not) do. To do (or not do) such things would be sinning against one’s conscience, and therefore would be sinful. However, convictions are limited to the person or faith community (as with binding and loosing) and cannot be demanded cross-culturally.

Preferences - those things which are personally preferred, based on traditions or likes and dislikes.

Legalism occurs when Preferences or Convictions are raised to the level of Absolutes. This is the sin of the Pharisees. Relativism occurs when Absolutes are lowered to Convictions or Preferences. This is the sin of the Pagans and Hedonists.

Both are to be avoided.

The Words We Use

The Bible has a number of things to say about the words we use. Just a few relevant examples: Continue Reading »

Since the release of his first book, The Irresistible Revolution, Shane Claiborne has both risen to prominence and taken a lot of flak in Evangelical circles.  He is one of those people who people either seem to love or hate.  He is one of the few people who seems to have the ability to remain within the mainstream of American church culture, yet offer some harsh critiques at the same time.  All the while he never comes off as mean-spirited or like he has an ax to grind.

His new book, Jesus for President, a collaboration with Chris Haw, is in some ways a sequel to the first book, but it goes in some unexpected directions along the way.  With a subtitle, Politics for Ordinary Radicals, some might expect that this book would be Claiborne’s take on the current political scene in the U.S. or some sort of alternative Christian voting guide.  While, the book is certainly political in the sense it talk about political issues, it never really delves into the American political system.  In fact a strong theme throughout the book is the futility of expecting any real change to come through the political process, much like the point that Greg Boyd made in his 2005 release, The Myth of a Christian Nation.  That certainly doesn’t mean Claiborne doesn’t have opinions about issues, though.

First, I think I need to say something about the actual book itself.  The book is full color paperback, and nearly every page has unique, hand-drawn (or at least made to look hand-drawn) artwork pertaining to the content on the page.  It is obvious that the was a labor of love for the authors.  The book is nearly 350 pages long, but in actual content it is probably comparable to other paperbacks half that length.  It’s a pretty quick read.

The book is broken up into four sections, and the first three are largely historical in nature.  In Section 1, the Old Testament narrative including Creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the call of Abraham are reviewed.  The authors make special note that all throughout this time, God was working with humanity to bring redemption and restoration to the fallen world.  They talk of God’s plan for the Israelites, and His frustration with them for neglecting their calling.  They talk about God’s giving in to the Israelites demands for a king, and the prophets that were sent to keep these kings in check.  An interesting discussion in this section has to do with the Levitical laws and festivals the Jewish people were to observe.  A major point of these laws and observances, according to the authors, was to set Israel apart as an example for other nations to see.

At their core, these Hebrew laws were ways God was protecting the integrity of a new humanity.  It was not simply for their sake but for the sake of creation.  For the original plan of God was that Israel would be set apart to redeem the nations.  This was not a plan to reform the pagan nations around it - like making the neighboring Assyrian empire better at doing empire.  Rather, God would save the world through fascination, by setting up an alternative society on the margins of empire for the world to come and see what a society of love looks like.  It would be the city on a hill that God would use to light up the world, drawing the world back to God.

Continue Reading »

As I sit here, finishing my lunch, I am struck by a recent comment from Nathan on another thread:

Every church is driven by some program, structure, or church plan.

Exactly.

I’m going to be a bit pragmatic here for a moment. Please don’t point this out - I already know it, and I only bring this up because it may demonstrate a truth apparent in many experiences that have been shared:

/PRAGMATISM [ON]

One of the key axioms of organizational theory teaches that organizations are typically built in such a way as to achieve the results for which they were designed. My initial response to this was “duh”, but having seen it applied as an organizational project manager, I see the truth in this demonstrated in likely and unlikely ways.

One manifestation of this axiom is that organizations built around a single individual lose operational effectiveness when they reach 100-125 people. When an organization is led by a small group (1-15 people) with tight control over the organization, its effectiveness reaches a maximum at 350-400 people. When control is turned over to a second tier of hierarchy, its organizational capability expands to an operational maximum of about 1,000-1250. The next tier goes to about 3,500-4,000; then 10,000 and so on… [please realize I’m simplifying the org structural changes between models for the sake of brevity].

When you examine ‘church growth’ literature, you will find that these same ‘plateaus’ are often recognized and cited. You will also find that many ’stagnating’ churches seem to be hovering around these marks, as well.

So - recognizing this, if you are in leadership in a ’stagnating’ church at one of these tiers, chances are you’ve hit the maximum operating efficiency for the way you have structured the workings of your church. Additionally, you are probably being pressured to ‘grow’ the church in numbers. [There may or may not be spiritual issues, as well, but for the sake of argument, we will assume that these issues are not extraordinary when compared to the norm experienced in most churches today.]

