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.

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.

The third commandment of the summary of Torah (the Ten Commandments):

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.

In the list of the Ten Commandments, this one, more than any other, seems a bit out of place - particularly in its most used context. However, when examined in the light of its full context in scripture and its originally understood context, I think there is a lesson for all of us to grasp.

Vows and Oaths and Empty Words

Probably the way this verse is most often interpreted is that we should not use God’s (or Jesus’) name as an expletive, or otherwise extraneous manner. This is very wise, and I am sure a part of what is covered by the command. However, if we stop there, we completely miss the heart of this command.

To ‘misuse’ God’s name, or to take in vain (i.e. to ‘make it nothing’) is to attach it to something that to which it does not belong. It is claiming that God has blessed or cursed something, someone or some activity based on your own purposes. Or, as Andy Stanley notes, “the original intent of this command was to prevent people from attaching God’s name to purposes that are not His.”

To take God’s name in vain - to make it nothing - basically is man’s way of pitting God against Himself. Continue Reading »

Over at Apprising Ministries, Ken Silva responds to a letter from a reader. Here are a few excerpts that are quite telling of his attitude when it comes to his status

The following is based on an unsolicited email I received here at Apprising Ministries. Please understand that I do not think any pastor-teacher is above reproach [insert typical Emerging Church whining here], etc. [emphasis mine]
What I wish to bring out is how easy, and I’ll argue arrogant as well, it is for people to simply disregard the teaching of someone like myself who has been studying the fields of apologetics, Comparative Religion and evangelizing non-Christian cults for 21 years….

You said: “I was very surprised to see your negative views on Christian meditation in the article CHRISTIAN MEDITATION WITH MANTRA: DOM JOHN MAIN.” So let me put it another way: I am very surprised to see you so quick in attempting to instruct someone like me whom Jesus has called as one of His pastor-teachers. [emphasis mine]

My dad always told me that you could tell alot about someone based on how they respond to correction or constructive criticism. This correspondence to Apprising was in no way instructional or a harsh rebuke. It sounded like an honest reader that was trying to understand where Silva was coming from. Most of the email was actually the reader asking him questions. But, Ken strikes back with his lofty credentials and how a man of his status should not be quickly instructed. How did Silva know that this reader had not spend some time looking at the Apprising articles and made an educated and simply inquisitive inquiry. On top of that, he sends such mixed statements: no pastor is above reproach, but people should not instruct someone who is a pastor-teacher in this manner.

Anyhow, this all too telling of the attitude of both Apprising and CRN:
We are educated, anointed and experienced, therefore we get to criticize whoever we want, whenever we want. And, you better not say anything about it.

A couple years ago, while I was teaching at an art & music camp on the Rez in North Dakota, several of the other volunteers and I (particularly the guy who hosts this website) decided to put together a music video in our spare time (primarily an evening break).

The song we chose was from a disc of songs submitted to Word Records by amateur acts (see this story for links to several of them) that never made it (if you listen to them, you’ll understand - particularly this one, whose chorus will put you in stitches).

Below is the result of our ‘hard work’:

While it contains a whole lot of ‘in-jokes’ from the week (which are never nearly as funny when explained), it served its purposes as some funny entertainment, and it also reminded us that sometimes we take ourselves way too seriously. (For anyone wondering, I’m the dude in the pool with a guitar)

As I get ready to head out to do another camp with this group of brothers and sisters - along with some more I’ve not met yet - and as I dust off the ‘demo album’, seeing the video was just another reminder of how sometimes it’s just good to take the time to laugh at yourself…

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.

what happens when your poster boys for truth, doctrine and all that is good in the world begin to live a purpose driven life? Well, you have “no choice but to issue this warning to the body of Christ” [link added] Looks like Greg Laurie is joining forces with Rick Warren, and the ODMs are not too happy. This is one crazy case of guilt by association.

story submitted on our submissions page by Richard Abanes

That if you:

A. confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,”

B. believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead,

you will be saved.

-The Scriptures

Rick Warren’s Gospel presentation from PDL:

First believe God loved you and made you for His purposes. Believe that God has chosen to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you. Believe that no matter what you’ve done, God wants to forgive you. Receive Jesus into your life as your lord and savior. Receive his forgiveness for your sins. So I invite you to bow your heads and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity. “Jesus, I believe in You, and I receive You.”

