Archive for the 'Editor' Category

Does anyone else find it odd that 16 out of 25 posts at Christian Research Network right now are written by the “editor”?  If discernment is from God, then I wonder why he would like to remain anonymous 64% of the time.  Just thought I would point that out.

  • Share/Bookmark

Yes, according to this post, God prefers slaves rather than people who are in love with Him.  That would come as a surprise to Jesus, I guess, who in John 15:15 said,

“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

It also misses the point of much of the Biblical narrative.  It seems to me that even in the Old Testament, God was looking for people who loved them with all their hearts.  When David wrote,

As the deer pants for streams of water, 
 so my soul pants for you, O God.

My soul thirsts for God, for the living God. 
When can I go and meet with God?

was it sickening to God?  Too wishy-washy and touchy-feely?

I have been reading the The Return of the Prodigal Son by Henri Nouwen, which is more a personal testimony of Nouwen coming to an understanding of the Father’s deep love for us than a theological treatise.  I am struck again and again in that parable how God is portrayed as a Father who offers unconditional love to us, and is waiting for us to return with open arms.  If He truly wanted servants, it seems to me, He would have honored the son’s request to be made a servant.  Instead, though, the Father throws a huge party for the lost son that has returned.  How can we not be “in love” with a God like that?

  • Share/Bookmark

I have a lot of issues with Juanita Bynum’s ministry.  There is a lot to be said about her theology, teachings and even her current marital situation.  Having that said, this attack at CRN is simply unfair.  Bynum is divorcing her husband after he attacked her in a hotel parking lot.  There was apparently a history of abuse.  Now, if this was anyone else, the advise would be to get out as soon as possible before you are in serious danger.  However, the ever so elusive “editor” at CRN slips this little jab into the beginning of the story

“I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel. (Malachi 2:16)

This is a classic case of using the scripture to passively and cruelly abuse people.  It’s not that this scripture isn’t true.  But I wonder if Ken the editor would barge into a battered women’s home and proclaim this over the bruised and battered women there.  It’s sad when the ODMs have to make underhanded attacks for headlines.  This one has nothing to do with the Word of Faith movement (as this article is categorized), but keeping their opinions about Bynum fresh.

  • Share/Bookmark

The elusive editor recently wrote a post about this video of a baptism service at Elevation Church. The editor writes

Listen as Furtick tells you about his staff meeting where they had decided a “God-sized” number of baptisms for the year. And even as Furtick trumpets how they had exceded their “goal” ol’ Pastor Steve still has a little trouble reigning in his angry spirit:

Can you find the “chip” on the pastor’s shoulder in this video? This sounds like a classic case of church envy. I mean, they couldn’t say he was ashamed of the gospel, due to his very open gospel presentation. So I guess the next logical step would be to make fun of him because he has had too many baptisms. That sound like what Jesus would do, right? Right.

  • Share/Bookmark

ya know, when I first started interacting with the ODMs I really could understand their logic behind what they were doing. It’s the basic idea that certain key leaders (ie. Bell, McManus, McLaren) were leading large groups of people astray and so they felt they needed to publicly address the epidemic on a large and international scale. I understood their logic, but obviously completely disagreed with what they believed or how they did it. Well, now I am reading more and more articles that have nothing to do with key leaders in the church, but small hometown churches that they disagree with. These websites are turning from a pharasee supreme court to a full blown witch hunt. Sometimes I wonder how many websites they have to go thru in order to make their headline quota for the day. It doesn’t matter how small or uninfluential the ministry or minister is. If they can comb through the web and find it, they are their next Christian human sacrifice on the web. And then when they are called on the carpet by a big name publication like Christianity Today, they write article after article in an attempt to defend their ways.

So I suggest two things:

  1. pray for these small churches that are doing innovative things with the timeless message of Jesus Christ. Pray that they would find their success and identity in Jesus Christ and that attempts to stop their ministry would be hindered
  2. write these pastors. These ODMs usually post the websites of these churches to make an example of them. Turn a wrong into a right and email the staff an encouraging thought. I cannot tell you how many times I have done this and started meaningful relationships with pastors all over the world
  • Share/Bookmark

The anonymous editor over at CRN.com has come up with a justification for parading around the failings of his brothers and sisters with joy, its the venerable the “they did it too” defense.

