CRN.Info and Analysis

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.

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 »

We’ve had a number of questions about why we’ve not addressed the ODM response to Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival. The answer is pretty simple - because the ODM’s, in general (when they aren’t lumping the ECM, Granger Community Church, Rick Warren or their other favorite whipping-boys in with Bently & Co.) have it right - the guy’s a huckster and the ‘revival’ is downright wacky.

While we’re at it - just in case anyone asks:

• Fred Phelps is a hate-monger who does a disservice to modern Christianity
• The Church of Jesus Christ & the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) is not a Christian denomination
• The Unification Church is not a Christian denomination
• The Universalist Unitarian church is not a Christian denomination
• The health & wealth gospel is a lie and is antithetical to the Kingdom of God
• The sky is blue
• Water is wet
• Most politicians lie to get votes

I hope this clears up where we stand on the issue of the circus in Lakeland.

When I checked Slice this morning, I was stunned to hear that Granger Church had flipped the audience the bird during their easter service. This was something that I had to see for myself, so I checked out the video. I was a little disappointed, as I really was in need of some good drama to jump start my day.

The video in question was simply a new fad in YouTube videos, where lyrics to a song are drawn on fingers and then shown moving with the music. In this case, the word “make” was written on the middle finger, and was raised when the word was sung. This was not the performer “giving fellow Christians, and the Lord, the finger”, as Ingrid would suggest. It would be very hard to watch that video think that the intent was to flip the audience off.

Now, could Granger Church have used some tact in making this art piece? Certainly. At some point in rehearsals, someone should have said “hey, someone might get confused with the middle finger being held up alone.” But for Ingrid to say this is obscene, and assume that they were doing this to flip the audience off, is rediculous. I sometimes wonder how much time the ODMs spend poking around on the internet to find one headline that will make them the best Christian tabloid of the day. There is a big difference between having the spirit of discernment, and getting up in everyone’s business.

Oh, and she never mentioned the words of the pastor following the art piece… “I have good news, Jesus Christ is alive, now and forever more, the crucified on has risen from the grave, and he has ascended to the right hand of God, and he is the sovereign king and lord of all who live and all who have ever lived. He is worthy of our praise.” Funny thing… never heard about his extremely biblical sermon from that morning on Slice.

Last Sunday morning, one of my friends told me to look-up a video she’d seen on GodTube, which I got around to doing.

As an ex-theater major (turned chemical engineer - go figure), I have always been wary of the use of drama in corporate worship settings. In some ways, I think it has been the quality of thought, writing and production often absent - and the feeling of being ‘tacked on’ or ‘disconnected’ from the service, as a whole - that has led to this apprehension.

However, I found myself surprised and moved by this one:

As I hear more and more in my workplace about the power of images over words in current culture, I wonder if well-done elements like this one might have more of a place for effective outreach – when combined with sound teaching, of course – as we look to teach and evangelize, particularly youth…

The important thing, I think, though is to be wary of what we lose in visual presentation, aware of what we gain by it, and that we supplement the visual/experiential with, at least, the bare minimum of exposition to interpret the visual ‘narrative’…

In my time as a Training & Development professional, I learned that one of the ‘rules of thumb’ in the trade is called the “70-20-10 rule”. Teens and adults tend to learn and retain based upon: 70% experience, 20% relationships and 10% expositional/didactic teaching. So, the key to training people is to leverage the 90% that is not in the ‘classroom’ or reading - the use of music and art taps into the 70%…

When you look back at the church, prior to the invention of the printing press and prior to the ability to easily duplicate images, the use of imagery within the architecture and traditions of the church was much more prevalent than the past several hundred years. The use of illumination, as in the Book of Kells, and the use of iconography were ways in which the church used images to convey the truths of the Bible. Because most of the people could not read nor understand Latin, these methods of teaching, learning and experience were effective. However, when worshipers started behaving in ways that worshiped the icons and venerated the images, their usefulness was outstripped. The icons, in and of themselves, were not evil, but for some, they were being used in a way that was so.

In the same way, I see churches who use artistic expressions, displaying truths of Christ, as something that can be very helpful - particularly in light of the ways adults, especially, learn.

The danger lies in idolizing the methods and missing the message.

To demonize the method or to insist the message be expressed in a singular manner is not the proper response. Instead, it takes the involvement of the local shepherd to gauge the pulse of his sheep, and to make adjustments accordingly…

I thought this comment by new commenter, Chad, was rather insightful, demonstrating a truth I’ve tried to convey in the past, though much more ham-handedly than he has elegantly phrased.  In answer to the question “what would you consider ‘heresy’”, he writes:

Making works necessary for salvation. I would qualify this, though, by saying that our Roman Catholic friends are not heretics in this regard. When I say “works as necessary for salvation” it is to say that grace is being denied as free gift (or more to the point, that there is no need of grace), that God in Jesus has not done something to open the door to heaven.

I am quick to point out that many of my protestant brothers and sisters are no different than our RCC brothers and sisters - they have simply changed the system of “works” from one of penance to one of mental assent to a set of propositional truths or doctrines. While not “heresy” I consider it to be a departure from orthodox understandings of grace (gift!).

In the early church, particularly those with a Jewish background, the separation of “works” from “faith” was inconceivable.  In this mindset, one physically cannot have a belief system that is not demonstrated.  Sin, itself, is a demonstration of a belief that God cannot provide.  As most of the world, and the church along with it, was Hellenized it began creating abstract compartmentalizations which separated ones “faith/belief” from one’s “actions”, leading to the church schizophrenically pitting one against the other.

