two really rediculous stories
CRN and the ODMs are all up in arms over a sermon series title. South Hills Church is doing a series called “HEROES: You have what it takes”. They are obviously taking a spin off the hit tv show. However one look at their web page will show you that they are far from exegeting Heroes. The sermons deal with being a person of courage, generosity, faithfulness and commitment. Sounds like pretty sound stuff to me. Of course, a little leaven had to throw in their wonderful calvinistic self-hating theology
The Bible tells us that all of us are sinners in need of a savior. In other words, NONE of us ‘has what it takes’.
Really, I remember the scriptures telling me I could do all things thru Christ and that I am more than a conquer. Maybe the verses about walking thru fire and not getting burned or any weapon forming against me will not prosper are not in their scriptures. Or, maybe their research stopped at the HEROES logo.
GOD LOVES REPUBLICANS DANG IT!!!
Derek Webb, a popular Christian singer, said this in a recent article
The church has been co-opted and been a puppet of the conservative party system, and in a two-party system, that’s dangerous.
So, of course that sent all of the repulichristians up the wall. Silva writes back
And now the countermove in this game of spiritual chess. I can just as easily say The church is being hijacked and made into a puppet of the left-wing red letter Christian party system of the emerging church and in a two-party system, that’s dangerous.
I just LOVE how he switches the conversation to his personal rant. He has to make a “countermove” to make sure that everyone knows that political conservatives are right, and the real enemy is the emergents. And all this coming from a guy who just generally edited a piece called “Bush Believes in Universalism?” Why “countermove” on a position that you yourself believe!?! That’s probably goes in the “I’m not a Calvinist” but “Why I am Calvinist” category for Ken.
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
65 Comments(+Add)
This logic escapes me. Why pick a fight with someone who says something that is true? And come on folks, it doesn’t take a rocket sceintist to see what he is saying is true. The only problem, it’s like telling everyone the twin towers are falling.
Too late.
Wow! do those guys just reach for things… they are not that far from the Enquirer (Star or whatever as it does not matter) which stated that the Sheriff dept in roundup MT found Bigfoot… which was real news to them! LOL!
The Republican party is not a “Christian” party and the people the “Christian right” are choosing are not even Christian! So, we are to vote for a Mormon… and Ken supports this!
Maybe he also supports the Caesar worship that this represents!
There is not “Christian Right” in politics and there never really was… it was a political move to get votes.
Ken once against shows which side he truly is on when it comes to this truth war he is waging against God.
Be blessed,
I cannot tell if those sermons will be just touchstones that will unfold into solid Biblical teachings, but the fact that on Easter he doesn’t preach the resurrection has always been troubling to me. If you can’t preach the resurrection on Easter Sunday, when is it a nice fit?
You can be too relevant. Come on all you Arminians, show some restraint.
Rick,
After seeing the way the watchdoggies lie, slander and distort, I’m pretty much unwilling to accept anything they say as truth, and give as much slack as humanly possible to anyone they criticize. At this point they have zero credibility and I question the truth of anything they write ever. If they told me the sun rises in the east I’d have to get up early enough to check.
I wish you guys could find a way to drop the anti-Calvin rhetoric. I like coming here to find out the junk that the other guys spew out. I can’t stand reading them directly … I prefer your filter. But for some reason you like to tag things with “calvinistic” which is not. Throwing that in unnecessarily makes it hard to focus on your point.
Rick I. makes an excellent point. Part of the reason that I started posting here is because the watchdoggies were, in many ways, starting to co-opt the label “Christian” for themselves when it came to the interweb. If we’re not careful we’ll facilitate their doing that very thing to the term “calvinist”. Which is why I prefer to use the term “watchdoggie”.
Rick,
I keep looking over this post and threads and can’t find the “anti Calvinist” posts or comments other than the inconsistency of Ken Silva being in great denial that he is one (as he holds to all the teachings of the Great reformers… somehow) but claims to not be a Calvinist at the same time.
What am i missing here?
be blessed,
iggy
Tim, Iggy, et. al. – to be clear, I read here because I like the stuff (mostly). I’m not criticizing.
The phrase I reacted to is “their wonderful calvinistic self-hating theology”. I doubt Nathan intends this to mean that all Calvinists are self-hating. I think he is pointing out that this is the brand of of theology (if we can term it that) espoused by many, if not all, of the ‘watchdoggies’.
We react to these watchdoggies because of the careless way they string stuff together and we also know of their truly critical, condemning spirit. With that in mind, imagine you are a casual reader here. You would find that theologically you guys are not fans of Calvinism … if I remember correctly, there was a post by my friend Henry (Rick) Freuh citing Calvinism as heresy. That’s fair and I accept (not agree with) his critique.
But then you add multiple reminders that the guys doing the stupid stuff you are pointing out are Calvinists (or at least some flavor of Calvinism). One might conclude it is Calvinism that leads to their stupidity.
