An Illustration of the Danger at Christian “research” in one day
Sometimes people ask me why I feel the webpage formerly known as Slice of Laodicea is so dangerous. Today is a perfect example. I’ve been traveling the last few days so “today†may not actually be today but when I got home tonight I checked my email, scanned a few pages and then went over to CRN. Chris Rosebrough has an excellent post up on the whole “Lost Tomb of Jesus†debacle.
But then there’s this post by Dwayna. I had to read it five times to figure out what she was trying to say. By the way, Ms Lutz if you would like to email me and tell me what it is you’re saying I’d be thrilled. If I read your take correctly, Mosaic is Satanistic because they use things that God created as core values? You cite the “father of Satanism†as evidence?
This is silly. It’s beyond ludicrous. I know a guy who wrote a book about the ability to move out of your body around the world. It doesn’t make it fact.
But let’s be charitable and assume that what he wrote is true. Does that mean that the Church can’t use those elements? Do the Satanist suddenly get all proprietary rights to those elements? In fact, should we be surprised that Satan counterfeits something that God created and called good? I’m used to reading posts over there and scratching my head but this is a new low.
Beyond a new low, it is dangerous because people will read it and see it next to a Chris Rosebrough post and think it is done with the same scholarship when obviously it is not. It reminds me of a truth about a little leaven ruining a whole batch. The problem here is the leaven isn’t little.
82 Comments(+Add)
we at Mosaic have been criticized for this for years! People can’t get beyond the fact that we use METAPHORS to explain our core values. Earth, wind, water, fire, wood are all metaphors for creativity, evangelism, community, communion and the leading of the spirit in our church. People only see the five “new aged” words.
Well, it’s “emergent”, so it must be satanic, right?
Dwayna’s posts usually take leaps in logic that are difficult to follow. And yes – RayJr – she makes the leap that if it’s emergent it’s satanic.
She did a post a few weeks ago about Alice Cooper being a Christian. In it she mentioned the satanic images of Alice Cooper in his hey-day and then ended with this gem: “I read this information avoiding the pictures thinking that, if this is true, Alice Cooper is probably attending an emergent church meeting somewhere this Sunday.”
I’m going to guess she’s a decent, friendly person who cares deeply about people coming to a saving faith in Christ. Joe, however, to your point – the leaps she makes in her posts are difficult to follow or lead down paths that…well…speak for themselves.
How about talking in plain english for awhile? Ismael was man’s good idea. Isaac is something else entirely, and you my friends don’t have Isaac. God doesn’t want your methods.
You are different for the sake of being different. The real danger is you all really believe that what you do is “God’s move”
(What a worn out term)
I just don’t understand why people feel the need to go around looking for errors in all these churches that they have nothing to do with. I mean, I could go around my town and pick apart different churches’ statements of belief, but what good comes from that? I think as long as a church is firm in the essentials, fellow Christians really are doing a disservice in this. I mean to accuse McManus of somehow being associated with Satanism is the height of stupidity to me. This is the same type of thinking that leads to people saying that C.S. Lewis’ writing promotes occultism.
I blogged this myself before coming here to see if you had done so as well. My Yahoo doesn’t do a very good job of updating the feeds. Anyway…
http://whileromeburns.blogspot.com/2007/03/satanic-swipe-at-emergent-church.html
Oh, and Chris P., I’ve got news for you. God doesn’t want your methods either. So where does that leave us?
I contacted CRN to see if i could begin a dicussion with Dwyana about this article. Ken informed me that any discussion had to go through him:
“Nathan, she writes for me here at CRN so any discussion then goes through me. If you want to write her at her website that would be another matter.”
He then made some wild claims that I “did lead vocals” and was “booked out of mosaic”.
I said nothing harsh or hurtful in my email. I simply asked if we could begin a discussion about this issue where Dwayna was misinformed. I guess CRN either has something to hid or just likes to hurl mean spirited emails back at people who want to have a peaceful dialog over methods.
I think there is a place for examining the errors of churches… if what you find are true errors. It’s one thing to take a belief or practice that is contrary to biblical orthodoxy to task… but that’s not what CRN does.
I find it funny that Chris condemns them for being “different for the sake of being different.” When in reality, what the so-called discerners value is sameness for the sake of sameness.
Shades of Steve Taylor in “I want to be a clone” -
“If you want to be one of His
You have to act like one fo us.”
Nathan,
It’s basically impossible to discuss anything with them… since they have the corner on truth. Many of use here were banned from the old slice for simple aking follow-up questions that didn’t fit the party line
From the MOSAIC website I saw a couple of things that made me curious. What does “Creativity is the natural result of spirituality” mean? Also, what does “whole earth evangelism” mean?
We believe that when you grow closer to God through Jesus Christ, there are spiritual gifts, talents and a power that is awakened from the Holy Spirit. Not only that, but God begins to prompt you to do extraordinary things in life, and gives you wisdom beyond your understanding. Creativity doesn’t mean artistic, it means that your life becomes more like Christ. And, as you character becomes more like Christ, your life becomes more extraordinary. Most churches call people to conformity, we call people to grow more like Christ (from the scriptures and His example) and become the amazing person that God ahs called you to be.
Whole earth evangelism means that we are called to spread the gospel to the whole earth.
Nathan,
What do each of these statements under the other elements mean, and how do they connect with the verses placed next to them?
Also, how does the verse with “Creativity” connect?
What is “the gospel?”
I wonder if guilt by association works in reverse?
I see that one of the gathering places is the William Carey International University… which is part of the U. S. Center for World Missions (uscwm.org) – a thoroughly, thoroughly orthodox organization.
I guess what this really means is the USCWM is satanic as well?
Neil S.
from the mosaic site:
…If the actual “statements of faith†are what you are still interested in, please reference the Baptist Faith and Message by going to this website: http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp...
nuff said.
a few things
1. the author did not site the official Mosaic church. The one sited is part of the Mosaic Alliance… long story. Check out http://www.mosaic.org for more accurate info.
2. The verses correspond with the core value. The Genesis verse shows that God has breathed life into each life. He has uniquely crafted every person for a purpose, and to live out an extraordinary plan.
3. I don’t want to speak down to you, but the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ… he was the son of God who came to die for sins.. all who believe can be saved… etc. Contrary to the Ken Silvas in the world, most churches with modern methods don’t preach that yoga gets you into heaven or that worshiping the wind will get you close to God.
Have you seen the latest?
I guess Rev. Ken hadn’t gotten his Mark Driscoll bash on in awhile, so he decided to recycle a nine month old post from Steve Camp in which Camp is actually pretty fair and judicious to Pastor Mark. More than we can say for most of the other “contributors”.
Ray,
I saw that. It seems that Ken is struggling to find new material lately. He’s had a few postings recently that point to blog articles that are almost a year old (or older) now. I think he subscribes to the philosophy that if you say the wrong thing enough times, it becomes right.
Nathan,
Could you explain what you mean by “a power that is awakened from the Holy Spirit” when you said, “We believe that when you grow closer to God through Jesus Christ, there are spiritual gifts, talents and a power that is awakened from the Holy Spirit.” What is the nature, origin of the power that is awakened?
Regarding the verses being related to the core value, I understand for example, how Acts 2:2 is connected with “Wind” and how Hebrews 12:29 is related to fire. But I don’t understand how any of the verses relate to any of the statements. I guess they aren’t intended to relate to them?
Nathan,
As far as the statements themselves go, I see them as either unscriptural, or “partial” truths.
“Mission is why the Church exists.”
I’m not sure if we would agree on what “mission” is, but for starters, no matter what definition I came up with, I could only say that “Mission is one aspect of the church.”
“Love is the context for all mission.” True, depending on how one defines love. I have a cousin whose church would wholeheartedly agree with this statement. But “love” to them means much ministry to the “poor,” and includes being free to be homosexual, free to practice abortion, and probably free to let people find their own path to God.
“”Structure must always submit to Spirit.” What structure? “Structure” as defined by the Word of God, or by tradition? And what “Spirit?” How does one know if what the “Spirit” wants is in line with God’s Word, or does it matter?
“Relevance to culture is not optional. ” How far do you take this? Should I have let the people in one church I was in continue thinking that their magic practices (which are a very ancient part of their culture) were okay, or was I right to tell them that I thought the warnings in Deuteronomy about practicing magic were applicable to them? Should I have just accepted the adultery among Christians, since, because of their culture they have a difficult, sometimes seemingly impossible time grasping that adultery is sin?
Amy,
Your questions show just how far from the original accusations the discussion has come.
