Archive for August 10th, 2007
I feel incredibly bad for Dan Kimball, who seems to be CRNâ€™s new (and possibly most undeserving) whipping boy. It is amazing that the watch doggies can still say that he is â€œpreaching a â€œvague and pervertedâ€ gospel.â€ This may be a strong effort to save face from past mishaps, but non the less it seems incredibly unmerited. However, in this latest attack, I am having a hard time following what the author really believes on the subject. First me makes the claim above
Suffice to say at this point I have spoken my opinion from my own Christian convictions that I believe Kimball is preaching a â€œvague and pervertedâ€ gospel. (emphasis mine)
But then goes on to say
But it is also true that I explained to him how it is not a clear message when someone outlines their views as being orthodox, which Kimball does do, but then turns around and openly aligns himself with Emergent men who clearly are not. (emphasis mine)
I guess I am confusedâ€¦ which is it? Is he preaching a perverted gospel, or is he being orthodox, but just aligns himself with others that these watch doggies disagree with? The writer goes on to use his own life as an example. This author is a member or the Southern Baptist Convention, but because he is very vocal that most of what they do is unbiblical, he is in the right. He says
If I see heresy and apostasy coming into the SBC then I am bound as a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to speak out against it, publicly oppose it, and to defend proper doctrine. And the record is very clear that this is exactly what I am doing.
But it seems to me that your orthodox doctrinal statement would naturally clash with the doctrine taught by heretical leaders and immediately speak out for truth. You see, there are two ways to preserve truthâ€¦ proclaim it openly and honestly (as Kimball does) or go around and attack those who you believe are perverting it (as this author does). While the latter is sometimes necessary, it seems that the former would be the best and most profitable option. Then again, men like Kimball, McManus and Bell have already publicly disassociated themselves with the emergent movement. So the point seems null and void.
The last idea presented in the article is the belief that anything other than reformed theology is vague and unbiblical. Those familiar with the watch doggie theology will know what this is all about. I once was a 5 pointer, and made my beliefs known at any opportunity I got. Even still, I would never speak out against my non-reformed brothers and sisters, calling them vague and perverted. I saw that their theology was based in scripture and that the two schools of thought really didnâ€™t affect our mission or our love for an almighty God.
In general the article says this
- Dan Kimball is Orthodox and not doctrinally vague, BUT
- Dan Kimball aligns himself with the Emerging movement, AND
- the emerging movement is heretical because they are not reformed, THERFORE
- Kimball is doctrinally vague because he doesnâ€™t speak out against leaders in the emerging movement (even though he has publicly said he is not part of the movement)
You do the logic. Or could the real reason be
- Kimball made them look like a fool, SO
- Rather than apologize, the watch doggies will say anything to save face.
This really has nothing to do with this site (except that its the kind of thing that causes the watch doggies to go into seizures) but I was planning out my sermon series for Easter, and I was toying with the idea of what entrance music would be appropriate for Jesus after the resurrection (or if you want to think of it this way, what could be playing on the soundtrack during/after the resurrection). The idea here is to capture the kind of moment that it is. The song doesn’t have to be completely relevant (as in some of the lyrics may not quite fit), but it should set the proper mood/feeling of the moment. This can be for the resurrection itself, or the appearances Jesus made afterwards. I only have two stipulations:
1. The song needs to be well known enough that people will generally be familiar with it.
2. Provide some explanation.
Anyway, here’s what I have so far. Some of these are weak, which is why I’m coming to you for help.
I Wonâ€™t Back Down â€“ Tom Petty
This one gets in just for the theologically correct lyric â€œyou can stand me up at the gates of hell but Iâ€™ll stand my groundâ€.
Back in Black â€“ AC/DC
Mark Driscoll describes Jesus at the second coming as an ultimate fighter. Totally sweet, and heâ€™s got a tattoo. The balls to the wall attitude of this song is perfect. It lets everyone know that the man is back in town.
The Man Comes Around â€“ Johnny Cash
The solemn nature of the song, combined with the large quantities of scripture makes this one a must have on any resurrection playlist. The line, â€œThereâ€™s a man coming round taking names, and he decides who to free and who to blameâ€ would be enough all by itself, but the man in black doesnâ€™t stop there, the entire song is shot through with paraphrases and direct quotes from scriptures, all wrapped up in the considerable talents of Johnny Cash.
If It Be Your Will â€“ Leonard Cohen
Iâ€™m not sure thereâ€™s a song more appropriate for Jesus than one that expresses complete and total obedience.
Itâ€™s the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
This one seems pretty self-explanatory, Jesus defeats death, and crushes sin, Satan is ultimately defeated, and the Kingdom of God bursts forth into the world. Why wouldnâ€™t Jesus feel fine?
Looks like Apprising has been publicly called out by Christianity Today. This publication, which goes out internationally, has written an article entitled Attack Dogs of Christendom. It targets Ken Silva specifically saying that he is â€œdisturbingly visibleâ€ and operates one of the â€œangriest websitesâ€ on the Internet. To this accusation Silva responds
Since Christ gave it to me, then I say, the Lord be praisedâ€¦. Have these people ever considered that the anger coming through me as a pastor-teacher sent by the Lord just might not actually be my own?
To me, that is one of the most disturbing statements made by these watch dogs. When they begin to blame God for their offensive, unmerited and outspoken anger, you know something is up. In this same missive, Apprising makes another jab at Dan Kimballâ€™s beliefs. All that after Dan when out of his way to let his doctrinal beliefs be known here in detail. It is sad when someone cannot admit they were wrong, but has to keep snowballing the lies. I just donâ€™t know how much farther these guys can go.