I don’t normally address the fringe watchdoggie websites here. However, since a Paula decided to grace us with her presence, I decided to check out her blog. The first article I found really revealed how most of the watchdoggies are operating these days. Paula found an article about a scandal that took place at Calvary Baptist Church of Yorba Linda (no link provided). The story was as follows:

YORBA LINDA – A three-member faction of the board of Calvary Baptist Church of Yorba Linda that opposed informing members of alleged misdeeds by two former pastors gained control of the church Sunday night.

The three met without the other two board members Saturday to pick five new board members, who were all approved by a vote of the congregation Sunday night.

Members who wanted to nominate other candidates were silenced by board member James Hutchings, who told them, “If you can’t get with us, then go.”

Paula’s one and only closing remark was

Well looks as though they’re lining up the yes-men! And YES they are PD, in case you hadn’t guessed.

I nearly rolled over with laughter. Does she really believe that Purpose-Driven theology caused this church drama? And I would find it very hard to swallow that she actually believes that Purpose Driven churches are the only ones with church splits, hostile board take-overs or leadership scandals. I have been to pleanty of good ol’ fundamentalist churches where business meetings looked more like a war zone than a house of worship. Next time I hear of a church splitting over the color of the carpet, I should probably blame it on the church’s theology. Again, sound like the juicy headlines are out of season these days.

It seems to be a new Christian [bad]Research Network tactic to take great quotes from Christian leaders and make frail attempts to discredit them. Sometimes I wonder if these guys are reading the same scriptures that I am reading. The ever so elusive editor at CRN has written this piece against Rob Bell, in which Bell basically says that God still wants to bring salvation to all people and we are one of the instruments for that purpose. Yet, CRN comes back with a rather random scripture cocktail as their rebuttal; I have yet to figure out what they are trying to say with it.

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind”… “For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled… All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him”…

Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God… But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness… Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. (Is. 65:17; Matt. 5:17, 11:27; Romans 8:7-8; 2 Peter 3:10-11; Rev. 21:1)

Is it that God isn’t trying to save the world because He is preparing heaven for the saved? Is it that the only person who knows God is Jesus, and he is not choosing to save anyone else? Maybe God doesn’t have a good plan for His people because He is going to throw the whole thing away eventually.

I had a conversation with some friends the other day on this subject. There are two mindsets on eschatology that really drive one’s whole life. The first is that Jesus is coming back soon to take his people and destroy the world, which He hates. Churches and people that view life in this way will spend 80% of their time keeping their church members “saved” and ready for the rapture. Evangelism is an added bonus, if there is time after all the bible studies and small group meetings. If someone is reformed and has this view, they will usually at best become completely apathetic to the outside world, or at their worst will create hate websites towards other Christians.

The other view would say that Jesus could come back at any moment, but we don’t have a clue when that could be (see scripture cocktail above). And, God is still working and moving thru humanity, making his will known. Because of that, we still are on mission with him to do his work here continue bringing light and hope to a dying world. Essentially, God is still fixing brokenness and bringing beauty to the world around us. That radically will change how you live your life.

Anyhow, it seems like CRN is just plain out of material. From recycling solid interviews from McManus to scrapping for heretical quotes from Bell (heck, they did an article on Brad Pitt for goodness sake), these guys are in desperate need of a juicy headline.

From here*:

Another heathen is seemingly endorsed, Hansen says. And this man was known for being a liar, keeping a “kinda skanky” mistress, and drowning in his bath. “Uh, gee: You think alcohol was involved in that?” Hansen asks.

“Dude was hardly a Christian, and espoused things that were antithetical to Christianity, and here we’ve got this respected Christian leader-writer dude, referring to him, without rejecting all the bad stuff the guy believed and did.”

The leader in question, Hansen says, changed his name from “Saul” to “Paul” well before quoting the pagan writers, three in all. Hansen says he’s actually “More than okay with what Paul did,” but notes not all may approve.

*No, I am not Brant writing in disguise. Nor am I stalker (well he is in my RSS feed, so that is kind of stalkerish, just socially acceptable stalking). As to why I’ve posted him multiple times, well, its just good stuff. Except that one thing he did. But we don’t mention that anymore.