For example, you question the statement; “Mission is why the church exists.” I would question that too. Stealing from Piper I’d say “Worship is why the church exists… and Mission exists because there are people who cannot worship.” Though I may be confusing “missions” with “mission.” In which case mission may be the reason the church exists – if the mission is to worship first and foremost.
You also question the notion that “Relevance to culture is not an option.” Yet you do not question the truth of the statement, you wonder on the extent.
Contrast these two inquiries with the original hit piece by Dwayna… what you are asking/discussing are legitimate, within-the-faith questions about the nature of the church and its role in and relationship to culture… these are far far removed from the accusations of satanism so weakly put forth on CRN.
All this to say: Good questions Amy, and I hope you are asking them with the benevolent assumption (as opposed to Dwayna) that Mosaic is a church of Christ (as opposed to Satan).
RE: Cultural Relevance
One of the common tactics of the watch-bloggers is to set up false antitheses. They’ll take two concepts; one they like and one they oppose and set them against each other as mutually exclusive… when they are not.
So, for example, being culturally relevant is often set up against taking biblical stands against culturally favored sin. As if being relevant means you must accept sin if it’s culturally accepted. But this is a false dichotomy, it is a false antithesis.
One can strive to be relevant and counter-cultural – they are not antithetical.
“Mission is why the Church exists.â€
The first words to the church: “Go ye thereforeâ€. The first actions of the church were to go out and preach in different languages, as the spirit led. No where in scripture can you find God telling the church to sit and do nothing. If you can tell me where we in scripture we are called to apathy and self-indulgence, let me know.
“Love is the context for all mission.â€
According to scripture, without love we nothing. Love has nothing to do with what you are doing, but the motivation behind what you are doing. Love is the context for everything we do, which includes rebuking, correcting and challenging people to not live in homosexual lifestyles, have abortions or find their own path to God. Some ministries –which will remain nameless—seem to be on mission in the context of hate. We can actually perform the same action, but be motivated by different emotions.
“â€Structure must always submit to Spirit.â€
Yes, it is about tradition. We move where the Spirit of God leads us. No human structure is permanent. Notice that it does not say “The word of God must submit to Spiritâ€. If we wanted it to say that, we would have.
“Relevance to culture is not optional. â€
All that you are describing is relevance to personal preference or actions. Relevance to culture means that you look at culture and see how to translate the gospel to people. Most churches use a method that was developed to be relevant for the culture about 200 years ago (4 hymns, 45 minute sermon, alter call, offering, closing prayer and song). The methods must be relevant so the message can be communicated.
Look… I don’t the time to completely explain every word and nuance in our mission statement. If you are interested in an MP3 about our core values, I can get it to you or you can email me at Nathan@mosaic.org.
Nathan,
Great words. I think the “translation” metaphor is particularly powerful. Sometimes it’s not even a metaphorical translation but a literal translation… either way the methods must be such that they actually communicate.
Again I think it’s great the discussion has gone from the ridiculous tripe of the CRN post to a rather good discussion on ecclesiology and cross-cultural communications.
Neil S.
Yeah… here are mosaic we often use both “cultural relevance” and “translate” to describe what we do. The thing that Ken and others in the discernment party are not willing to face is that they too use a method to translate the gospel. Unfortunately, as stated earlier, their methods are just 100 years old as opposed to 1 year old.
Nathan,
Actually Nathan, my questions do relate to the original article. Dwayna is assuming that Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water have some Satanic connection. My questions have all related to just what you mean by earth, wind, fire, water; how the scriptures under them relate to the concepts presented, what the “core beliefs” actually mean. You can assume that I’m looking to be critical, or you can take the uncritical approach and assume that I’m trying to be discerning.
I needed to ask the questions partly because the core beliefs presented do not in any way match up with the scriptures next to them. So, how am I to know what they mean? Why should I assume that scripture is important to Mosaic, when it is used in such a way? Core beliefs should have some support from scripture shouldn’t they?
I asked you questions about “Spirit” and “power” for good reasons. I have a background in living among a group of Christians, many of whom are still immersed in their pagan traditions. This shows up in various ways that people on the outside would not even realize. For example, you could come to this group and see people taking Communion, and think that they were remembering Christ’s sacrifice. Actually, what some of them are doing is getting “power,” the ancient power that has been part of the earth for centuries. In that group, and in other places, I’ve seen too much talk of “Spirit” and “power” to just assume that when people use those terms, they are referring to the Holy Spirit and to God’s power.
My examples about culture were examples from a culture, not personal preferences or actions. The culture I referred to has their magic practices so deeply ingrained in them, that many of them do not see them as sin. The same with adultery.
In this culture, one of the things that is so much a part of us that we don’t see it for the sin it is, is greed. Another thing that is so deeply ingrained in this culture that many Christians do not see it as a sin is “ungodly entertainment.” We’ve gotten so used to expecting to be entertained that we let down our guard over and over again.
So one of the legitimate concerns that some people have about ministering in a culturally relevant way is that some things, like ungodly entertainment, that are “culturally relevant” are actually dishonoring to God. Yet those things can come into the church in the name of “evangelism” or “worship.”
I don’t know what your churches do to be culturally relevant. There is one well-known “emergent” church in my area. (My apologies if you don’t consider yourselves emergent – I think the issue here still applies.) The pastor who began it used to be a pastor at a church I attended regularly. Some kids I know go there. For those reasons I had a personal interest, curiosity about it, so looked it up on the web. I came to the homepages of one of the pastors. He talked about how he was in a bar and told someone there that he was a pastor and was going to a certain concert that evening. The person he was talking to couldn’t believe it. He said something like, “You’re a pastor, and you’re going to THAT?” The pastor said “Yes, God has called me to be part of this culture.” Anyway, the article went on, with him talking about that principle, and then talking about how much he enjoyed the concert. I looked up the group, and purposefully picked out one innocent sounding song and one not-so-innocent sounding song. Both were probably the worst pornographic lyrics I’ve ever come across. I see some of my friends’ kids around, who are attending that church, and wonder what they are learning from that pastor. I wonder how this pastor’s views of “God calls us to be part of the culture” affects the worship service at that church. I wonder how it affects any outreaches that they do.
“The methods must be relevant so the message can be communicated.” The biggest problem I have with that statement, other than that some people use it to justify methods that are unscriptural, is that it limits God. I see nowhere in Scripture that he ties himself to “relevant methods.” I could, under the power of the Holy Spirit, go and knock on someone’s door and tell them about Jesus Christ, and they could come to Christ. But knocking on doors is not culturally acceptable.
Surely plenty of people who go to “traditional” churches have been saved over the last 200 years – I wonder how that has happened since the message couldn’t possibly have been communicated adequately over these last 200 years? There is room to be creative within the guidelines of Scripture – but why badmouth “traditional” churches and imply that they can’t be communicating the message? It’s just not a generalization that can be truthfully made.
I completely agree that nowhere in scriptures is the church called to apathy and indulgence. But please don’t assume that churches that do things differently than you do, what you might call “traditionally” are apathetic and indulgent. Almost all of the churches I’ve gone to you might define as “traditional” (not so closely defined as 4 hymns, etc) and I’ve seen great obeidience to God coming out of those churches, people coming to Christ, to repentance, to service, to be a body that loves and helps each other grow.
Amy,
There was way too much in your post to comment on here. First off, I would say that a small minority of Christian churches in America are referring to pagan practices when they are referring to power and spirit. I am referring to the same power and spirit that is referred to in the verse “you will receive POWER when the Holy SPIRIT has come upon you.†I understand that you have had that experience, but I would say that it is not the norm.
I think that the verses referred to are quite accurate and reference the principle behind then. I guarantee you that Mosaic LA holds scripture at the highest level possible.
Here’s how I have always described relevance to culture is not optional. If you were to be dropped in an unevangelized tribe in Africa with nothing but an English bible, what would you do? They are illiterate, don’t speak English, and you know a little bit of their language. So, you might tell stories around the campfire of great things in the bible. You might have the tribe reenact these stories, as they do with their oral traditions. You might even write songs with drums and dances that communicate the gospel in a way THEY communicate values and religion. A man with a suit and tie singing “How great thou art†and giving an exposition of the Greek transliteration of Jude will not communicate anything to them
Today we live in a postmodern world… some choose to close their eyes, sing “la-la-la†and pretend we don’t… but we do. To people without Christ (notice I said people WITHOUT Christ), truth doesn’t exist. Hymns are lame and religion is a four letter word. So how do we communicate truth to them? Maybe we use film, dance, music… elements that communicate to OUR culture. It may entertain, but it should always drive some point home.