What’s interesting is that the “they” in this case is the secular media. Apparently the standard for the conduct of Christ followers is whatever the secular media does.

If I possessed those kind of reasoning skills I’d remain anonymous too.

Edit:
For a peek into why this sort of thing is so damaging take a peek at this comment on a secular blog. If that doesn’t bother you then maybe you need to re-consider having anything to do with any church anywhere at anytime.

  • Share/Bookmark

The anonymous editor over at CRN.com has issued a call for some more LAPD theology.

This was written in response to this article. You can immediately see why there’s such hostility towards it. After all, the author calls into question the entire ministry philosophy of the watchdawggies:

My passionate desire is to be a bridge builder in the Southern Baptist Convention. Not to compromise biblically. Not to be soft in my theology. I desire true collaboration with those of uncompromising biblical certitude to reach a lost world with the gospel of our Savior. My prayer is that the conservative resurgence will now grow into a Great Commission resurgence.

But our witness is compromised when a spiritually lost world sees us fighting with one another, when they see unloving words hurled without restraint, when they see terse comments cloaked in civility – when they see little evidence of Christian love.

Would you pray with me that the world will see us as men and women who love the Lord with all of our hearts, and who love one another? Will you be a part of the conversation that shifts from negativity to Great Commission obedience?

I ask: Will you be a person who speaks a truth in love in such a way that your comments glorify God and are found acceptable to Him?

Amen.

  • Share/Bookmark

For the second time in less than three days the ever elusive editor has deliberately used the word “emerging” in such a way as to connect the emerging church to ideas which are completely absent from emergents. The first time it was involved the advocation of recreational drugs. Apparently that particular… insinuation (which is a polite word for lie) wasn’t quite good enough. So now its time for the anonymous, and deceptive editor get a little bit more ham fisted by connecting the emerging/emergent church to Anton LaVey who popularized the atheistic philosophy of the “Church of Satan“. Check out the headline:

Anton Szandor LaVey on the Original Emerging Church the Church of Satan

Of course with the phrase “original emerging church” the author, known only as the cowardly anonymous editor implies that there is at the very least a philosophical connection between the Church of Satan (the original) and the emerging church (the current). The problem is, there is none. There’s not actually one, and there’s not even a pretext of one presented.

The irony here is the most famous teaching of LaVey is the phrase “do as thou wilt”, its even presented right there in the clip posted by the editor, in the opening of the monologue LaVey says that religion has to dominate by fear in order to enforce its teachings of abstinence rather than motivating by indulgence.

Let me ask you this question. If a writer is willing to smear, lie and generally deceive by linking his or her opponents to boogie men like Anton LaVey and the Church of Satan what philosophy are they exhibiting? One that says “do as thou wilt” or one that says “I am the way the truth and the life”?

  • Share/Bookmark

I found this to be pretty funny.  The “editor” over at C?N has once again tried to pin down Erwin McManus to the emergent movement.  And, once again he/she/it has failed.

The whole article is over Mosaic’s annual Origins Conference, held in the Los Angeles Area every year.  His opening line is as follows:

“Emerging Pastor David trotter blogs about the recent origins conference sponsored by Erwin McManus’ Mosaic Alliance.”  (emphasis mine)

Simply looking at the date would show the “editor” that the event in question was held in June of 2005.  Should three years ago be considered “recent”?  If they can’t even get the dates right, how is he/she/it going to get the content right?  Or maybe they are just running out of recent material.

The part that I found hilarious was this quote from the blogger about a session at the conference with Alex McManus that C?N took offence over

Alex asked us “how did you get here?” His main point was a reminder that no one (including ourselves) brought us to this point – God did. God has called us to do what we’re doing

Sound like a good ol’ reformed thought, right?  God had ordained and called to do what we are doing.  Ironically, the “editor” accuses Alex McManus of this

(editor’s note:  fatalism)

I pretty much laughed for the good part of three minutes.  Here is a man at a conference in 2005 who is not a reformed theologian.  He makes a statement about God calling us to do what we are doing, and he is suddenly teaching fatalism.

Of course when we point out that the majority of reformed theology is based on a fatalistic theology, we are accused of defecating on the blood of the reformers.  But, I guess when you gotta keep the tabloids coming, you will dig pretty deep for a story.

  • Share/Bookmark