Isn’t that what we dislike about them. From time to time they find some error in someone that is emergent but they tag it as another emergent guy doing X. As if it is being emergent that causes that. Or another charismatic guy doing Y. As if being charismatic causes that.
No argument is made for the connection. They just label it such. We know that many readers don’t take the time to consciously make the distinction. They simply read, ‘yep, another one of those doing whatever again.’
So I think to consistently tag the ‘watchdoggies’ with Calvinism doesn’t properly represent Calvinism and is misleading to the casual reader. I absolutely would not recommend these wackos as my representative.
Rick,
I hear you, and (for the most part) agree. I don’t know how closely you follow things here, but I tend to be a bit broader in criticism of systematic theologies (of which Calvinism is but one, though often the loudest in watchdoggie circles). Too often the systems replace scripture or, just as bad, are elevated to a level of scripture.
Like creeds, systematic theologies are good in that they create a possible framework for understanding, or simplifying, concepts which are often difficult to fully understand. In the same light, they are destructive in that they reduce God as something/someone to be fully understood and often become insidious idols which become worshipped as a modern Baal.
In the same way that the laws of Newtonian Physics fail when you reach the extremes of scale – be it large or small – systematic theologies fail when viewed at their extremes, which can be observed in hyper-Calvinism and Palagianism, along with extremes in Catholocism and Open Theism. Where watchdoggies seem to go bad is that they hit these extremes pretty quickly and then serve as judge and jury (and sometimes executioner, observing church history), and it seems like the lion’s share of today’s ‘doggies come from a Calvinist/hyper-Calvinist persuasion…
We’ve not yet blipped the radar of some of the Catholic versions of watchdoggies, like Chris P. has, though I suspect that we will at some point…
Systematic theologies are taking more than one verse or truth, combining them and arriving at another. But there has to be divisions and acceptable differences within all of our theologies or we become cultish. Many of the ODMs treat minute details of sytematized truths as essential while allowing major redemptive issues to go unchallenged in their midst.
They also lack the agape skill to strongly disagree with someone and yet attempting to let him know they consider him a genuine and committed follower of the Lord Jesus. After many years of such behavior and speech they become self righteous and entrenched in their own perspective.
“Really, I remember the scriptures telling me I could do all things thru Christ and that I am more than a conquer. Maybe the verses about walking thru fire and not getting burned or any weapon forming against me will not prosper are not in their scriptures. Or, maybe their research stopped at the HEROES logo.”
The passages cited apply AFTER the Lord draws you and “saves” you. None of what you stated applies to the unregenerate person. Therefore a liitle leaven’s assessment is valid. Whether you are among the redeemed, or not, you are unable to anything good. It is now Christ in you doing it all. So what’s wrong with self-hatred, in comparison to loving the Lord? Aren’t we suppose to assess ourselves truthfully.
Romans 3:10-28. we are not a little fallen, we are completele fallen.
Arminians…….sigh.
As for the Derek Webb post, how could you so completely miss the point? Or did you miss it?
Where did Ken say Jesus is a republican? He is merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the other pov.
Right or left, who cares. The Kingdom is not politically enforced.
As for the extremes mentioned by Chris L. I believe that all of Roman Catholicism is off, pre or post Vatican 2;
any and all variants of open theism are unbiblical;
hyper-calvinism is unbiblcal, and most assuredly pelagianism and semi-pelagianism are unscriptural.
Therefore they have no extreme elements within their systems, they are patently false. There is no sifting out the extreme elements of systems that have nothing to say to begin with.
I agree with both “Ricks” commenting here, in terms of the point of this post, if it has one.
Unfortunately, that’s not found anywhere in his post.
Well, knowing that politics is sure to be one topic that will bring some opinions, but hey, I’m not the one who brought it up…
–The church has been co-opted and been a puppet of the conservative party system, and in a two-party system, that’s dangerous.–
This is quite simply a lie.
The truth is, as one who is strongly conservative in his politics, the liberal positions are disgusting. Pro-abortion, trying to normalize and legitimize many from of perversion and immorality, socialistic, against almost any public display of Christianity, using things like ‘hate crimes laws’ to attempt to limit the free speech of those they disagree with.
The truth is, the liberals disregarded Christians except those few they had in their pockets, and now they realize they need those votes to finally win anything, so they’re trying to paint themselves as “of the faith”, with people like Wallis and McLaren and Campolo spreading the coolaid.
There are no doubt aspects of conservatism, and more to the point some who call themselves conservative, that can be honestly critiqued by Christians, but don’t play this game of “Christianity is co-opted”. If that was so, why has Dobson said he would not support the leading Republican candidate?