The problem with today’s church is that they OVEREMPHASIZE “be ye not of this world†and UNDERESTIMATE “be in the worldâ€. I don’t think Jesus saw an “us†and a “themâ€. I think he saw the kingdom of God and the kingdom of this earth. He saw and loved people, and people on both sides. He so loved the world that he gave his son, so that those in the darkness might find Him and come into his kingdom. Our problem is that we are so focused on our church, our Christian culture, our Christian music, our Christian t-shirts, our Christian radio show, our Christian coffee shop and distance ourselves from those horrible people of the world. If we looked outside the Christian culture that we have created, we would see that there are people that exist in a completely different world that need to meet Christ.
And Amy, I never felt you were harsh or attacking. I just hope you don’t go down the road of the others in the discernment camp. These people just throw bombs blindly at anything that is remotely different from them. It is sad and wrong. I don’t put you in that place, but just be careful of it. Our time is better spent with those who don’t know Christ yet.
Amy,
I’ve been reading your comments on several of these posts, and I feel like no matter what anyone says, you have your mind made up already. That’s fine, but why even bother posting in a forum like this, if you aren’t willing to see things any other way. I think Nathan has been very gracious in his post, but for whatever reason, you don’t seem to hear what he’s saying. You say you are being discerning, but to me it looks like you are nitpicking. Back to a point I mentioned in an earlier comment, what does it matter to you what Mosaic is doing? Are you thinking af checking it out? Do you know someone who attends? If not, I fail to see the fascination with a congregation you have no ties to.
This brings me back to the Joe’s original thought in this post. Dwayna’s article is in so many words accusing Mosaic of being Satanic. This is not a minor accusation. She does this with no evidence to back up her claim other than weak and pointless arguments. This why so many people have a problem with CRN. While claiming to be a discernment ministry, they really are no more than a “Christianized” version of the National Enquirer on the internet. They say things without offering any real proof, and when confronted about refuse to retract it. To me that is not discernment, that is pure ministerial sabotage. I know that as Christians we should be unified, but it is honestly hard to love people who are operating like this.
As far as people being critical of traditional churches; I can honestly say that I’ve never seen any of the Emergent (I’ll use the word if I have to) writers that CRN attacks offer the broadbrushed criticisms of churches that they are accused of. I’ve seen them offer opinions on points where they think change is needed, but they don’t write off all trditional churches. Evidently, this fact is lost to the writers at CRN. On a personal note, I would agree with you that there are some vibrant traditional churches, but there a lot that could use a good kick in the butt, too.
Yeah, it is interesting that you don’t see those labeled as”Emergents” starting blogs about how evil traditional churches are. If they are pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-Satan, pro-democrat, anti-bible, anti-truth, anti-values they are sure quite about it.
Phil,
Regarding why I am interested, I would say primarily because so many people I know are affected by a lack of discernment in churches. And I care about those people, and can bring up my concerns to them in a way that shows just that – concern.
I know noone connected with Mosaic. But I could say that about so many things that I come across on the Internet. But it will often be that after I hear about something, especially books and programs, that I will run across people who are reading them, excited about them. And many of those people are very young, as in under twenty. I know that there is very little chance that they know the Bible well enough to consider the errors. I’ll write more on this later, as well as addressing your other concerns.
Phil,
Dwayna said, “It is hard to believe that we are seeing this worship of the elements coming into the “church†through the Emergents at Mosaic!” Why has she said this? Because she saw the elements on your webpage, or because she knows something she hasn’t shared? Whatever the case, she has made a statement without backing it up.
My guess it that if I did a search on these elements together, most of the sources I would come up with would be New Age/Satanic. Maybe she is so familiar with these kinds of things that red flags went up when she saw your site. She seems to have gone from “red flags” to conclusion without proper evidence, or without proper demonstration of that evidence. Perhaps she should have simply asked “What is behind this choice of illustration?”
How was I to know what Mosaic meant by their elements demonstration? Should I have just jumped to conclusions – good or bad, or should I have asked questions? If Dwayna had a legitimate concern, don’t you think it would have been good for her to write and ask some questions, such as the ones I have asked? Yet I have done so, and you criticize me.
As far as hearing Nathan, yes, I hear him saying, those are metaphors for “creativity, evangelism, community, communion and the leading of the spirit in our church.” But I wanted to know more about what the statements meant, and how they relate to the scriptures. I could print that page with the elements out and show it to most people I know, including the teenagers on my basketball team, or the PHD’s working down the road, and ask them to tell me what it meant, and how the references related to the themes, and my guess is that none of them could have explained it.
You said,”I’ve been reading your comments on several of these posts, and I feel like no matter what anyone says, you have your mind made up already. That’s fine, but why even bother posting in a forum like this, if you aren’t willing to see things any other way.” If only an Amen site is wanted, indeed why bother even trying to figure out what people mean, and why even bother discussing different aspects of it? I was under the impression that this was a place to discuss issues. Your comment reminds me of one of the last ones I read on SLICE, written by someone who remarked that he was no longer going to comment because there were too many people commenting who opposed the position of the person writing the articles.
Amy,
my question to you is, who commissioned you to the person that is responsible to inform people about the errors in every church in America, or the globe for that matter?
Can someone please show me in scripture where there is a “discernment ministry” prescribed for churches.
First off, someone needs the spiritual gift of discernment to run such a thing. The gift of discernment is a supernatural ability to discern false teachers and demonic activity. What you are referring to Amy is simply making sure that doctrine is correct.
Second, I think that this discernment should be contained to your local church, by people who have that gift. You are not called to research every church, do interviews with leaders and pastors, attend gatherings, be a part of the community and then communally determine its validity, or lack there of. AND, all those things need to happen before you can condemn someone as a heretic.
“And many of those people are very young, as in under twenty. I know that there is very little chance that they know the Bible well enough to consider the errors.”
Amy, I find this comment insulting and arrogant (and I say that in complete love). First off, most people “under” twenty are not all that excited about this movement. The 20 something crowd usually does have the ability to read the scriptures and make conclusions, especially with our resources available today. I am all for helping people on their spiritual journey, but you are not the almighty keeper of truth.
Look Amy, do you think that you time could be better spent developing people’s walk with Christ, sharing the gospel, and building up the kingdom. I am discerning from what you have written, that you are more interested in kicking back and criticizing than getting your hands dirty with the work that God has given us.
Anyhow, we have got way off track… let me ask you these questions:
Would you agree with Mr. Silva’s / Dwayna’s conclusions about Mosaic?
If not, what do you agree with / disagree with?
Amy,
Of course I wasn’t looking for an “amen” site as you put it. It just seems to me that no explanation is ever good enough for you when it comes to these things. I think to some extent we have to discuss these things with a “good faith” type expectation. Meaning, I think it is useful to start at the point that these people are who are being criticized are Christians and most likely would agree with you about what it means to be a Christian. Instead it seems that the writers at CRN take the position that they alone are correct and if someone doesn’t fit their narrow view of a Christian, then they are labeled a heretic or apostate.
As far as the original argument goes, I can’t speak for Mosaic really, but I believe they are taking things people are familiar with and using them as a starting point/reference point to list their belief/core values. I’ve seen numerous churches do the same type of thing. I don’t think it’s anything that weird. Also I can see the metaphors they’re going for; i.e., wood=structure. This definitely doesn’t equal Satanic in my mind.
As far as the whole thing about young people, I would beg to differ with you here. I am a campus pastor, and I have to say that given the right resources, a lot of these kids are more willing to learn/delve deeper into things then the typical 40-something with two kids. It’s a matter of time for one thing. Also, you make it sound like these writers don’t have a high view of Scripture, which makes me think you might have bought into some of the stuff posted at CRN. Well, I personally think that Rob Bell, for example, is one of the best, most articulate preachers around today. He goes through the Scriptures very deliberately, and gives a lot of good, historical data. I’ve never heard him just preach his opinion, unlike a lot of fundamentalist preachers I’ve heard. Which is ironic, really. I’ve actually recommended Bell’s books to all of our student leaders, and actually gave them McManus’s book for a Christmas gift. The thing is, students usually end up liking them because they’re not just told what to think and act, but it more of how to come those conclusions. I’m sure I would be labeled as misguided (or worse) by CRN and possibly you, but that’s where I am. I grew up in a Christian home (my dad is an AoG pastor), and I feel like I have some ability to discern what’s crap and what’s not. I come away perplexed by the intellectual gymnastics that the discernment sites go throught to try and prove their point.
Nathan,
I’m sorry if perhaps you’ve been concluding that I am accusing MOSAIC of being demonic. My intention is to ask questions so that I can understand just what MOSAIC is. Knowing how and what to ask is difficult, and I’m sure giving a comprehensive answer is difficult as well.