All too often, the ‘answer’ to the stagnation is to simply try to change the programming - either in a ‘home grown’ manner, or ‘off-the-shelf’ (PD, 9 Marks, G12, etc.). Unfortunately, this response only deals with one of the two (or more) underlying issues. Bringing more people into an organization that is already near its maximum operating capacity without addressing the operating capacity, itself, is a recipe for disaster. [Noting that if there are extraordinary spiritual issues going on, as well, leaving these readdressed is even more disasterous.]

To be blunt - if your church has organizational problems before you change its programs, changing the programs won’t fix anything.

Unfortunately, issues of large organizational structure aren’t directly addressed in Scripture. The primary model at the end of the Era of the Apostles was the house church which, while not without its own unique problems, requires little organizational thought beyond having 2-3 men in pastoral roles. Thus, most churches have never diagnosed the organizational problems as problems, and end up hurting a lot of people in the process of changing.

So, from a truly pragmatic standpoint, if the church needs to make changes in its programming, etc., to better meet the needs of the community and to grow, two options need to be considered:

1 - Plant a new church, allowing the new church to be a ‘change agent’, focusing primarily on reaching the unchurched or disconnected.

2 - Go ahead and make the programming adjustments, while making the necessary organizational changes that will support the shift from ‘tradition’.

Unfortunately, many pastors like being king of their domain and are quite loath to relinquish their current level of control (as codified in the org structure), as are many elder boards, as well. So, they forego #1 and attempt #2 without the other change that must occur. Since PD is one of the most popular means of ‘changing programming’, it (and Rick Warren) then become the whipping boys for why strife entered the local church, when the root cause is sitting on the doorstep of the local church:

1) What is the motivation for growth? Is it from God or from ego?

2) Is growth the answer to stagnation? Will simply ‘preaching the Word’ - or dealing with some specific sins and sinful attitudes - end it?

3) Are the leaders, who are looking for ‘change’ to ‘fix’ the problems, willing to radically change their ways of working, as well?

All too often, though, such spiritual and organizational questions are left unanswered - dooming the organization to fail, and ensuring that people will be hurt in the process.

/PRAGMATISM [OFF]

Check out this really good post from Team Pyro (yes, you read that right). They have been writing a series on faith and politics. Anyone who thinks that we are a “Christian Nation” because biblical moral are made into laws has something else coming. Anyhow, check it out.

I’ve been re-reading Philip Yancey’s book called What’s So Amazing About Grace? In the beginning he shares this story that a friend of his told him.

A prostitute came to me in wretched straits, homeless, sick, unable to buy food for her two-year-old daughter. Through sobs and tears she told me she had been renting out her daughter– two years old! —to men interested in kinky sex. She made more renting out her daughter for an hour than she could earn on her own in a night. She had to do it, she said, to support her own drug habit. I could hardly bear hearing her sordid story. For one thing it made me legally liable—I am required to report cases of child abuse. I had no idea what to say to this woman.

At last I asked if she had ever thought of going to a a church for help. I will never forget the look of pure, naïve shock that crossed her face. “Church!” She cried. “Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They’d just make me feel worse.”

Yancey continues,

“What struck me about my friend’s story is that prostitutes much like this woman fled toward Jesus, not away from him. The worse a person felt about herself, the more likely she saw Jesus as a refuge. Has the church lost that gift? Evidently the down-and-out, who flocked to Jesus when he lived on earth, no longer felt welcome among his followers. What has happened?

I’ve pondered this question for years. What has happened? How have we as the church lost our way? When did it become about being right instead of being refuge? When did it come about posting our credentials? When did it become about creating mocking names about offering children to Molech? When did it become Ok to mock and jeer those we disagree with or those we agree with who aren’t as mean as we want them to be? When did Jesus tell people to take their plank and shove it? How many people have walked away from the church because those who made it up forgot how dirty they truly were? Somehow, we’ve lost our way as a church. Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the blogosphere where people can hide behind any name they want and say whatever they want to say. Someone can call 15 year old girls painted whores of Sodom and write Tabloid titles because they don’t have to see the pain they are causing people. Somehow, the political party you belong to is more important than the family you belong to. If we believe we are criticizing children of God then we are family. If one is not criticizing God’s children then we’re violating all sorts of Scriptures not in the criticism but in the name calling. Lines are being drawn not about salvation but about what is worn on Sunday’s to church.

And the whole time people who’s lives are being blown apart just keep on dying. They just keep on living the wrong way because Darn It, I AM RIGHT!!! One camp picks apart a person in the other camp because he doesn’t go far enough down the Theological trail with them. They may agree that one goes to Heaven by believing on the work on Christ but down the path they disagree so it’s Ok to tear each other apart. I wonder, does this make you as sick as it does me?

Here’s what the Apostle Paul had to say about it,

The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

I wonder how many people have been devoured by someone who “was right” and “justified.”