Except that Ken’s reversal of Webb’s comment is not at all indicative of Webb’s position, which even the smallest bit of actual “research” would unearth. He is not advocating for alignment with any political philosophy, but on individuals and Christian communities affecting change through their lives, not through the government…
So when, exactly, did all members of the RCC become destined for hell? 200 AD, 700 AD, 1300 AD, 1500 AD?
As for Pelagianism – I was considering it an Arminian mirror to hyper-Calvinism.
And, as for the Heroes article, are you assuming that the primary focus of the message is to the saved or the unsaved?
Let me clarify what I meant by self-hating. Every time I read these articles, they bring up how depraved man is. How NOTHING we do is good. Well, that is simply a lie. As one who has been redeemed, God has given me power to quite literally change the world thru him. And unless A Little Leaven called up South Hills Church and asked them if they were going to be preaching that generosity, courage, faithefulness and commitment are good enough aside from Christ, then they are speculating.
RE: Derek Webb
It’s ironic that people try to paint the “bigger picture” when the co-opting of the church by the republican party is brought up.
When certain people bring up the “bigger picture” that’s called being emergent or compromising or moving toward heresy…
But when a critique that is valid and applies to alot of conservative christians is brought up…then the “bigger picture” of the kingdom is raised.
nice.
BTW my brother Nathan – spellcheck!
Jazzact,
I wish I could agree with you. Many churches have been co-opted and they equate being a Christian with being a Republican. One denomination in my area actually had Senator Arlen Spector speak at one of their events. It seems in that case the church considered the fact that Spector was a Republican more important than the actual stance he took on issues.
I think that more Evangelicals are growing impatient with the Republican party, but there still seems to be a lot of holdouts. The truth is that Christians tried bringing about change through politics when they would have had been better off putting that effort into other things. I have also been to many “Christian” events where the America worship bordered on, and quite possibly was, idolatry. I’ve seen people unable to lift their hands in worship to Christ, give standing ovations with tears in their eyes to the American flag.
Just so you know, I am actually registered as a Republican still, so I am not some Republican-hater. I just think that both sides miss the proverbial boat and are more interested in staying in power than anything else.
Well put Phil. In some churches it is more important to love Bush and Fox news than to love Jesus
Rick,
OK, for some reason I did miss that… yet, I think there is a big difference between “their wonderful calvinistic self-hating theology†and Calvinism… if you get my drift… but I do agree that would be offensive… if they stated “their wonderful emerging church self-hating theology” I would also been offended… confused first, but then offended.
Now, I think the issue is that some in the Calvinist camp are giving Calvinism a really bad name… and i think you know how they are.
Be blessed,
iggy
Chris P,
Not much left to agree with there… I mean you have written off most of Christian history in that one sentence…
The center of all of those, good or bad is Jesus Christ. If one places faith in Him, they are saved… I think much of the other concerns are important, but they are not able to undo the finished works of Jesus and destroy the work of Grace through faith.
These may and do hinder growth as a believer, but still it is God who makes things grow and God who calls people to salvation in Christ.
Be blessed,
iggy
“I have also been to many “Christian†events where the America worship bordered on, and quite possibly was, idolatry. I’ve seen people unable to lift their hands in worship to Christ, give standing ovations with tears in their eyes to the American flag.”
I have seen that also. This stems from nationalism. But we get caught up with causes like abortion when our cause is Christ. Humanitarian works must be connected to the redemptive Christ. “Christian” politics are meant to right the moral wrongs but have no redemptive qualities that should lead to Jesus.
When we have 12 years of a Republican president and a Republican congress and not one vote takes place to ban abortion should we as believers not have enough spiritual discernment to realize we have been lied to? And the lie was primarily to ourselves when we thought any government could be a vehicle for change.
The church alone through the power of the Spirit is the conduit through which God spreads His life changing message. But we should not be smug or criticize politicians or be proud that we do or don’t participate, all things must be done in humility and love and with a constant pointing toward Jesus and not us.
Jazz,
I think you’ve made an assumption that the person being quoted is suggesting an alignment of the church with the liberal party.
I am quite conservative, and would probably be counted as ‘militantly Republican’ by folks who have known me over the years. However, I think that the church’s association in the past as being synonymous with Republican politics hurts the image of the church, and allows them to play the same role in the GOP as African Americans play in the Democratic Party – lots of promises every other year and no real action between the promises.
Personally, I cringed and cheered simultaneously at Dobson’s comments about support of 2008 Republican candidates. I cringed because “here we go again” trying to assert political power as a church body (like it or not, Dobson is seen as the voice of most Christians by the average American, much like Jerry Falwell in years past), and I cheered because it was the right thing to do…
Hey! Look at me (kind of) agreeing with Chris P! Must be some pigs flying somewhere..
Anyway- on the Heroes thing.
1. One of my favorite shows. Absolutely love it.
2. Would never preach a sermon series on it. Mainly because I like to be a bit more Scripture-based, but even if I do something topical, the whole let’s co-opt a bit of culture thing is getting kind of cheezy.