First of all, do I agree with Dwayna’s conclusions about Mosaic? Dwayna said, “Now, it is hard to believe that we are seeing this worship of the elements coming into the “church†through the Emergents at Mosaic!” From what you’ve told me, and from the little bit I’ve read from Mcmanus, I would conclude that you need to write to Dwayna and ask her to provide evidence, or retract this statement. For what it’s worth, I can’t imagine ever writing a statement like that without completely backing it up, and only after much research.
As for my quote about people “under twenty,” please look at the context of that quote. I was referring to books and programs in general, not Mosaic specifically. It would be silly of me to pretend like I knew enough about Mosaic to talk about it with anyone who was involved with it. But, if I did discover that it or part of it was unscriptural, if the Lord burdened me to talk about it with someone who was involved with it, I would.
Looking at my “under twenty” comment in general, you say, “Amy, I find this comment insulting and arrogant (and I say that in complete love). First of all, I’m not sure that you would have made the comment if you had understood the context of it. But let’s imagine that you would. I would venture to say that if you knew me personally you wouldn’t have said it. Perhaps you picture me as someone going around sticking my nose in every church’s business and talking down on everyone, giving them a sort of “pope’s blessing” or cursing on what they are doing. That is certainly not the case. But the case is that since coming back to America, in various churches I’ve been in and Bible studies I’ve been in – I have come across a large amount of unscriptural teaching – from “sin is caused by sickness”, to “repentance doesn’t matter” to “It’s okay to contradict Scripture if God gives you a different idea” to “I can use “power” to heal you from afar, and this gift is given me by God even though it was originally practiced by pagans,” to “the gospel doesn’t matter; growth does,” to “you can be entertained in anyway you want as long as you’re just “being part of the culture” to “let’s all sit here and ask for visions – and when someone has a vision of Jesus sunbathing next to them, we’re all supposed to get something spiritual out of it” to “truth is whatever you think it is” to “the Spirit comes into you when you breathe in” to “Everyone is going to heaven if they’re “spiritual.” to “A church is dead if the music isn’t lively” to “all contemporary music is wrong ” to “Certain spiritual gifts are demonic” to “It’s okay to use scripture however one chooses, to help one teach what one is teaching.” And I see very intelligent “Bible-believing” people going along with these ideas. And I am very surprised and amazed by what is happening in the church. I do feel burdened for Christians who seem to be getting their main ideas about God and Christianity from teachers, not going and seeing what the Word has to say about it. Several time I have had a burden to go and talk to leaders about what I consider false teaching – and I have done so, sometimes with tears.
Yes, I do feel burdened especially for young people – I am a mother, and I have a number of relationships with young people through ministry and through my kid’s friends. I know that many young people don’t know Scripture well – because they haven’t been taught to value it or its application, in their churches or in their homes, or because they are taught that whatever they think it means is okay .They are taught that having a good time is their right; Christian service is neglected. They are drawn to churches that have the most activities for them, the most exciting worship, etc. And unfortunately the Bible doesn’t have that much of a priority in some (notice I”m not saying “all”) of these churches. (And neither does it have a priority in many of the churches that they aren’t “drawn” to.) Then these kids go to Bible schools or secular colleges and sometimes get their faith further torn apart.
Why would I want to be quite if I feel that by speaking out I can help someone from falling further into error? If I know, for example, that a young person I know has fallen into believing that if she says something over and over, and believes it enough, it will come true – shouldn’t I speak up if given the burden to do so? Or, if I see someone who has learned from her church friends that she has to literally starve herself to be skinny enough to be accepted, can I not feel free to teach her that God loves her the way she is, and desires for her to take good care of her body? If I see someone who is totally addicted to heavy metal music and they even admit that it is depressing them, should I not try to help them? If I see someone reading a book that is teaching a works-based gospel, am I not free to comment on it?
You ask, “my question to you is, who commissioned you to the person that is responsible to inform people about the errors in every church in America, or the globe for that matter” I’m glad that noone including God has commissioned me to do such a thing. I couldn’t possibly keep up with it.
Honestly, I wonder about the extent of your anger. Please consider the possibility that I’ve asked you questions that many people looking at your site might ask, and actually given you a forum, not just to say, “Dwayna’s wrong” but to try to share some of what MOSAIC is.
I agree that, “The gift of discernment is a supernatural ability to discern false teachers and demonic activity.” But I would not necessarily separate “making sure that doctrine is correct” from that. False teachers after all, are sharing false doctrine. And part of demonic activity is making a lie seem like the truth. And how does a “gift of discernment” actually work? Perhaps someone with that gift might at times sense that something is false, or demonic, and know in their own spirit that they should avoid it. But in order to communicate to others (and as a way of checking that what they sensed came from God, not their own feelings) that someone is a false teacher, or that an activity is demonic, a person with a gift of discernment could begin looking into just what it is about a teaching, practice, that is unbiblical. That would take study of the teaching, practice as well as study of scripture.
Gifts are primarily for “the body,” right? So if a person, through the spirit, knows that something is wrong, he or she can share it with the body, correct? And he or she can be willing to use diligence in research and Bible study to begin to teach why something is wrong.
Should discernment be limited to the local church? Consider this: If discernment should be limited to the local church, then false teachers should be limited to the local church. Authors should only be allowed to share their books with their congregations, media productions should only be given to the local body, ideas should only be shared in the local body.
But that is not the culture we live in, is it? So to be culturally relevant in discernment can it be okay to look beyond the local body? Eventually what is “out there” is very likely to affect the local body. So I, and every other Christian have a right to attempt to discern whether the ministries of CRN, Warren, Mcmanus, McLaren, MacArthur, etc, are scriptural, and to do whatever God wants us to do when we see those ministries positively or negatively impacting believers. It helps if someone looks at outside teachings before they come into the church but that often doesn’t happen.
Perhaps if local churches were diligent in just what they let in to their churches, their wouldn’t need to be a discernment ministry. But many churches just get the latest – book, program, series – the Word is neglected, and people become more and more open to error.
Phil,
I agree that some kids are willing to dig deep. I have seen this, in my own kids, and in other kids, in some studies I’ve done with teens. I just feel like more and more most kids aren’t given a chance to even consider that a “Bible study” could be a wonderful thing for them. More and more I hear about books that kids are reading that are really influencing the way they think about Christianity. What they are being taught by pastors also concerns me, especially if those pastors are in essence giving them “permission” to pretty much absorb any kind of entertainment they want.
My husband was once asked to teach a 4th grade Sunday School class. I was apprehensive about it – he’s a great teacher, but for intelligent high schoolers, college age, adults. I considered all the “creative” things I would do with that young age group and doubted he would come up with anything “creative” to keep their attention. Well, he decided to simply teach them how to do Bible study, using their Bibles. I was amazed at their excitement week by week.
Phil, if you read my last couple of discussions, they were probably with Chris. One was about the content of Bell’s message – yes I kept discussing it with Chris – if you made it all the way to the end of that discussion you can see that we actually came to an agreement – I agreed with some of the things Chris was saying – and actually thought they were great lessons – and Chris realized that some of the things that he thought Bell was saying were actually coming from a different source. I wouldn’t have wanted to just drop that discussion without resolving the issue we were talking about. A previous discussion we had was regarding oneness pentecostalism and the trinity. It seems to me like what we did in that discussion was ask a lot of questions. If I had stopped the discussion at one point I would have come to the conclusion that Chris didn’t value the concept of trinity. That wasn’t the case. I still have a lot of questions about what oneness pentecostalism believes, but the discussion helped me to realize why some of the terms we use to describe trinity are important and scriptural.
A number of comments on this site are simply defensive – someone on CRN said something “false” and someone wants to correct it. I tend to look at things if possible and see what I think about them myself. That brings up a lot of questions. I asked them on CRN as well. I probably would have asked Dwayna how she came to her conclusions about MOSAIC if given the chance – because she didn’t support what she said.
Amy,
I have always appreciated you providing a gracious counterpoint to conversations. I do wonder sometimes whether you find yourself playing devil’s advocate to whatever position a blog tends to take (whether here, Verum Serum or Slice) purposely or unintentionally.
On this particular topic (and forgive me, I’ve been tied up heavily this week, and will be until next Monday – and completely off the map from tomorrow night through Sunday night), it does seem you’re stretching beyong that normal role, though, and I do wonder why…
Earth/Air/Fire/Water and Void/Chaos were the elements of the world view during the time period in which the Bible was written (going back to a number of notes from my early Chemistry courses in college, dealing with Alchemical backgrounds of modern science). Some New Age folks have latched onto this, but that doesn’t make it New Age/Satanist…
Also, it is obvious that in the web page in question it is a metaphor for something completely different – and folks like Nathan who know the intent of the organization in question have verified that it’s not ’secret code’ for something underhanded. Why, then, is it such an issue? I just don’t understand.