John MacArthur’s required additions to the gospel presentation for salvation

* Repentance
* Know who the family of God is
* A sense of eternal judgment
* A discussion on hell
* Self-denial
* Laying down the law of God against which the sinner is broken
* A sense of guilt in the person
* Sense of condemnation in the person
* A fear of eternal torment in the person
* An understanding of God’s wrath
* The sinner should be crushed under the weight of his violation of the law of God

One might be guilty of laying it on a little light, the other just might be guilty of turning the already narrow road into a tiny beaten path. Let the crusades continue.

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 »

Look, I am fine if you have legitimate beef with Rick Warren’s programs. I am fine if you express realistic frustration over realistic issues with Purpose Driven. The problem is, half of the stuff on the internet from the ODMs is poorly supported, or over exaggerated. There is very little that actually has strong content against Warren. Here is part 5 of a series called “Spirit-Led or Purpose-Driven“, as if it were one or the other. The title immediately told me where this author, Berit Kjos, was going. Here is just on example of the logic that these guys are using.

“Begin by assessing your gifts and abilities. Take a long, honest look at what you are good at and what you’re not good at. Ask other people. Paul advised, ‘Try to have a sane estimate of your capabilities.’ [Romans 12:3b, The Message] Make a list. Ask other people for their candid opinion…. Spiritual gifts and natural abilities are always confirmed by others.” [4, page 250]

They are? What if your spiritual gift has nothing to do with your natural talents or personal preferences? What if God gave you gifts that would show His exceeding greatness, not yours? In stark contrast to Pastor Warren’s view of spiritual gifts, the apostle Paul said,
[I Cor 2:1-5]
Did you hear that? God uses weak but faithful believers who will demonstrate His power, not their own talents. In fact, our own talents are often the opposite of our spiritual gifts. History shows us how some of God’s most powerful messengers served in total weakness, all the more demonstrating the amazing power of the Holy Spirit. Now as then, many of His servants come to Him as quiet, shy introverts who would fear speaking their name in a group and would shudder at the improbable thought of ever speaking in front of a group.

Wait, where did Warren say that your gifts are given to demonstrate your own ability and power? Where did Warren say that all abilities need to show how great you are? Oh wait, he didn’t. Nor did he say that your spiritual gifts and natural abilities have anything to do with each other, besides that fact that they are both confirmed in community. I am amazed how many times the ODMs will do this! Rick Warren says X, but they go on attacking Y — when he never even said Y! I am not up to speed in all of my logic rhetoric, but this sounds like a straw man argument. Kojos is attacking a premise that Rick Warren never stated.

He goes on to misrepresent Saddleback’s SHAPE assessment (which I actually think it is on the few useful tools in the PD program to help people discover how God has made them). Kojos again writes about Warren blurring the lines between natural abilities and spiritual gifts. He connects the A in Shape (discovering your “abilities”) with the S (discovering your “spiritual gifts”). The fact that Warren puts them in two separate categories says a lot. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that they are different, but Kojos insists that natural abilities and spiritual gifts are synonymous in Warren’s mind. Here is one example from his article.

“Just start serving, experimenting with different ministries and then you’ll discover your gifts,” said Pastor Warren in The Purpose-Driven Life. “…I urge you never to stop experimenting…. I know a woman in her nineties who runs and wins 10K races and didn’t discover that she enjoyed running until she was seventy-eight!” [4, page 251]

So she discovered that she enjoys running races. But what does a new hobby or physical exercise have to do with discovering spiritual gifts? Pastor Warren’s next statement doesn’t help answer that question:

So, I looked up that excerpt in PD Life. The first part of the quote was in the first paragraph on page 251, the last two were in another. Plus, he failed to quote this line right before the story of the seventy-eight year old biker

I have met many people who have discovered hidden talents in their seventies and eighties. [emphasis mine]

Again, Kjos twists the quote to seem like Warren is saying that biking is spome type of spitritual gift. Warren makes it clear when he is talking about spiritual gifts, and when he is talking about natural abilities. And Warren’s whole premise for people finding their abilities is so they can use them for the glory of God. It’s ironic that so many ODMs accuse Warren of only using sections of verses to fit his agenda.

Again, I am not a Rick Warren apologist. But, if you are going to attack someone on an international scale in the name of God, please do so with some degree of legitimacy. I am tired of people using isegesis when “discerning” other people’s ministry. They come with a preconceived premise, and then extract anything they possibly can to support their claims.

**UPDATE**

Kjos is not a dude.