3. The theological points made above are absolutely right (whether you are more arminian or calvinistic)- we don’t have what it takes. Jesus does.
That’s the problem with most preaching on the characters in the Bible- they are viewed as heroes to emulate rather people who point us to Jesus by what they do and what they fail to do.
Here’s what I preached (thoroughly ripping off Tim Keller) last week:
“When you come to Scripture looking for a rule to keep to make you righteous or to show other people how righteous you are or even a little nugget of life-lesson wisdom to enhance your day-to-day life, you are completely missing the point. And it’s a sure recipe for either feeling self-righteousness and better than everyone who doesn’t keep the rules as well as you do, or of shame and inadequacy because you never quite get there. Not that there isn’t wisdom for how to live in there- the Proverbs and the Epistles in particular are filled with them. Or instructions for how we should live. But all that comes in the context of a whole narrative that, as opposed to telling us how to live, is meant to point us to Jesus.
For example- if I read the story of David and Goliath and think the lesson is- “Be like David!”, I’m setting myself up for a fall, because 1. in all likelihood, I’ll never be like David, and 2. That’s not the point of the story!
The Bible is not a handbook, not a rulebook, it’s a Story. The Story of God’s redemption of us and we see the Hero of that story on every page. For instance, the story of David and Goliath. So not about how you can defeat the giants in your life (how many times have you heard that sermon???)
It’s about how you can’t- but God can. And it’s specifically about how He does so through the weakness of the substitute- the unlikely one who stood in King Saul’s place, who came in the name of the Lord and the power of the Spirit and defeated the enemy of the people of God. If you read that story and see yourself in David, you are reading it wrongly. We are not David- we are the cowering Israelites who face an undefeatable foe…
But God is on the scene, sending One who can defeat whatever we face- and that’s who David points us to- Jesus. The point of the story is not “Be like David.” You can’t… it’s trust Jesus, the real and true David who wins the victory over death and sin.
The more I read of Scripture, the more I see that this is the way it’s meant to be read- it all points to Jesus and in such amazingly literate ways as to boggle the mind.”
I think most of us come to Scripture looking for ourselves and finding ourselves in the wrong characters. I don’t know how this Heroes sermon series will proceed, and I don’t think they are wicked evil hirelings for doing it
But I have seen enough like them to intuit that the point “You have what it takes” might, *might* be a bit off.
Of course, maybe it’ll be a great exposition of 2 Peter 1:3
Chris L, you said…”And, as for the Heroes article, are you assuming that the primary focus of the message is to the saved or the unsaved? ”
Is ‘Eklesia’ is for the unsaved? Because that sermon seems geared to get many unbelievers to come in to the church. Is that right? Is that what the apostles or Jesus left as our example? Serious questions. Non-rhetorical.
onesie twosies…okay. But when you gear your whole church ’system’ (redflag alert!!) to market to and bring in unbelievers with your flash and bang, and using the world’s lovable things to do it to boot…now you’ve defeated the NT model of “church”. I love Acts 2. But not as much as I love Jesus Christ though, so no Bible idolatry here! lol.
“Church” is for believers. But the PDCes don’t see it that way. Evangelism should be outside of the Church. I don’t see how we’ve reversed this in the last 50 years or so, and made church an unbeliever-fest, or an evangelism expose’, it makes no sense to me. Train the body to go OUT in the community, evangelize, and those that believe will then be included in your church, just like it was shown to us in Scripture. That’s what God blesses and honors, that’s how God ‘adds to those being saved.’ What do you think?
Just a thought for you brother!
Love, Joe
“The more I read of Scripture, the more I see that this is the way it’s meant to be read- it all points to Jesus and in such amazingly literate ways as to boggle the mind.â€
Amen and Selah.
Bravo, Bob!
Joe,
I understand what you are saying as far as the purpose of the Church. The Church, by definition, is the collection of believers on earth, so of course it is “for” believers. Where confusion comes then is when people start equating the building or the Sunday morning service with “church”.
Personally, I don’t really have a problem with an evangelistic type of service. Whether or not basing a sermon off of a TV show is beneficial or not is another question. To me, it seems kind of cheesy and lame in any case, and I can’t imagine many non-believers saying to themselves, “I think I will go to such-and-such church because they’re doing a sermon series on Heroes”. It just seems like it would come off as a gimick to me.
On the other side, I think it is unrealistic for people to treat a Sunday morning service as theology class. The fact is that most people do not really learn in that format. Most real learning happens through personal study, one-on-one interaction, and hands-on experience.
I think Sunday services are beneficial and good because of the worship aspect and the fellowship. There are some really gifted speakers, and I think the ones that are the most challenging to me are the ones that make me want to go learn more on my own.
This is the essential error that watchdoggies make. References in scripture to “the world” are primarily relational, not stylistic.