I do appreciate your comments and willingness to converse. In this case, I just don’t understand the source of conflict…
Chris,
I sent two comments in that haven’t been posted. Maybe you can check with Joe.
I have not said that I agree with what Dwayna said. I would never say something like that without backing it up. She hasn’t.
My questions have been about what Mosaic is actually about, how the scripture relate to the principles, what the principles mean.
If you are really interested in Mosaic’s core values, I recommend the book Becoming An Unstoppable Force by Erwin McManus. This book extensively explains the core values of Mosaic. I assure you that they are biblical and biblically supported
Amy,
I have not had any comments come in that haven’t gone up.
Chris, maybe the spam filter swiped them up? Can you check?
Joe,
I sent them in sometime this afternoon. It’s too bad if they got lost because I think one of them could clear up some misconceptions. They are too long for me to reproduce here but let me cover what most needs to be covered.
Nathan, I never intended the under 20’s to relate specifically to MOSAIC. I was talking about other things I’ve come across. I don’t know enough about MOSAIC to tell anyone anything of substance about it. I’m sorry that you are so angry – I get angry myself every once in awhile and it is so draining and tiring.
From the time that you replied to me about what the gospel is, I thought that Dwayna was probably not on target, at least that is if you are representative of what MOSAIC is. That is, I don’t think that you are intentionally involved in Satanic worship.
It would be dishonest for me to say that I have no concerns about MOSAIC from your answers to my questions. I do. I especially would like to address the idea of cultural relevance in your African example. Don’t worry it won’t be an “all drums are evil” response.
If my expression of concern for under twenty-somethings came across as arrogant I’m sorry. Basically, I know a lot of kids I really care about; I have good relationships with them. If God burdened me to share something with them about the danger of something they are involved in, I would. I have. It’s not with an “I know everything and you’re stupid” attitude, but more of an “I care about you” attitude.
As far as ” who commissioned you to the person that is responsible to inform people about the errors in every church in America, or the globe for that matter?” again I’m sorry that you’re so angry. Hopefully noone, including God will ever commision me to do such a thing. I don’t believe He will ever commision anyone to do that.
My comment that didn’t get sent also talked about your views of local discernment – I’ll try to bring that up again.
Phil,
I replied to you as well, but I’ll have to repeat that tomorrow. Basically, I agree that kids have great potential for digging deep – they just aren’t encouraged to do it by too many leaders.
Chris,
My latest discussion on VS was about creation. I wasn’t playing devil’s advocate. Mostly I just disagree with much of what John thinks on that subject. My other most recent discussions there have primarily been to try have a friendship with the resident atheist – believe it or not somehow I really have a burden for him.
In our recent discussions, I felt strongly about what I was saying about Bell’s sermon, and the importance of not just sweeping the Trinity away as an unimportant issue.
Amy, do you think that Mosaic is unintentionally involved in Satanic worship? And by the way, I was not angry, I was frustrated. I felt that I was rather patient with you, but you kept pushing insignificant issues to which I had given answers.
Amy,
Your comments got caught up in the spam filter, but I’ve recovered them.
Chris,
Can you add them to this thread? I’d be interested in reading them.
Thanks!
Joe,
They are the 5:09 and 5:35 posts in the thread above…
I’ll admit I don’t follow the elements metaphors – that is, I’m probably missing how “wood” fits metaphorically with “connection” and “water” with “community.”
That said, one of the general tendencies of the watch-dog crowd – be they CRN, Rapture Ready (which I was banned from for some undeclared reason) et. al – is to assign ontological meaning to created things that are neutral in and of themselves.
For example – the Labyrinth… I can’t tell you how many discussion I had trying to convince people that a geometric shape cannot be ontologically evil. Yet they’d have none of it. It’s as if Satan can imbue eternal meaning into a shape.
Same with the elements. Sure, maybe pagans used them at one time for one meaning or another – so what! Does that eternally imbue them with evil ontologically – of course not. If that were the case we’d have to say the funk group “Earth, Wind, and Fire” were 3/4’s Satanic (Only 3/4’s since they left out “water”).
Although I do find the continued suspicion of Amy frustrating, she is willing to at least discuss… unlike those at the sites mentioned above who have set their minds that certain things must be evil, then set out to fulfill their own prophecies.
Neil S.
From the Mosaic website:
[quote]Core Convictions:
The Bible is God’s authoritative word to us.
Jesus is the only hope for a lost and broken world.
The local church is God’s agent for redemptive change.
Every Christian is called and gifted by God to serve the Body and seek the Lost.
The Church is called to whole earth evangelism.[/quote]
These plus Mosaic’s doctrinal statement put the onus of responsibility squarely on the detractors to “PROVE” that something is amiss.
Neil S.
Amy,
I apologize that I might have sounded harsh. I want to make sure that I’m directing my frustration at CRN and the like, and not at you.
It’s frustrating to me to see Christian attacked by other Christians about things to which there is little or no proof. The thing that becomes more frustrating is when the people make the accusations take on the attitude of “they’re not responding to my accusations, so they must be true.” I’ve actually heard someone use this line of reasoning with me once. I’ll use an extreme example here. I mean, if someone accused me a animal sacrifice or something, I wouldn’t even bother making a rebuttal to such a ludicrous charge. That person could take my silence as an affirmation of that charge, but they would just go further off into error. That’s the kind of thing I see in many of the “watchblogs”.
It is really ironic in my eyes, because I feel that the people who accuse other Christian of straying ultimately end up in positions similar to the ones they originally were criticizing. We, as Christians really do need to be careful to approach matters in a humble attitude, lest we fall ourselves. Of course we can all have opinions on books and teachings, but when those opinions turn into personal vendettas, something is definitely wrong. Of the temptation on my part is to fight the “watchbloggers” in the same way they fight, but that just continues the circle. I really hope that I can learn to fight in the opposite spirit, and I know I’m still learning.
Dwayna said, “Now, it is hard to believe that we are seeing this worship of the elements coming into the “church†through the Emergents at Mosaic!” I would summarize that at least as leanings towards her viewing Mosaic as intentionally worshipping Satan. Thus part of the reason for my wording my statement as I did.
Do I think that Mosaic is unintentionally involved in Satanic worship? I couldn’t possibly answer that. I wouldn’t say that I suspect that they are unintentionally worshipping Satan. But I also wouldn’t claim to know if they are unintentionally worshipping Satan. I could make that same statement about any group I know little about, and even groups I know much about.
If I could explain my experiences of running into things that are Satanic that Christians view as harmless, not just in other countries, but in America, as well as my own personal horrors that I have suffered as a result of living in the midst of an occult society, I think you could understand where I’m coming from. I will just give one quick example of something I’ve experienced in America – a relative of mine who is a pastor in a Christian church was administering medicine to me over a period of time to heal me – she did this from afar, by putting her fingers together in a circle to sense “energy” to direct her to what and how much medicine to “administer” to me. Now I would never have expected anything like that from a Christian church member, much less a pastor.
I think it is a sad state of affairs that I can’t ask about a seemingly straightforward core of beliefs statement without rousing so much animosity. I realize that some of my questions might seem picky. But many people use terms differently – for example the early example I gave of “power” is not just something that is in the one country I mentioned, it is a concept that is all over – only recently I read a book about how it is perceived in a tribe in Latin America; also among the Amish among the “pow-wow” doctors; in America perhaps we see it mostly defined as “energy” “force.” Certainly is behind Native American religions, and Hinduism . . . basically it’s everywhere.
If I wasn’t careful about looking at things and evaluating them by scripture I hate to think of the mess I could be in. I really think that if I were approaching something or someone that you all were against – such as Ken Silva – in the same manner, no one would criticize me. I have actually done so, asked him many questions that must have been annoying, and tried to come to an understanding of why no one cautions him in some of the things he says and the way he says them.
Bottom line, I’m often after trying to understand what the reality of a situation actually is. Chris can post a Rob Bell defense article, and some of you will just jump on and criticize whoever wrote the criticism instead of taking an objective look at the sermon or whatever, and discussing it. I like to look at the content of things and come to my own conclusions about what I believe about something based on what it is, not what people who have an agenda one way or another believe it is.
In this case it has been very difficult to understand what Mosaic is, and I have been “shamed” in various ways by a number of you for trying to attempt first of all to really understand what the core beliefs are; then, for questioning whether or not they are scriptural. I feel that some of you would rather have me just “grow into my journey” into an attitude of “acceptance” of something that I don’t totally comprehend, and an acceptance of something that I haven’t been convinced is scriptural. If that is where a number of you are at, that you believe a person should be “accepting” of something before they believe that it is scriptural – then we are at great odds and I will probably just stop contributing here altogether.