We see the seeds of this already planted in the book of James, and the schizophrenia fully realized in Luther’s desire to strike it from the canon, since it appears to stake out ground somewhere between legalism and sola fide.  To paraphrase James, “faith” (mental assent) really isn’t faith (mental assent) unless it is demonstrated.

And all of this is independent of grace, which is freely given.

As you survey the online landscape of Christianity (in which the relative percentage of Evangelical vs. Reformed vs. Catholic is skewed far differently that represented in living, breathing human beings), you can’t help but wonder why so many people are busy defending a 450-year-old church split, looking for the devil in the other party.  One need only examine the wailing and gnashing of teeth anytime a Protestant church reintroduces a Catholic tradition.  What you end up seeing is extra-biblical whining in condemnation of extra-biblical tradition (noting that I used ‘extra-biblical’ and not ‘unbiblical’ or ‘anti-biblical’).

It’s no wonder Jesus’ criticisms were almost exclusively about the religious class, always eager to demonstrate their righteousness while condemning anything that didn’t fit their own narrow traditions.

I guess it’s time for the weekly question about Mark Driscoll: Do the ODM’s love him or hate him this week?

[spins the wheel]

Love Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark - Hate Mark - Like Mark …

…

-Hate Mark-

Oops! Guess it’s his time to toss Mark in the barrel. Why, you might ask? Let’s start with the video below, part of the promotion for a one-night appearance in Sydney, Australia called Burn Your Plastic Jesus. subtitled “Mark Driscoll takes a blow-torch to the 21st century Jesus, and rediscovers the Jesus of the New Testament”.

Probably the quote that tipped it over the edge was the one the held a mirror to a particular type of Christian, of which discernments are a key subset -

Ask the average person, walking down the street, what they think of Jesus, and they will immediately identify him with someone who is religious, loves rules, is unpleasant, unkind, unhelpful. Someone they do not want to be with. Someone they do not want to be like.

Does that sound like the most accurate understanding of Jesus? In no way.

When Jesus was on the earth, he called sinners to repent of sin, go find your pants, stop drinking, get a job, move out of your parents’ house, grow up… He said those sorts of things and people loved him for it.

Religious people hated him the most. He told them to repent of their religion. Stop being so prideful. Stop being so self-righteous, so judgmental, so holier-than-thou. The result is that they despised, opposed and ultimately murdered him.

This may shock you - Jesus is as opposed to ‘religion’ as he is to sin…

Ah - no need to wonder anymore why the teeth were set to ‘gnash’ in ‘discernment-ville’ today.

Apparently, Mark’s public message in Australia, which partly concludes (if the advertisement is correct) that Jesus wants to save Christians in addition to the lost, isn’t going to cut the mustard because he is disrespectful of the plastic, pop-culture “Jesus”, represented by the kitschy bobble-head represented on the page. Or possibly that he describes religious folk as being just as bad as sinners. The mysterious “editor” doesn’t let us know.

And so whose spiritual advice does the anonymous discerner give regarding Driscoll ? Jesus? James? Peter? John? Paul? Nope - a few steps above those (though still below Spurgeon) - Christian mystic A. W. Tozer:

Some preachers have such a phobia for repetition and such an unnatural fear of the familiar that they are forever straining after the odd and the startling… We dare not impugn the honesty or the sincerity of the men who thus flap their short wings so rapidly in an effort to take off into the wild blue yonder, but we do deplore their attitudes.

Ah, poor Mark. He didn’t get the ODM playbook on the only proper ways to preach. I just wish these guys would make up their minds about Driscoll - is he OK or not? Will they not discern for the masses?

Or - have the sheep already heard the echo of the master’s voice in his under-shepherd from Seattle and recognized the baying of the wolves for what it is?

Sometimes the truth is so much better than anything you could make up. Tonight, we can witness a case in point.

First, just to establish some context: As many readers may know, one of the frequent “discernmentalist” sites we take to task for injurious action toward the Body of Christ is Slice of Laodicea (SoL). Slice’s primary mode of operation is to place itself in a position of sanctimonious judgment over anyone/anything its primary author deems to fall short of her shallow, externalist view of Christianity. Unfortunately, Sol’s author is also a radio personality with a larger-than-average platform from which to spew her “discernment” on unsuspecting masses.

Frequent readers of SoL will recognize that one of its author’s primary sources of scorn against the modern church is its lack of older hymns and “proper” externals (with “proper” being defined as 1950’s idealized church culture). And so it is no surprise that SoL would publish an article like this one (here is a link to a screen-capture (and a full one), since it is highly probable that its author will attempt to make it disappear into the ether, as if it never happened).

In this article, SoL’s author begins by staking out a “moral” high ground:

I have heard hip, healthy young Christians laugh about the musical format at VCY America during the wee hours of the morning. Over the night hours our radio network airs quiet hymns and instrumental music interspersed with Scripture readings and devotional thoughts from the host, Vic Eliason. Oh, if only these young people could read the mail that we get.

Before we go on, it should also be noted that the author trumpets, with great pride, her vastly over-inflated ability of “discernment”. With this “gift”, she is able to spitefully trash all sorts of Christian brothers and sisters - Rick Warren, Ravi Zacharias, Rob Bell, Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll and many more - along with casting aspersions at entire bodies of believers all over the world. For instance, her magnified powers of ‘discernment’ have recently been raking Ravi Zacharias over the fires of hell for not mentioning the name of Jesus in a prayer during a program on the National Day of Prayer. Continue Reading »