This goes beyond bizarre. The Roman Catholic Church has its shroud and now the Lutherans have Luther’s corpse. OK, I do believe that many of the articles at CRN deal with gnat size issues while in fairness they also deal with substantive issues as well. But in this article they link to an article that claims the exhumed body of Martin Luther had “rolled over” in his grave over the centuries. And the contention is that Luther rolled over in his grave over the liberal departure of the Lutheran church from Luther’s original teachings.

You know we always thought they had an obsession with dead theologians but now we know those same corpses are listening and reacting to the plight of the church. This article was categorized under “satire” so I can assume it was tongue in cheek, partially. But I think that maybe the reason that Luther rolled over in his grave was due to the kindness that the church today has shown to Jews.

See, satire too.

… of Jesus’ entire ministry.

For some reason he thinks that an adequate answer to Derek Webb’s criticisms that the church has been co-opted by those trying to build a political kingdom is that other parts of the church have been co-opted by those trying to build a different style of political kingdom.

If Silva understood the gospel at all he’d understand the problem isn’t in the kind of political kingdom being built, but that either type of political kingdom misses the gospel entirely.

I prefer Anthony Bradley’s analysis:

Because evangelicals have too closely aligned themselves with political agendas, instead of the Scripture-derived social mission of the church, two camps have emerged over the past few decades. On the one hand, you have the “Christian-means-Republican” camp where many biblical imperatives are pursued through legislation and government force, and on other hand, you have the pathetic economics and theocratic biblical theology of prophetical left in the likes of guys like Bono, the One Campaign, and so on. Both camps pursue the same method, except that “the right” might start with the Pentateuch and Romans whereas “the left” might begin with the Prophets and the Sermon on the Mount. Both turn to government instead of the church to do the work of the Kingdom of God.

Apparently in the “Pastor” Silva’s mind two sins make for some righteousness.

EXEGETING HEROES!

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.

An "editor", posting anonymously and cowardly writes:

A Little Leaven is reporting on a church whose latest sermon series will plum the “spiritual depths” of the Heroes TV Show. (We didn’t even know the show was supposed to be Christian)

When will these purpose-driven seeker-sensitive types come to grips with the fact that they are not producing disciples? Willow Creek’s data proves it! Instead, these people are only pretending to do church by spiritualizing pop-psych and self-help.

The problem is that’s not what the study found.  What the study found was that attending lots of programs didn’t correlate with spiritual maturity.  Let me quote Hybels on the issue:

Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn’t helping people that much. Other things that we didn’t put that much money into and didn’t put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for.

In other words, this wasn’t a study on the success or failure of a type of church as a whole.  Its gets even worse for the anonymous "researcher" who wrote this.  This study had absolutely nothing to do with the way sermons are framed or promoted.

Which leads me to question whether or not there was any actual research done. 

The more often these mistakes happen, and happen in favor of the watchdoggies’ point of view, the more I begin to think that these are less the result of incompetence, and more the result of malice. 

In Silva’s latest MISS[ive] / HIT [and miss] piece, he says

What we need in the American Christian Church right now are some leaders who really want to fight a Truth War; because at this critical moment, we are witnessing a spiritual version of the Vietnam War.

I don’t think Jesus ever fought a truth war.  he didn’t go around proactively defending his theology and opposing everyone else’s.  I am not saying that he didn’t see the other religions as false.  But I don’t think he would have ever started a Truth War on earth.  Jesus actively lived out his truth (since he himself was truth) and had intense conversations about truth on a need-only basis.   And even those were not  letters sent all over the countryside — they were one-on-one conversations with the men themselves.  People were draw to the truth that Jesus lived out, not because they were defeated in a doctrine battle.
One of the reasons why most of the Ken Silva-esque churches in America are in rapid decline is because they would rather create a Truth War than live out the truth in their communities.  If the ODMs spent half as much time living the truth in their oikos (friends, family, neighbors, co-workers), then they might actually understand church growth.  Are there moments when you confront untruths?  Of course.  But the metaphor of a battle being waged is not acceptable. Ironically, the BELT OF TRUTH in the armor of God is not a defense mechanism or weapon.  it keeps everything secure.  it is the spirit of God that is the sword.

Truth was never supposed to be a WAR, it was supposed to be a lifestyle.

Looks like the Big K has found a new target in little old me. The problem is he’s got no idea what he’s talking about. I wrote:

“It is wonderful we have the scriptures, and that the common person can read them. But idolatry of the Bible itself has taken place. Unfortunately, if you bring up that issue its immediately spun as ‘you don’t believe the Bible’ which has some eerie similarities to ‘you’re not submitting to the pope’.”

To which he writes:

This is so absurd as to be laughable and if the leadership of OCC has any wisdom, and knows what’s good for them, they will be bringing their pastor in and demanding that he repent of such public nonsense. Far from idolatry of the Bible, what we actually have is an emerging church and new evangelical rebellion against obeying the clear Word of God in the Bible. Christian compromisers like Rob Bell, following in the apostate footprints of Brian McLaren, are busy casting doubt upon the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture in order to grind their emerging church axes against the genuine Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Of course, even if Silva had any credibility left he wouldn’t get real far since I preached this just 4 days ago. For those unwilling to listen to it here’s the point from the outline that was handed out before the sermon:

C. The Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16
- Source of authority.
- Source of truth
- Available to everyone. 2 Timothy 2:2
- Everything should be checked by it. Acts 17:11

I want to urge everyone to email Ken Silva. Urge him to apologize and retract his statements about me as publicly as he attacked me. What’s sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, so if you want to email me and tell me I’m wrong go for it, I’ll be happy to read and respond to you, I don’t hide from what I say by posting anonymously, or by closing comments.