Next I will write about the Africa example.
Nathan described cultural relevance in this way: “Here’s how I have always described relevance to culture is not optional. If you were to be dropped in an unevangelized tribe in Africa with nothing but an English bible, what would you do? They are illiterate, don’t speak English, and you know a little bit of their language. So, you might tell stories around the campfire of great things in the bible. You might have the tribe reenact these stories, as they do with their oral traditions. You might even write songs with drums and dances that communicate the gospel in a way THEY communicate values and religion. A man with a suit and tie singing “How great thou art†and giving an exposition of the Greek transliteration of Jude will not communicate anything to them”
Nathan, this illustration as well as your earlier description of a traditional church bothers me a lot. If I had to pick out one concern that I have about MOSAIC and thus Mcmanus, if you represent Mosaic and Mcmanus, it would be that they, along with other popular authors try to validate their ministries by starting with a lie. It remind me of political campaigns in which one party has to fully denounce the other before they can announce their wonderful ideas.
This is what I have absorbed from many readings of currently popular books: The traditional church is ineffective; useless. Preaching is not cultural; preaching is not relevant; people are not drawn to Christ through preaching.
To make a shorter story I’m just going to address the preaching issue here, and in the context of your story. First of all, just a couple of principles. Teaching God’s Word is a gift from God. The Bible instructs us to preach the gospel. That applies whether it is relevant or not. Secondly, just looking at the relevance issue, preaching IS cultural in Africa, isn’t it. Aren’t their thousands of national preachers? I don’t know, I’m just guessing. Preaching has become “cultural” just about everywhere if not everywhere Christianity has been spread – has has prayer, worshipping the Lord through song, communion, love for one’s brother, . . .
To your example: I don’t think the first scenario with the guy who knows a little bit of the language could ever happen without some miraculous intervention. To adequately present a Bible story in another language, not just as a speech but with acting, dancing, and music, is beyond the scope of anyone who knows a “little” of the language. To even tell a simple Bible story in another language and know that you are communicating accurately would require several years of immersion for most people. To go beyond that, to really understand the dance, music, of another culture to communicate that story effectively is something that most people couldn’t do after even four or five years of immersion. Most of them wouldn’t think of doing it without a national’s input in the planning and execution. To know how to “direct” people in a culturally appropriate way, unless they’ve previously been exposed to such activity would be a mighty feat.
Why does the preacher have to be, “A man with a suit and tie singing “How great thou art†and giving an exposition of the Greek transliteration of Jude will not communicate anything to them” What if he is . . .
Joe, who at age 20 was almost finished with a Bible college degree and was fully expecting to become a professional soccer player after he graduated. What if Joe, a young man who finds himself constantly drawn towards God and obedience to God, is overwhelmed with a burden for a village in Africa that he hears about through a visiting missionary who is translating the Bible for them. He hears the missionary tell of another group, who speak the same language, but live a 3 hour canoe’s ride away. He completes his degree. He does all he can to learn about the area in Africa that he desires to go to. He joins a mission and studies French the main language of the area he goes to. Three years later, he finds himself in Africa, living with the translator and his family. He begins to learn the language. He stays in that village for 6 months, then, is taken to live in the other village. There are no believers in that village. They let Joe live there because they think that eventually he will bring some kind of wealth to them.
Joe lives in that village for two years. He learns, and learns. He builds relationships. He teaches the young boys to play soccer, something they’ve never done before. The people accept him, mostly. Joe begins to study the book of Luke which his translator friend who has finally finished with the help of nationals. He studies it, and studies it, and comes across one passage that reminds him very much of the people in the village where he’s staying. They are especially kind to children. So he decides to use the passage of Luke 9:46, 47. He prays, and believes that indeed, this is the first passage that God would have him share with these people.
So, around the camfire that night, Joe, who has learned by observation, how to introduce something very important, says all the right things and sits to the right of the chief, the place for saying things of importance. And Joe reads from the word of God. He explains the passage carefully, answers the questions of the people carefully. He knows how intelligent they are, and knows that he will have to do some more study and have some discussions with his translator friend before he can answer all their questions. He feels the peace of God upon him, and knows that this is but the first of many sermons . . .
Perhaps years later, some of the nationals in Joe’s village who have begun Christians began acting out some of the Bible stories they’ve learned through dance and song, and drama. Joe sits there and thinks of all that has gone into this production – for example, how the men have discussed which dance the wise men should be doing as they look for Jesus. He remembers hearing of a drama directed by well-meaning ex-pats in another village, who later found out that their wise men were doing a pig-hunt dance on the way find baby Jesus. He is happy that his people have chosen to do the dance that they do when they find the first young shoots of their most favored crop coming up. He recalls that that same group had a dove coming down to Jesus at his baptism to a rhythm of the drum that meant “warning – the evil spirit is coming.” He’s heard that that ex-pat group now has a national Christian helping them, and he’s glad – glad that they were willing to even try doing drama, but also glad they have learned from their mistakes. He knows that he will also make many mistakes in his teaching. His translator friend has already discovered a number of things he needs to correct in Luke. These ex-pats are constantly in prayer for each other, that they will be diligent in being faithful to Scripture, whether in preaching, translation, or drama – and for all of them – living it out in their daily lives.
(This story is completely made up, so if it conflicts with something you know of Africa, that’s why. I hope I got my point across.)
If I follow your scenarios as you intended, I see that the man who told the story did so having accurately assessed the tribal culture and the man who used drama and dancing did not.
But the good and the bad are based on the accuracy of the assessment, not the methodology of transmission/communication.
So, either man could do more harm than good based on his assessment, regardless of his method of delivery.
Neil S.
Amy,
I agree that it would be a lie to say modern evangelical churches who wear suites and sing hymns are irrelevant to the culture.
And some emerging authors that I have read have pretty much trashed their spiritual forefathers as if they themselves have no particularity of their own.
On the other hand, I applaud churches who see a cultural niche and endeavor to fulfill it. This is, after all, a simple discussion of ecclesiology.
So, until I see something from Mosaic that trashes other styles of churches, I’ll continue to give them the full benefit of the doubt they serve based on their thoroughly orthodox doctrinal statement and thoroughly biblical set of core values.
Neil S.
Amy,
I completely accept your story, and agree with you. A few things come up when I read it.
1. I lived in Africa for a while. Native men who wanted so badly to preach the gospel were held back until they were given or bought a suit. They also had to learn english hymns to hold services as well. This is the norm, not the exception in Malawi specifically. SBC missionaries had told them “this is how church is done”. This sickened me.
But, then I wondered how often this happens in America. Our culture, specifically the 18-35 generation learns through film, art, music and reading. Unfortunately, because the former has not been “the way we have always done it”, these genres are dismissed as “entertainment” or “self-glorification” or “watering down of the gospel”. These can be used as a tool to win people to Christ in a culture that is naturally informed by them.
2. In all of my work with the “emerging church”, there has ALWAYS been some verbal communication of the word in the gatherings. I think that when emerging leaders react against “preaching”, they are reacting to some preachers who feel that they can get up, preach some expository message that has little application and expect people’s lives to change. Most “emergents” would consider their talks more like a conversation with the audience about the timeless truth of God’s word, rather than talking to people about the bible.
Neil,
While Mosaic has never, and hopefully will never bash other methods of worship. We just encourage churches to look at their surrounding culture and be as relevant as possible. In most cases, at least in America,it is not the cultural norm to wear suits on Sunday. Christians do that because that is the culture they have created within their community. If it it cultural to listen to music circa 1900, specifically organ based, then great! I just don’t see that as a cultural norm in America. Most people listen to pop, rock or country.
I am in NO way saying that wearing suits or listening to hymns is wrong (I did my undergrad studies in hymnology and have a HUGE appreciation for them). However, I think there is a difference between respecting our forefathers of the faith and being relevant to the culture. I think copying the method is not the thing to do, but copying the spirit. I respect my great grandfather, but that doesn’t mean I am going to dress like him or talk like him. I am going to learn from and reproduce his character.
A quote that I really think is good: “Church should never be a cross cultural experience for the cultural majority”.
Nathan,
Unfortunately for my husband, in the culture we last lived in, which was extremely hot and humid, it’s the national men pretty much across denominations who wear long pants and in some cases long sleeves to church- so whether the expats want to or not, they may feel the need to dress up as well. It may be that this is a “requirement” in some churches – I think in most cases it’s just become part of the culture. Nationals don’t feel the heat as we do, so it’s probably not that big of a deal to them.