For example, in Matthew 20 Jesus warns his disciples to avoid being like the gentiles who lord authority over them. Or when Jesus says, “you have heard it said love your friends and hate your enemies but I say love your enemies”, you again see the contrast drawn between the world and God’s people.
It has nothing to do with “flash and bang” or the “lovable things of the world” (whatever that means), and has everything to do with the way you view people.
Thanks guys…
a point:
the “ecclesia” is not just for Christians.
Paul says clearly in 1 Cor 14:23 “Even so, if unbelievers or people who don’t understand these things come into your church meeting and hear everyone speaking in an unknown language, they will think you are crazy. But if all of you are prophesying, and unbelievers or people who don’t understand these things come into your meeting, they will be convicted of sin and judged by what you say.”
So, let’s say Paul clearly drew a picture of being sensitive to where unbelievers where at, clearly speaking truth in terms they could understand and allowing the Holy Spirit to worry about the results.
My thing is that Christians need what I think of as Gospel preaching just as much as non-Christians, and if you preach through Scripture with an eye to exposing the idols and false saviors of the heart, pointing to Jesus as the true Savior and doing so in terms that people whether followers of Jesus or not can understand, you can speak to both Christians and non-Christians at the same time.
At least, that’s what I’m trying hard to do…
–I wish I could agree with you. Many churches have been co-opted and they equate being a Christian with being a Republican. –
Most of the churches I have been to for any amount of time have been pretty conservative. I haven’t noticed any big “All Christians should be Republicans” mindset in them. What I have noticed, though, is that there are positions they are strongly against that most who call themselves liberals are strongly for–abortion, for example. Considering also the conflicts between theological conservatism and liberalism, which also more-or-less mirror the way those words are used politically, and the differences become more pronounced.
–The truth is that Christians tried bringing about change through politics when they would have had been better off putting that effort into other things.–
Perhaps you can explain, then, what you think a Christian’s place in politics (or maybe more accurately, social governing) should be? Should Christians run for office? Should Christians vote? If so, upon what basis should Christian make decisions concerning who to vote for?
I’m not challenging, but curious. If I isolated just that one statement of yours, it could be seen as saying “Christians have no business in politics”, with the obvious conclusion that only nonchristians will run the government and vote, and so will make it an asylum.
“My thing is that Christians need what I think of as Gospel preaching just as much as non-Christians, and if you preach through Scripture with an eye to exposing the idols and false saviors of the heart, pointing to Jesus as the true Savior and doing so in terms that people whether followers of Jesus or not can understand, you can speak to both Christians and non-Christians at the same time. ”
Wow, what a great statement. OK, Bob, turn in your emerging credentials with thoughts like that. Wesley could have just as easily said that. I am now christining a new label, “false emergent”.
–Jazz,
I think you’ve made an assumption that the person being quoted is suggesting an alignment of the church with the liberal party.–
I know that one of the slogans that is sometimes used is that “God is not a Republican or a Democrat”. I actually have nothing against that statement in itself.
But what do they mean by it, or maybe a better way to put that would be how are they using that statemet? As far as I can tell, the ones who push that statement are themselves more-or-less in agreement with must things that liberals support.
–I think that the church’s association in the past as being synonymous with Republican politics hurts the image of the church, and allows them to play the same role in the GOP as African Americans play in the Democratic Party – lots of promises every other year and no real action between the promises.–
The question of image may be good, but it’s also tricky. How people see the church may be more influenced by media representations then by realities. The church has millions of people who do many good things, but they are done quietly and without fanfare, so they rarely make the news beyond a local sense, but if Ted Haggard gets caught in sexual misconduct, it’s everywhere in the news and overshadows in most people’s minds the good the millions of other Christians quietly do.
I do agree about the empty promises, though.
Maybe I’m a sheep in wolves’ clothing…
Tim, I don’t appreciate you insinuating I am aligned with the ‘watchdoggies’ as you call them, (whatever that means =) ).
Second of all, since you kinda asked, my view of “people” is that they need to be ministered too, and they need to be saved.
But you didn’t address my point of what the ‘gathering of believers’ is for.
And Bob, that verse doesn’t say what you just made it say lol.
It was speaking about tonuges vs prophecy. Not about understanding where the unbelievers are ‘at’. Paul makes it clear all over his letters that he knows EXACTLY where they are at, which is not a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that if you’re all speaking jibberish when they come in, aka, “shaddda das da da da lala la la” tongue junk (which is not what I think tongues are), they’ll think you’re nuts and walking away. But if you’re “prophesying” aka, speaking the Word of God, they can then be convicted and repent. Notice he wasn’t saying “when all the unbelievers that you’re trying to get to come in to your church finally come…”, he said IF they do come. Never ever is a mandate given to turn the gathering together in to a bring all the pagans in gathering. It’s just not. That’s what I was saying guys. We’re to go out in to the community and see people saved, not bring the ‘world’ in to the body before they’re saved. We can though preach to the few who do stumble in to our churches. I think we should. Maybe I’m just put off by these bait and switch sermons. I’m in the middle of my lunch break so this isn’t very coherent, but I thought I should say something. Thanks for the input guys.