*****Update****
I emailed Ken personally about his lies. Here was his response:

O please. And how easily the words “slander” and “lie” roll off your tongue. You just feel free to post whatever you want to post. Know this, I will continue to do the same in the Lord.

I retract and apologize for absolutely nothing in regard to my supposed lying about you publicly. I copied exactly what you said and it now speaks for itself. In my view you are just whining and being double-minded.

Your statement is very typical of the neo-liberals within the emerging church and its new evangelical knock-off, which gives every indication of not taking the Bible as seriously as we who are Christians are commanded to do.

So my question would be which Tim would we believe? And a little advice for you: You’re a pastor and will be judged as such. If you can’t take the public heat of the Internet War you might try keeping quiet.

For Christ’s honor I labor,

I found this on the Facebook group “Calvinism, the group that chooses you”. I thought it was appropriate for Reformation Day.

At the very outset of this post I want to openly and before the “Sanhedrin” proclaim my belief in the importance of doctrine. Doctrine is just another way of saying truth and Paul tells us the Scriptures are profitable for doctrine so without doctrine we can get deceived quickly. Being grounded in the Word means not only quoting verses but comparing Scripture with Scripture and coming to a fuller and more complete knowledge of God’s truth. It takes perseverance and time to study to approve ourselves as workmen in God’s Word and it has a reward inherent in the pursuit itself. It is not enough to know the first principles of Christ, we must be diligent about learning the Word both by faithful teachers and in our personal study. It is part of the difference between being a babe in Christ and moving on to maturity.

Studying doctrine is not just for the preacher or Bible college students, it is for every and all believers. Sadly it is evident that many if not most believers do not take that admonition seriously and the result is a baby church that is tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. To be versed in the Scriptures and what they teach is what brings a believer into maturity and it protects us from deception. Studying and learning God’s truths is a wonderful journey of revelation and faith that feeds the spirit and opens passageways of glory that we could never know with the limited power of our own minds.

Just as a believer who is lazy in his Bible study is shallow and venerable to error, so is the believer who makes doctrine his place of devotion and becomes vulnerable to settling for a form of knowledge as worship. There is a wonderful mystery available for every believer where God can take the truths we have learned with our minds and infuse them into our spirits and hearts and incorporate them into our devotion to the Savior. Many people live their Christian life looking through the eyes of their particular doctrine or systematic theology and have been robbed of the blessing of a broken and contrite heart of worship before God. And many Christians are more interested in debating doctrine than sharing Jesus.

Read more…

Yesterday, CR?N posted an article from CNN on two Christian pastors who are integrating Scientology into the beliefs of their church.

Kennedy, McLaughlin and a handful of other Christian church leaders — no one can say how many — are finding answers to their communities’ needs in Scientology’s social programs.

For Kennedy, it began two years ago when he attended a meeting at the Church of Scientology’s spiritual headquarters in Clearwater, Florida. He was introduced to a book called “The Way to Happiness” — Hubbard’s 64-page, self-described “common sense guide to better living.”

In the book, which lays out ways to maintain a temperate lifestyle, Kennedy found a message he believed could help lift his predominantly lower income African-American congregation. He said the book’s 21 principles help them with their struggle in an urban environment where there is too much crime and addiction and too little opportunity.

Kennedy knew that before he could introduce any Scientology-related text to his congregation, he would have to prove that it did not contradict his Christian beliefs. And so, he found Scripture to match each of the 21 principles.

Knowing a good deal about Scientology, I have to say that I am just about as flabbergasted as I was reading about the “Christian Muslim”. This type of lunacy puts this church’s orthodoxy in incredible jeopardy, and appears to be a textbook case of syncretism. If you actually read the “21 principles“, a number of them appear to have been taken (at least on the surface) from Judeo-Christian beliefs laid out in the Bible, while others have been subtly twisted (”Try not to do things to others that you would not want them to do to you”) or have dubious Biblical support (”Respect the religious beliefs of others”).

What I’m struggling with here is this – why go to Scientology to borrow belief systems that were originally borrowed (and in some, if not most cases, multilated in subtle or gross fashion) from Christianity. Why not just stick with the original source document and give all glory to God and none to L. Ron Hubbard (while avoiding the subtle traps he added)?

In the realm of ’self-help’ there are a huge number of pitfalls to be avoided, and there is a difference between matching principles to Scripture and matching Scripture to principles. It seems that this is the core of the problem (ironically, it’s the same problem found in systematic theologies, in general, but that’s a different horse to beat on a different day). I am in complete agreement with CR?N at the lunacy of this church’s practice, perhaps doubly so since they didn’t try to tie this to the ECM, the RCC, Willow Creek or any of their other favorite whipping-boys.