Originally the idea of wearing western clothes came from the British who were in control of the country. In our town, which was where the British government was for our area, there was a neighborhood that had a name that meant “clothes putting on place.” That was where the nationals coming in from the surrounding villages put on clothes – they weren’t allowed into town without them.
I would be interested in just what you mean by the following statement, and how it works itself out practically, generally speaking, in the emergent circle in which you are a part: “Most “emergents†would consider their talks more like a conversation with the audience about the timeless truth of God’s word, rather than talking to people about the bible.” Do they actually read the Word, generally, or is that a negative? What is the difference between “God’s word” and “the bible”? How do they go about determining what a passage means?
The pastor I mentioned earlier who used to be at one of my churches was one of three pastors there – my husband and I were always disappointed when he was the preacher. I asked my self questions like, “What was he saying?” “Why doesn’t he use his bible?” “That isn’t scriptural.” This was in contrast with one of the other pastors who would preach exegetically – he was one of the most gifted speakers I’ve known, able to share “meat” in an interesting manner, in a way that people could “see God” and apply it to their life.
I’m not attempting to generalize from my experience with these two pastors; however I wonder if people from an emergent background would value the pastor that I didn’t value (the church he started is very popular) and think that something was wrong with the pastor who preached exegetically.
Neil,
I agree with your comments. One thing I was trying to demonstrate that “preacher” does not have to mean “someone who is making no effort to communicate with the culture.”
Phil,
Thanks for the apology. You apparently posted your comment while I was writing one of mine, so I didn’t see it before.
I would appreciate anyone’s comments on the following, which I posted earlier. Please just assume, for the discussion, that I have represented this pastor accurately. I would like to know whether or not you think this pastor’s viewpoint (of cultural relevance and how it should apply) is representative of “emergent;” whether or not you think his viewpoint is scriptural; whether or not you would want him to be the pastor of your teenage son or daughter if you had one. Also, if you choose to answer these questions please tell me whether or not you consider yourself emergent. Here’s my comment:
There is a well-known “emergent†church in my area. The pastor who began it used to be a pastor at a church I attended regularly. Some kids I know go there. For those reasons I had a personal interest, curiosity about it, so looked it up on the web. I came to the homepages of one of the pastors. He talked about how he was in a bar and told someone there that he was a pastor and was going to a certain concert that evening. The person he was talking to couldn’t believe it. He said something like, “You’re a pastor, and you’re going to THAT?†The pastor said “Yes, God has called me to be part of this culture.†Anyway, the article went on, with him talking about that principle, and then talking about how much he enjoyed the concert. I looked up the group, and purposefully picked out one innocent sounding song and one not-so-innocent sounding song. Both were probably the worst pornographic lyrics I’ve ever come across.
I see some of my friends’ kids around, who are attending that church, and wonder what they are learning from that pastor. I wonder how this pastor’s views of “God calls us to be part of the culture†affects the worship service at that church. I wonder how it affects any outreaches that they do.
Nathan,
Earlier you said, “Look Amy, do you think that you time could be better spent developing people’s walk with Christ, sharing the gospel, and building up the kingdom. I am discerning from what you have written, that you are more interested in kicking back and criticizing than getting your hands dirty with the work that God has given us. ”
Do you mean by “I am discerning” in the previous statement that you believe the Holy Spirit is showing you this? Or do you mean simply that this is some kind of “logical” conclusion that you’ve come to, somehow? Or is it a way of saying, “I’m tired of your questions?”
What can I say about your comment? To provide a “resume” would be prideful. And would seem stupid, because I know that no matter how much I “do” for Christ, I fall short. I’ll simply say, for your sake, that if you feel like you somehow “discerned” through the Holy Spirit,that I have little or no ministry that I believe that you are sadly mistaken.
Nathan,
RE: you response – I agree.
Neil S.
Amy,
From what you said it sounds like the pastor in your example may be pushing the envelope too far… based on what you said.
But that’s rather irrelevant to the whole discussion on Mosaic. It may show as an example of “where you are coming from” – but to assume others are the same until proven otherwise is unwarranted.
Or, to put it another way, just because one pastor used “power” in an occultic way is no reason to assume other s do.
As I said before, you comments are better reasoned than a pot I have seen from the so-called discernment crowd – but you still seem to assume the worste…
Neil S.
Neil S.
Amy,
I would say that it is abnormal for emergent pastors to NOT use scripture. I encourage you again to read Becoming an Unstoppable Force, and check out Mosaic’s podcast… http://www.mosaic.org/podcast. Erwin is relentless about studying the scriptures and teaching thm in his talks.
Neil,
I don’t think I’m assuming the worst – if I was I would never waste my time carrying on this discussion. I would just go looking for all the anti-emergent documents I could find, and devour them.
Consider that my personal experiences with emergent – though minimal, have all been negative. Consider that I am trying to get some perspective on whether or not the local emergent church here is representative of emergents as a whole. It’s an attempt to try to be fair.
I do know a number of people being affected by teachings of emergents – including pastor “Tim,” who recently brought out his three new books about the emergent church to show me. When he brought them out, I said nothing, but the first thing that popped into my mind was my former pastor’s lack of biblical teaching (the one who started the emergent church,) and the mindset of the pastor who went to the concert. I said nothing about them – but have thought that perhaps I should – just as a caution to him. Now I have an opportunity to ask a few people who are pro-emergent whether this one pastor in particular is representative of emergent. I want to take that opportunity, so that if I decide to talk about him with pastor “Tim” I can do so with a better idea of how “a pastor who delights in listening to pornographic lyrics” fits into the whole enigma. Pastor Tim is someone who I respect, and some of the people in his congregation are very good “old” friends – I care about where they are being led.
Neil,
I realize that “just because one person does something is not the reason to assume someone else is doing something.” I don’t think I’m doing that. But certainly there are trends in groups, aren’t there? Especially when people of one label or another seem to be influenced by some of the same teachers.
How many emergent leaders apply principles of cultural relevance the way the “concert Pastor” does? I don’t know – but what is more important to consider is that he is in a position to be the catalyst for young people who are under him, his “sheep”, to apply the principles as he does. They are the future leaders, aren’t they?
Some final thoughts about this conversation:
My part in this conversation started off with my questioning what the core beliefs statement of Mosaic meant, and how the scriptures related to them. I still am not clear on some of that; however I appreciate all the time you’ve spent explaining things Nathan. I’ll try to read the link you sent as well.
This conversation has ventured into Emergent in general. To me, I don’t see the conversation as straying that much, because my overall concern about Emergent could be phrased as: What are the core beliefs? How are they applied?
For any individual and every organization, if the basic principles are not built on scripture, and applied scripturally, then what that individual or organization accomplishes in life will be “wood, hay, stubble” or worse yet, falsehood leading to people stumbling away from the only chance they have to live in obedience to God. I pray that all of us, no matter what our label or lack thereof (I hate labels), will be able to understand what the “core beliefs” of scripture as realating to our relationship with God and others are, and that we can obey Him in carrying out those beliefs.
Nathan,
I couldn’t get the podcast to work: I did look at an interview here:
http://www.infuzemag.com/interviews/archives/2006/10/erwin_mcmanus.html
Especially starting with the “Shifting gears a bit” question and going down from there, I began thinking that his beliefs regarding the nature of the soul of an unredeemed person differ greatly from mine. It’s not just one “quote” out of context that bothers me, but thing after thing that he says in regards to the kingdom of God within.
Within us all is a longing to be connected to our maker. I don’t care if you are an ax murderer or the church organist. We all are designed for a relationship with Christ. Our souls crave Christ. Many people fill those cravings with intimacy with other people. sex, money, power… they try to find meaning where there is no meaning to fill the void. That is what Erwin means… our souls crave God. That longing is intrinsically in every human.
Amy, for the most part I would say that “emergent” hold to the same doctrine as the rest of the Christian world. I would say that most, not all, are light on the reformed theology and high on missional theology. People react to the methods, not the message that the “emergents” use. You ask Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, etc., they will all affirm that Jesus died for sins, you must accept him as your savior to go to heaven, there is a hell, etc.
One thing that has really impacted me this last week as I have read over the apprising, Mike Corley, discernment blogs: They focus more on how “narrow the gate” to heaven is. It is almost as if they care more about not letting people into heaven than helping people find Christ. They PUSH the fact that the gospel SHOULD offend people, and that churches where people are meeting Christ on a regular basis as wrong… the gospel is not offensive enough.
Now, I do believe that the gospel will offend some, and it will be a stumbling block to some, but that shouldn’t be out focus. WE should work on presenting the gospel IN ITS ENTIRETY without offending or confusing every non-believer that comes across it. I don’t think that you are doing this Amy. It is just a side thought.