Love, Joe (not a watchdoggie, kthx).
Jazz,
Actually earlier up in the thread, I said I think Christians can be involved in politics. There are some positions that I think it would be very hard for someone to fulfill and be a Christian, though. Personally, I think for a Christian to be in a place like Congress or the Presidency would be very, very hard. It seems to me that it is hard to mesh some of Christ’s teachings with things like national security, for instance.
I think with any occupation, the goal of the Christian should be to glorify God. So I guess my question would be is it possible to take a political position and glorify at the same time? I think it is, but I also think it is relatively rare.
As far as abortion goes, as it seems to keep coming up, I would say the Church seems to be barking up the wrong tree on the issue. The truth is that outlawing the procedure will probably make little difference in the number that are performed. Reaching into the lives of people affected by the issue will make a huge difference, though. Also, I was thinking, what would happen if local pastors started inviting doctors who performed abortions out to lunch and got to know them? Would those doctors even feel safe enough to go? How would congregations react? What would happen if one of those doctors got saved? It seems to me that could be a bigger testimony than overturning any law could ever be.
I didn’t insinuate that, but you did use pretty much THE argument watchdoggies employ when they see something they don’t like, but don’t have any scriptural support to condemn. I was addressing your argument in the larger context that its used.
No, I don’t. I chose not to address many points you’ve brought up.
Joe – Bob’s simple but important point was that Paul instructed us to be clear and undertsandable in our teaching and preaching so that the saving aspects of the gospel are recognizeable to unbelievers and the discipleship aspects of the gospel can be understood by believers.
Now both ends of that can be disproportionate. One church can be so deeply doctrinal in their presentation that the unbeliever cannot understand. And another church can be so relevant so as to remove any spiritual substance. Balance is our unachievable goal.
Joe-
Yes, the specific context is tongues vs prophecy and their use in the meeting.
I made a number of inferences that I think hold up very well. Let me try again.
1. Paul assumes that non-Christians will be present
2. Paul’s concern is that they understand what is happening
3. Paul’s desire is that through understanding what is being said, they will be convicted.
All true statements?
I just praise Him every day that He is a Calvinistic, Republican, KJVO kinda God. The rest of you are wackos!
Hey – I’m just kidding!!!! Thanks for your patience with me.
The comments goes from “Heroes” to tongues. The HRG has obviously hijacked the thread to protect those involved.
Rick,
You forgot that God is also a NRA member (and watches NASCAR…)
(just kiddin’ about the NASCAR thing….kinda)
Bob and Rick F, I agree with you both, thanks for the clarification. I see what you’re saying Bob, and all of those are true. But that’s not a supportive verse for redesigning how the gathering of believers is done so bring an influx of unbelievers in. Basically, I’m just asking for a good rational biblical reason for doing that. If it’s there, it’s there, I’ll lay down and take it. But if it’s not scriptural, then why should we do it?
Tim, just because I (apparently) used an argument the ODMs use, doesn’t mean that the argument is wrong. That’s breaking the rules of logic that are listed so nicely on this webpage for our viewing.
Why are you still being harsh with me? Look how your friends have commented and compare that with how you have treated me, as if I were an enemy of yours? If you disagree with what I’ve said, and I’m wrong, I think I need to know about it, that’s what brothers do. I’m not coming in here to be all “hey, I have all the answers, and what I’m saying is absolutely correct”, I’m here for honest inquiry and to make people think. Thanks all.
Joe
“I’m here for honest inquiry and to make people think.”
Joe, are you new to the blogasphere?
I never made that argument. I wrote “this is a common watchdoggie argument, and here’s why its wrong”. You still haven’t commented on the substance of why I wrote that its wrong.
What? I haven’t been harsh with you at all.
Joe- I should probably clarify my thinking a bit.
I’m not advocating an attractional mode of ministry. I don’t want to engineer our Sunday gatherings specifically to be attractive to non-christians. I advocate a more missional mode of church which sees the attractiveness of Christianity in the quality of our service and care to the city in which God has placed us.
That being said, biblically, because of 1 Cor 14 and other places, I can’t say the meeting of our community together is for Christians only. Paul tells me I have to think about how what we do will impact those who aren’t yet following Jesus. My hope (along with Paul) is that non-Christians will be present (indeed, a number are a regular part of our community), will be able to understand and engage in the discussion, see our worship, and perhaps be moved toward Christ whether because they are convicted or because they see that we do our best, whether through our words or our works to “make the teaching about God our Savior attractive.”
