Just a few random bits of thoughts from my lunchtime perusal of CRN:

Beatlemainia vs. Hyperlegalism

As I read Ingrid’s article, I got to wondering: Which is more concerning-  A) A Christian college hosting a Beatlemania concert; or B) this quote:

WELS Lutherans are instructed that they should not even pray with someone of another denomination, including fellow conservative Lutherans.

I think I’ll have to go with “B” on this one (which is not to say I would or would not have supported “A”).

Wow

Just when you thought nobody could more incoherently slander Rob Bell than Ken, it seems that Ken dug a guy up who would fill that bill in today’s article on CRN.  [Caution - poor readability and sad "Christian" logic follow that link]

What made the linked article rather sad/humorous just off the top of my head was:

1. The open mocking of another church’s missions program

2. The mocking of the very name of the church (Mars Hill Bible Church)

3. Complaining that the worship music page from the church doesn’t mention using one’s heart in worship, yet the opening words on the linked page are: “Join in with all your heart, soul, mind and strength”

4. The icing on the cake – Finishing the article up with the quote “If it’s true it’s not new”.  Match this with the introduction from Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis:

“If it’s true, it isn’t new. I am learning that what seems brand new is often the discovery of something that has been there all along – it just got lost somewhere and it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and reclaimed.”

What’s in a Word?

OK, so on Monday, Ken wrote a scathing complaint about one of the most conservative ‘emerging’ church pastors out there, in terms of theology, Mark Driscoll.  His problem was twofold: 1) An ad for a church celebration on Cinco de Mayo included a reference to ‘cervesas’, which is a misspelling of the Spanish word for “beer”, ‘cervezas’.  The inferrence was that Mark must be ‘Emergent’ (which both he and Mars Hill do not claim) because the church would had beer at a function; 2) The ad referenced a church New Years Party (which had a champagne toast) called the ‘Red Hot Bash’, which Ken then twisted to imply that it was sexually raunchy (another supposed trait of ‘Emergent-cy’).

So then yesterday, Ken writes a complaint about how the ad from Mars Hill’s Cinco de Mayo changed to remove the word ‘cervesas’ – the implication being there’s something sinister going on here.  Besides the fact that I doubt that Mark does the web-work for Mars Hill and probably had no involvement in this ‘tempest’ (I wouldn’t even call it a ‘tempest in a teapot’, because the ‘tempest’ exists only in Ken’s mind), I can think of dozens of reasons for the change. 

For starters, I know a good number of highly educated folks whose grasp on the meanings of foreign words falls far short of reality.  I had a high school teacher who used a particular yiddish word for years when describing certain types of students.  When she was informed what the word meant, she turned white as a sheet and never used it again.  In this manner, since ‘cervesas’ was misspelled in the first place, I wouldn’t assume that the person was sure of the meaning in the first place.

However, rather than just assume anything, I decided to use this brand new, modern invention called a “telephone” and I called Mars Hill and asked.  Their receptionist was in (it’s lunch time out there), and told me to send him and email and he’d get an answer back to me.  If they are OK with me publishing the answer, I will…

I wonder if Ken wrote/called Mars Hill to inquire about this function, or if he is just making assumptions, with the assumption being that their motives were somehow deceptive or impure?  Or is this just another case of looking to be offended and finding what you sought in whatever you found…

To his credit, though, at least Ken posted the following quote from Driscoll’s book, The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out:

“Why does all of this matter?” It matters because alcohol is a very real example of the pitfalls of syncretism and sectarianism. Prohibition began as a syncretistic liberalism that took away alcohol and the Christian freedom to drink. This happened because churches aligned themselves with a non-Christian feminism that attempted to eliminate the pub as a gathering place for men to do theology, politics, and business. This syncretism undermined the clear teachings of Scripture in an effort to fabricate a theology that supported its cultural form of morality.

Over time the prohibitionist mindset became so entrenched in evangelical and fundamentalist thinking that it is now a sectarian belief intended to keep God’s people out of the pubs, clubs, and dinner parties where sinners gather to make friendships and memories–the very places where Jesus was often found… Confusion about the gospel is truly at the root of this issue.

Does this mean, though, that Ken has changed his stance on alcohol, or that he expected this to prove his point (in which case, it didn’t).  Ken, can you answer?