Amy,
I recommend “Listening to the Beliefs of Emergent Churches.” On amazon.com it’s credited to Mark Driscoll, but it’s really a compilation. If you read this you’ll see just how divergent the emergent movement is.
Though in a recent post by Driscoll on his own blog he has distanced himself from some of the others.
I think the book would help you, it did me.
Neil S.
Nathan,
You comments regarding the offensive nature of the Gospel are spot on… it should be the message that is offensive, not the messenger.
Neil S.
Neil,
The concern for me would be where the authors and teachers who are either emergent are popular with emergents are going to take people. My own son was introduced to a number of these in his Christian college. When I heard what he was reading – with absolutely no prior knowledge that there was any controversy surrounding these people -I became very burdened. Reading the magazine sent out by the college didn’t help matters, because of the authors they were highly recommending. I felt that their intention was not just to introduce students to current thinking in Christianity, but to persuade them to be open to these new ideas.
I cried when I talked to my son about what books he was reading. Really, I was so upset that mostly what I communicated to him was burden, not information. I prayed for him.
We haven’t talked about all he read; however I have good reason to think that he has come out of the experience unscathed. He is a clear thinker and not easily persuaded to absorb something just because it is new.
Nathan,
Does everyone crave God? How do you support that scripturally? I would just be interested in how someone would prove that from scripture.
Even if that were the case, I think that Mcmanus is saying much more than that. As I was reading what he wrote, my understanding is that he is saying that Jesus is already inside of people’s souls before they accept Him. Part of me wishes that I could go back to that section that I read and just cut and paste all the phrases that didn’t disturb me.
Nathan,
What is the gospel “in its entirety?”
To everyone:
Today I listed to Rob Bell teaching about breathing in the spirit. I had read “Have you heard of spiritual breathing?” on the CRN site today and linked to an article on “More Books and Things.” At the bottom of that article is a link to the Rob Bell teaching. I don’t know if the message is recent, or has been around for awhile.
My reaction to Bell’s message: If Rob Bell affirms, as Nathan points out that “Jesus died for sins, you must accept him as your savior to go to heaven, there is a hell,” then how can he teach like this?” How many people will listen to what he is saying in this message and believe that they have the Holy Spirit in them, people who have never accepted Christ’s sacrifice for them?
I will tell you now, just to save the time of any of who might want to comment on this, that if you think I would accept Bell’s message if I was told it was “just for Christians,” that is not so.
I know that what I am going to say next is going to sound like a cop-out, like I can’t stand up for what I say, I’m lazy, etc, etc, but I need to say it anyway: I’m simply going to not be able to discuss what I’ve said re: Bell. The whole topic of Rob Bell’s sermon is spiritually oppressive to me. God could strengthen me, give me the will to write a paper on it, or try to discuss it point by point. Maybe someday He will. For now, I know that I want to just rest in the truth of God’s Word for awhile; a book that I can read knowing that I am reading absolute truth.
I’m going to back off of discussing Mcmanus, Mosaic, and emergent as well.
I probably will read any replies that are made to this, so if you have something to say, I’ll try to read it. Maybe not right away, but eventually. I feel that it is too rude to just dump my thoughts about Bell – which may strike you as being very wrong – and leave you thinking that I won’t read what you say.
There is something eerily similar in Bell’s message and in the part of Mcmanus teaching that I especially struggled with. I wonder if they are both slight variations on the “light within,” “divine spark” theme.
There are several thing that I have a problem with in your posts.
1. Is your son intelligent? Have you taught him how to read the word and decide for himself? He goes to a Christian College, so he must know something to that effect. So, why would you be so concerned that he doesn’t know about the controversy? Could he not simply read these works for himself and decide, or is he not that intelligent. We young people are not stupid you know. We aren’t blindly following leaders without testing them with scripture. Maybe your son isn’t, and needs to know about a controversy to decide good doctrine, but most of us are.
2. Ecclesiastes 3:11 – 13 He has made everything appropriate in its time He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end. I know that there is nothing better for them than to rejoice and to do good in one’s lifetime; moreover, that every man who eats and drinks sees good in all his labor–it is the (N)gift of God.
If you don’t believe that God is actively at work in the hearts of all men, then maybe you should read your word. Notice how Peter or Paul didn’t discern the elect before thousands of people can to Christ in their sermons. I ASSURE you from working with the man almost daily that Erwin is NOT saying that everyone is SAVED. He is saying that Jesus is actively pursuing every person here on earth. Yes, I believe that Jesus is knocking at every person’s heart in the world. Just because Jesus is actively pursuing someone does not mean that they are saved.
3. Holy MOLY! Amy, I am taking a harsher tone with this, because your logic is just frustrating! I can give you MP3s of Erwin and Rob saying that only those who accept Christ as their savior are saved and those who don’t are going to hell! Is that what you want? I am not too sure if you are asking them to say that in every single talk they ever give, or what? This is the HUGE problem I have with CRN and the rest. They take ONE sermon and make that the extent of that person’s theology! Rob Bell has done talk about needing to be saved and how the holy spirit empowers CHRISTIANS! God ol’ Silva wrote the other day that the SBC needs to go back to fire and brimstone. Maybe that is what you are looking for. But, I am much more interested in attracting people with God’s love than literally trying to scare the hell out of them.
THE END… love to ALL. Just getting a little passionate about this whole thing.
Nathan,
You nailed it, the watch-doggers will ask questions and make accusations… and when their questions are answered they start making accusations against what people don’t say… and if ya don’t say it like they do… you become a “supposed Christian.”
Reading a little Ken Silva can ruin my whole afternoon… in that reference to Rob, Ken 1) shows poor historical scholarship, 2) rips passages out of context, and has the temerity, the shameless arrogance, the outright hubris to questions this man’s salvation… these are the types we should keep our kids away from – unless we are using them as bad examples.
Amy,
OK – finished the message by Bell on breathing (which was taught by Bill Bright decades ago)… and since it was given to Christians with in a church fellowship context… I have no problem with it.
There was nothing Rob said that is inconsistent with the Gospel, nothing in conflict with “Jesus died for sins, you must accept (btw: show me where the Scriptures say we “accept” Jesus ) him as your savior to go to heaven, there is a hell.”
Shoot! He even gave an altar call…
I probably would have not used the Yoga illustrations – but that’s all it was an illustration – me thinks Ken Silva is intellectually dishonest.
Amy, you are obviously struggling with new methods, but I’m beginning to think your truest struggle is the struggle to find something to oppose.
…and finally, I am at a complete loss as to what anyone would find spiritually oppressive about that message.
neil,
I would say that “confessing with your mouth and believing with your heart” is accepting Jesus as your savior. I agree with everything else you said.
Hey all,
Going back to the start of this conversation, did any of you see Dwayna’s contribution from yesterday (Sunday 3/11) entitled “Music Is Not Amoral”. Whoo boy…it just keeps on getting better.
I really, really don’t understand the point she is trying to make. Somehow she’s equating Cain’s inferior sacrifice with musical styles, and it just makes my head spin trying to follow such twisted logic.
I fully expect her next article to extol the virtues of the King James translation because we all know that’s how Jesus and the Disciples actually talked.
I mean, really, how can anyone take anything seriously from a site that allows this kind of stuff to be posted?
Phil,
Was she talking about that “fanny shaking” African worship music, with the “Holeh, Holeh, Holeh” refrain Ingrid finds so offensive?
Ray,
It wasn’t nearly that coherent, honestly. LOL
And this is a doozy from the Rev. Ken:
“Men and women, while some in the Body of Christ are now calling this despicable Emegent rebellion against the Bible a cult, I offer you the following article from Apprising Ministires called Emergent Church: The Emerging Cult. Check the time stamp and you will see I was warning the Body of Christ about this neo-liberal cult as far back 11/16/2005. Another reason that CRN/AM needs your financial support. And in the Lord I tell you, there aren’t very many willing to venture where I do.”
Actually, there are plenty of people willing to tear other Christians apart for money.
The emerging church, fanny shaking music, etc is all addressed here in this “thoughtful” youtube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1pdmPtBsEg&mode=related&search=
If he says stupid once more…
Matt,
That video is both sad and hilarious. I somehow envison that being part of a Steve Taylor video. “Beat and rhythm” music and “crashing, thrashing, and bashing” – it’s too, too funny. The fact that you can’t have melody and harmony without beat and rhythm (even if there are no drums) is totally lost on people who think this way, I suppose. Time signatures are of the devil! Burn your metronomes today! Make you sure you don’t tap your foot to the beat! That’s a heresy!
Thanks for the laughs…
Honestly, I cried listening to that man. I truly believe he is a tool of the enemy.