Well, one of my daughter’s papers came home yesterday with a jack-o-lantern on it, which made me realize that October is upon it, and it is almost the season for ODM’s to start howling about Halloween and castigating Christians who dare to allow their children to trick-or-treat.

So, in advance of the festivities, I though perhaps we could have a little contest to see which of our astute readers can guess the number of articles from the following ODM sites reference the “evils” of Halloween during the month of October:

• CR?N
• AM
• Old “Truth”
• TeamPyro
• SoL 3.0

In scoring, an article only counts once, even if it is posted on two or more of the above sites. Additionally, only your first guess counts, and the earliest correct guess will win. If there is somehow a tie, it will be broken with the following tie-breaker question – of the articles which address Halloween, how many will attempt to tie the ECM into the same article?

The winner of this contest will be able to submit to me an article for guest publication on CRN.info whose only qualification is that it must meet publishing standards (no coarse language, overt blasphemy, etc.). If the winner is one of the writers at CRN, he or she may pass the prize to a designee of their choice…

Normally, I don’t link to specific sermons I listen to online, but I’m going to make an exception today. The verse we quote in our masthead, Matthew 23:23, and it is at the center of the Mars Hill Bible Church sermon this past week. You can listen to it below for the next 12 weeks…

Grace and peace,

Chris

 

 Camels and Gnats: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I am not too sure how many times Ken Silva is going to write an article based on this relevant magazine interview with Erwin McManus. I am getting tired of writing rebuttals that easily dismiss Silva’s articles as academically and theologically irresponsible. Here are a few notes on the latest [miss]ive.

Erwin McManus, an influential voice within the neo-liberal cult of the Emergent Church as well as lead vocalist pastor, cultural architect and distinguished futurist of Mosaic

Are the petty jabs really that pastoral or necessary here? Again, they are not only juvenile, but inappropriate for a pastor or spiritual leader.

For a more in-depth look at this issue I refer the interested reader to Rob Bell and Karl Barth. But for our purposes here Dr. Francis Schaeffer gives us a concise understanding of the neo-orthodox approach to the Bible when he points out that Barth

This is the basic logic here

• Ken say Bell agrees with Karl Barth
• Francis Schaeffer says Karl Barth is a heretic
• Therefore Bell is a heretic
• Because Ken says Bell and McManus are the same, McManus is a heretic

Ken continues

The reason why you will see so many leaders within the emerging church so unwilling to commit to the inerrancy of Scripture is their own adherence to Barth’s essentially higher critical i.e. near liberal approach to Holy Scripture. And for those who have not been taken in with McManus’ more mystic bent it then becomes clear that McManus interprets the Bible according to his own feelings about what he thinks God is saying

Unfortunately, McManus was not asked about the inerrancy of scripture. He was asked “How do we begin to move toward living a life that reflects God’s character? What are some practical ways?” Had he been asked about the inerrancy of scripture, he would have addressed the issue. That’s like criticizing someone for not saying the sky is blue when they were asked what the grass feels like between your toes. It is simply bad logic and research methods.

But, since Silva is so anxious to know McManus’ view of the scriptures, he only needs to look as Mosaic’s first core conviction: “The Bible is God’s infallible, authoritative word to us.” Now, the dictionary defines “infallible” as incapable of failure or error. So, sounds like McManus has clearly stated that the scriptures are not only the authoritative word of God, but they are incapable of error. That sounds a lot like inerrancy to me.

Ken continues to scrape at any hope of pinning his self-defined advisory by trying to prove McManus and John Shelby Spong hold to the same theological views on scripture. You can read for yourself, but they are unmerited, and unsupported at best. Ken does not address McManus’ statements

but I do see the Scriptures as the primary access, a portal into God’s presence. I began to have a clear sense of God’s voice in my life through reading the Scriptures and hearing God’s voice through the Scriptures… The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. (emphasis mine)

He did address McManus’ statement “I treasure the Scriptures.” However, he calls the statement “patronizing”. I suppose David was patronizing when he wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart,That I may not sin against You.” You can be the judge of the rest. I find it interesting that Silva writes yet another [miss]ive on this interview with McManus after being proven inaccurate here.