But, we start with teaching about Jesus- not with the “attractive” part. I think that helps maintain a balance so that we can truly be CHURCH, but be it for not only Christians but for the unchurched and formerly churched as well…
Hmm. Last week we said the Nicene Creed together
Not exactly “seeker driven”, but…
This is a real issue for us- we have (in our roughly 120 person community) about 10 or more visitors each week. Usually a couple of them are either on their way out or on their way in towards Jesus. In addition, since we meet in a pub, there are usually about three pub employees present, maybe 20 feet across the room from where I’m preaching- they can’t help but hear and see everything we do.
Rick, why’s it matter if I’m new….? I thought iquiry and throwing ideas out there is part of growing. Just curious.
Tim, perhaps you weren’t trying to come across harsh, but to me you did. Remember, there’s no ‘emotion’ in text, you have to put it there yourself, maybe what you were saying was said coldly, and plus I didn’t quite understand what you were ‘correcting me’ on, or if you were even correcting me at all. Relational vs stylistic???? I have to admit, I don’t get what you mean. The ‘world’ is spoken of with much disdain in Scripture, but I acknowledge we have to love our neighbors, I do see that. I was talking about bringing unbelievers to your church as an ‘our first goal is to…’ kind of activity…
Perhaps you can explain to me again what you meant, I’m very sorry I missed your point. Thanks alot friend.
Joe
Humor, Joe. Your statement was refreshing, I mean honest inquiry? I though we burned all you people long ago.
Humor again, my brother.
And Bob says “In addition, since we meet in a pub, there are usually about three pub employees present, maybe 20 feet across the room from where I’m preaching- they can’t help but hear and see everything we do.”
I hereby give you your emergent pin back again. Please return the sheep costume.
That’s what I thought
Oh thanks for clarifying Bob, I understand what you’re saying. 10 new people who aren’t believers coming in to your meeting isn’t 50% of you congregation though, right? I’m talking these huge churches where the people on either side of me are non believers who want their ears tickled, “what can God do for me” kinda stuff, you know, like the UPS commercials lol (what can Brown do for you?). Those churches seem to gear everything towards ‘attractional ministry’ as you put it, and I feel that’s not the intent of the ecclesia to be overly focused on that aspect. I’ve seen so many purpose driven type churches where the congregation just doesn’t grow because all they ever hear is “raise your hand and accept Jesus” messages. They need to preach that because most of their congregations are unbelievers, because that’s how they set up their ministries. It’s a big weird unecessary cycle I think.
You meet in a pub huh?? Why did you guys decide to do that if you don’t mind me asking? Why not a gym or a house then? Wouldn’t the beer and setting cause some to stumble maybe? Thanks Bob!
Joe
Joe,
I think Rick was being sarcastic. The blogosphere is not generally known as a place for “honest inquiry” and trying “to make people think”. Those are noble goals, but sadly the rhetoric on the blogosphere becomes more of a shouting match than a conversation. Although, people here manage to stay pretty cool, calm, and collected…
Thanks Rick, I appreciate good humor. And they haven’t burned me yet….
yet. =)
Hey Joe – “Wouldn’t the beer and setting cause some to stumble maybe?”
No stumbling at all – they’re emergents!
Homor Bob!
–Actually earlier up in the thread, I said I think Christians can be involved in politics.–
I must have missed that, Phil, sorry about that.
–There are some positions that I think it would be very hard for someone to fulfill and be a Christian, though. Personally, I think for a Christian to be in a place like Congress or the Presidency would be very, very hard. It seems to me that it is hard to mesh some of Christ’s teachings with things like national security, for instance.–
I would say it would have to be possible, or else we may as well give up and write the whole thing off. If the only people who can govern are the nonbelievers, then there really is no hope.
–The truth is that outlawing the procedure will probably make little difference in the number that are performed. Reaching into the lives of people affected by the issue will make a huge difference, though.–
I do agree with the reaching out to those need it, but I disagree about the uselessness of outlawing it. Should we sanction something simply because people will do it anyway?
Even if they’re not stumbling, if they cause another to, then it’s sin, and they shouldn’t do it. For me, it’s too risky to meet at a bar, younger Christians could stumble, or we wouldn’t be setting an example to outsiders of being ‘other worldly’ which is one of our greatest witnesses as Christians. Just my 2 cents. I understand you were being humorous Rick, but you know, just throught I’d throw that out there.
Joe
Jazz,
I just think that there are some things that the public calls for the President to do that seem to go against what is consistent with Christian thought. Could a Christian president order the invasion of a country knowing full well that such an invasion would cause the death of civilians? If that person refused to do so, he would probably be run out of office.
Also, I heard someone ask a question once concerning the outlawing of abortion that I think is pretty interesting. If abortion were made illegal, what would the penalty be for it? Life in prison? Death?