Snippets of Spurgeon’s sermons have been used lately to promote that fact that he was stern with deceivers and had no patience with false teachers. Surely there were times that he was so, but which false teachers did he deal with? Was it just the compromisers that some mold into their convenient packages, or were there others to which Spurgeon took out his verbal whip? So with that in mind, let us read some more of Spurgeon, some parts that some people do not want you to read. This is what Spurgeon had to say about men who teach that baptism saves, and notice how he connects those who teach infant baptism with holding hands with the Roman Catholic Church. You want Spurgeon, you got him!

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matthew 20:25-28

From here:

Men like Spurgeon didn’t come out and mingle with the congregation to show how real they were while they preached. They stood in a position of authority by virtue of his God-given office as under-shepherd.

Its a real shame that Jesus couldn’t have lived up to Ingrid’s standards. Why its amazing anyone paid any attention to him at all what with not having a pulpit at all, and going out and mingling with the crowds.

At some point we need to realize that the scripture’s admonitions to servanthood, and humility is at odds with the way western Christianity has viewed ministry. I wonder if Jesus, Paul, Peter, James etc. would even recognize a preacher dressed in a suit and tie, preaching down to a congregation from a pulpit as Christianity. Humility, servanthood, and our culture’s trappings of power don’t go together.

The use of metaphors and hyperbole are edifying when applied in a devotional setting, their application in that context is usually without controversy and enjoyed by all. But when you are confronting a person and his teachings a much more measured approach must be implimented or you allow your words and by connection you yourself to become part of the presentation.

When you are using the Word to edify you can cull out a verse and build upon it without breaking new doctrinal ground, but when quoting someone we must be very careful in isolating a quote as a proof text. It can lend itself easily to misrepresentation. That is why we must do dispassionate and careful studies about anyone with whom we disagree and present fairly what he is saying/teaching because we as believers should be clear and fair as well as strong. People like Ken are strong, invective, and with the hyperbole and conclusion laden posts that are mostly without organized evidence they have made themselves the issue and failed miserably in projecting what they claim is their ministry, exposing error.

Wrapped in the cloak of Reformation language they have rebuffed many serious students of the Word, even among those who would agree, because of their caustic and self righteous tone. When the issues are of such supreme importance should we not endeavor to remove our own emotions and manipulative wording so as to provide the most accurate representation of the truth about people’s positions? Yes, we should, but it is very difficult because we as believers are so given to the world’s way of “talk show” discourse.

We can do better.

Is it just me, or is CRN getting more and more ridiculous with the claims they are making against so-called emergent leaders? Ken Silva criticizes McManus for this quote in relevant magazine

Well, I build my life not on the Word of God, but the voice of God. The Scriptures are to me the instrument that God has placed in history for me to learn the voice of God. I treasure the Scriptures. (emphasis mine)

I am trying to see how this statement would warrant a title like “Erwin McManus: Building His Life Not on the Word of God but on Subjective Experience.” However, as usual, the Christian [bad]Research Network failed to add this quote given right before this one in the article

Knowing God, knowing His heart, knowing His character is really about falling passionately in love with God and experiencing His love. Of course, there are dynamics to that: the Scriptures are essential. God speaks through the cosmos, God speaks through creation, God speaks through human experience and conscience, God speaks through everything, yes—but I do see the Scriptures as the primary access, a portal into God’s presence. I began to have a clear sense of God’s voice in my life through reading the Scriptures and hearing God’s voice through the Scriptures. (emphasis mine)

Ken closes the article with a few juvenile and ridiculous jabs at Erwin. First Ken says that Mcmanus is a “darling” of his very own denomination (the Slowly Becomnng Catholic, as Silva says… original spelling from his site). Let me be clear on this. Ken attempts to discredit McManus, accuses him of being a loved person within Silva’s own denomination, and finally attempts to discredit his own denomination with petty and unmerited name calling. As stated here before, if the SBC was becoming catholic, then Ken is in sin by his own standards.

Silva then describes McManus as a “distinguished furturist, lead guitarist pastor and cultural architect”. While I have yet to figure out what a furturist is, I have also yet to find where McManus (or anyone else for that manner) describes himself as a guitarist. Silva must have stuck that out because re realized it wouldn’t be proper to publish information without proper research. That’s it. And, since Silva recommended some reading for McManus, I would suggest this for him.

John 10:14-16 & 27
I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.

for the record, 100% of the information/research links were to Silva’s own website. I am going to try that in my next seminary paper due. I think I’ll start it out with “According to me…”