Realistically, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would not become illegal. It would become a state issue, and would probably be illegal in some states, and legal in others. That would make it an even stickier legal issue. What happens if a citizen of one state where abortion is legal gets an abortion where it’s legal.
My point is this: abortion is horrible, and I believe it’s murder. However, I think in our current situation most people do not equate it with murder. Treating as a legal issue similar to murder is probably not going to work. It’s like trying to make divorce illegal. Going against from the legal route seems like putting the cart before the horse. I think the Church would be much better trying to love people caught in bad situations so that abortion is always seen as unnecessary. Perhaps this is just being idealistic, but I really don’t see any other way.
I do not drink or any of the other “ten deadly sins” (ha), but I would preach in a pub no question, and I wouldn’t be fllowing in Bob Hyatt’s footsteps, I would be following Jesus’ footsteps!
I wasn’t commenting so much on whether or not services are evangelical in nature (or rather can be), but on your statement about what is “worldly”. In descriptions of contrast to what the world is like I don’t see anything about movies, music, clothing, language or style.
I apologize if I came across as harsh, that wasn’t my intent.
The “world” in Johannine theology is:
The system of human endeavor that stands in rebellion to God.
It is not the physical planet and it is not necessarily the evangelical boogeyman “hollywood, or anything else that a particular sub-culture of North American middle class protestantism deems offensive.
The more I hear people throw around the word “worldly”, the more it looks strangely like middle class social convention. It becomes a word that is theologically-laden, but not theologically rich…or accurately used.
Gasp! Could it be!??!?! An “emergent” (whatever that stupidly applied label really means) has “certainty” about something?!?!?
The world is the system of life upon this earth that rejects God’s gospel and seeksto make it on our own. It can appear as these:
Obsessed with corporate advancement.
Worshiping money.
Religious systems.
But those are just symptoms of a worldly heart.
Joe- what do you mean by stumbling? Give me the scenario…
Yeah, we meet in a pub. Many christians don’t really know what a pub is. “Pub” is short for “Public House.” It’s a place that serves food, has music, and happens to serve beer. It’s much like a restaurant, but without waiters.
It’s an all-ages environment- every time I walk in, I see families eating together. People gather there for conversation, to play games (Scrabble seems really popular), to eat, to have a drink. It’s very different from most 21 and over “bars.”
(here are some pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7132532@N05/ )
The fact that they serve beer is really a non-issue. They certainly aren’t serving during our worship gathering. And though some folks might have a beer at lunch after, it’s no different than if they went to Outback or Applebees or somewhere else that served…
We do what we do as a church community in public spaces for really good reasons. We want our community to be radically different AND radically the same- we take the example of God’s commands to the exiles in Jer 29 very seriously- “Build homes and plan to stay. Plant gardens and eat the food they produce. Marry and have children…. Work for the peace and prosperity of the city where I have sent you into exile. Pray to the Lord for it, for its welfare will determine your welfare.”
We live as strangers and aliens- radically different in how we approach things like money, sex, power, etc. We also live as exiles who are connected to the city where God has placed us- existing in it’s public spaces, doing our best to create a counter culture for the common good and in that way balance our radical difference with radical sameness. We look like Portlanders. Our community “fits” here in a way it wouldn’t fit in Florida or Virginia…
To be honest with you- I’m absolutely certain NO non-Christian has a problem with us meeting in a pub. They know we’re different because of the Gospel and how we live. They aren’t looking for us to wear ties and eschew places like theaters and pubs as well-meaning but mis-guided Christians of the past have. That wouldn’t enhance our witness…
As for our own evergreeners “stumbling”- We watch out for each other, and if someone seems to have a problem with drinking, we deal with it as any church would- loving church discipline through the agency of the elders…
Can drunk people understand preaching and come to the Lord?
Hahaha….
Thanks Tim for the kind response. Does anyone believe that ‘worldly’ is equal to rebellion or sinfulness against God? Hollywood is wordly, it’s not FOR Christ, it’s against Christ therefore. Secular humanism in schools across our nation is worldly in precept and deed, it’s not FOR Christ, it’s against Him. Those were two examples on my mind of ‘worldliness’. Worldly has many definitions in the Bible depending on context. This is what I’ve gleaned from my studies. Does anyone see the same thing? Thanks for the good talk.
Joe
Joe C,
Yep, and here I am… the weird thing was that as I prayed, a weight was lifted from me and I became sober!
Blessings,
iggy
Joe C,
I live in Hollywood. There are plenty of Christians here… and lots of them making an impact on the film community. The problem that I have seen with the church is that they see everything in black and white. Hollywood is worldly. Rock music is worldly. Alcohol is worldly.
Nathan – Hollywood, rock music, and alcohol are not intrinsically worldly in and of themselves. But the majority of the way they are used today lends themselves to the system of the kindom of darkness, or of this world. Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world, hence all things that promote this world and not His are worldly.