There’s an Arabian proverb that says that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.  It’s an idea that’s older than dirt, but was more recently ascribed to Saddam Hussein.  One would have to think a bit about anything that came out of that man’s mouth (maybe even use a bit of discernment), yet it seems that many people are very anxious to live by this nugget of “wisdom”.

A couple of examples:
__________________
I recently had an exchange in the meta of another blog.  The blog owner, Lanny*, said several things about Steve (another blogger), one of which was that Steve had allegedly stated that Lanny wasn’t a Christian — a certainly valid complaint on Lanny’s part.  A third blogger, John, agreed with several things that Lanny was saying about Steve and unequivocally stated that Steve was not a Christian.  Lanny made no move to correct John for engaging in the same sin as Steve, but basically high-fived John and went on with the conversation.

I called foul.  After several rounds of dodging my actual point, Lanny finally pulled out the “big guns” and accused me of believing the exact same things as Steve.  This was interesting as (1) I hadn’t raised any issue of beliefs, and (2) I actually believe very differently than Steve on a great number of issues.  My point was the double-standard that Lanny and John were employing.  Not surprisingly, my comment pointing out these issues was never approved, and so it never saw the light of day on Lanny’s blog.

In the context of the Arabian proverb, by stretching the term “enemy” to include someone that you disagree with, and the term “friend” to include someone that you agree with:

• Lanny had set himself up as an “enemy” of Steve
• I set myself up as an “enemy” of Lanny
• Lanny assumed that I was a “friend” of Steve

________________________________

Recently, another blog was critical of a proposal that came from the Obama administration.  A writer on this site proposed that maybe the other blogger’s interpretation of the proposal was not reflective of what was intended.  Within just a few comments, the writer and several others on this site were labeled as “Obama fans”.

Using the same terminology as before:

• The writer on the other blog set up as an “enemy” of Obama
• Our writer had set himself as an “enemy” of that writer
• It was assumed by defenders of the first writer that our writer was a “friend” of Obama

_______________________

OK, time for a geek lesson.  At its core, all data is represented by a 0 or a 1.  The numerical system behind this is called binary.  If something is not a 0, then it must be a 1.  And vice versa.  And so if something is “not not 0″, then it must be “not 1″, or 0.

This is the only environment in which “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can hold true — in a binary world.  Or to put it in less geeky terms, in a (literally) black-and-white world.

But this is not the world in which we live.  If it was, then Paul was clearly in error when he wrote Romans 14, the Bible has errors in it, and we’re all doomed.

Are there black and white issues in this world?  Certainly.  But are those the only colors in this word?  Certainly not.  If they were, then God was clearly in error when He created the rainbow, God is imperfect, and we’re all really doomed.

So why are so many people so eager to doom themselves?

* Names are all changed, as it isn’t necessary.  I know this will upset those that insist that we always “name names”, but seeing as how they expect nothing but bad things from this site anyway, who am I to disappoint them?

No, really.  I honestly don’t get this post.

Short version:  Mark Driscoll will be teaching at the Crystal Cathedral (pastored by Robert Schuller).

Let’s set aside the fact that Driscoll has taught at the Crystal Cathedral before, making this event about as newsworthy as telling me that Albert Pujols has been known to play baseball.

The article goes into some detail about why they think that Driscoll is wrong.  It also goes into voluminous detail about why they think that Schuller is wrong.  And frankly, there are a few things in Driscoll’s belief system and a lot in Schuller’s belief system that I have problems with.  Further, Driscoll has even stated that there are some significant theological issues in which he and Schuller differ.

But nowhere is it stated in the LHT post how the two issues are related (except for some broad, fuzzy emergophobic statements).

I am reminded of the story of Paul and Barnabas preaching in Antioch in Acts 13:42-51" href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2013:42-51;&version=50;" target="_blank">Acts 13:

⁴² So when the Jews went out of the synagogue, the Gentiles begged that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath. ⁴³ Now when the congregation had broken up, many of the Jews and devout proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas, who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
⁴⁴ On the next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to hear the word of God. ⁴⁵ But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy; and contradicting and blaspheming, they opposed the things spoken by Paul. ⁴⁶ Then Paul and Barnabas grew bold and said, “It was necessary that the word of God should be spoken to you first; but since you reject it, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, behold, we turn to the Gentiles. ⁴⁷ For so the Lord has commanded us:

‘ I have set you as a light to the Gentiles,
That you should be for salvation to the ends of the earth.’”

⁴⁸ Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.
⁴⁹ And the word of the Lord was being spread throughout all the region. ⁵⁰ But the Jews stirred up the devout and prominent women and the chief men of the city, raised up persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them from their region. ⁵¹ But they shook off the dust from their feet against them, and came to Iconium.

Let’s assume for a moment that there will be one unsaved person at the Crystal Cathedral when Driscoll speaks there.  I don’t think that’s a stretch, and probably something that the “Editors” at LHT would agree with.  Or let’s be even more optimistic, assume that everyone there is a Christian, but that God isn’t a total wimp and is actually capable of speaking to just one person at that church through Driscoll.

What kind of idiot would Driscoll have to be to pass up an opportunity to be used by God?

Now since I don’t have the gift of “discernment” (thank God), I can’t divine the motives and heart attitudes of the “Editors”.  But there seems to be a lot of similarity between the LHT post and the Jews’ attitude and actions in verses 45 and 50.

Every college student — bless his/her heart — is a potential politician, in that s/he can go on and on for long periods of time without ever actually saying anything.  When I was in college, we had a campus minister who used to occasionally say “and your point would be … ?”  It was an honest question, but also a gentle reminder that we had strayed off the ranch.

So I would post this same question to the “Editors” at LHT:  “and your point would be … ?”

HT to SoL, where Driscoll’s upcoming venue was referred to as “the apostate Crystal Cathedral”.  Last time I checked, a hunk of glass and concrete can’t be apostate.  But what do I know?  After all, I don’t have “discernment”.

Here, our insightful friend at Slice points out that Evangelicals are somehow complicit in the ‘undoing of America.’ I’m not going to bother pointing out how absurd the post is; trust me when I say it is. (You should read it first though or this post will make little sense.) It’s got something to do with this:

From the conscience clause to stem cell research, President Obama has shifted social policy to the left in his first 100 days in the White House. But the reversal of several of his predecessor’s regulations has garnered hardly a whimper — leaving many to wonder how much social issues matter to Americans amid two wars and an economic crisis.

As if anyone with a brain should be surprised that BO is leading this nation further left. But let me take this a different direction.

A potential pandemic flu virus is sweeping across North America…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘Christian’ ‘right’.

There is ongoing violence and war in Darfur…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

Two Coptic Christians in Egypt were shot dead over Easter…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

An earthquake killed 150 people in Italy…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right.’

War continues in Afghanistan and may be spreading to Africa…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

A gunman went wild killing 14 people in New York…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

A human rights activist is missing in China, likely being held for torture…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

Over 87,000 Iraqi’s have been killed in violence since 2005…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

75 in Iraq were killed in homicide bombings…and there’s hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’.

Shall I continue?

As for the ADM’s, many have now signed on with themselves and they will continue to trot out the same, tired, boring youtube videos wherein they condemn other Christians for being concerned about all human life on the planet and they will continue using the internet to spread their vile hatred of all things not themselves and they will continue to tell us how proud God is of their orthodoxy and their commitment to winning the truth or culture or bible or evolution war. The rest will be handing out tracts warning people that they are going to hell in a handbasket (but not doing anything to comfort them now, and not doing anything to demonstrate their love, and not giving them any reason to think that life in the Kingdom is better than life out of the kingdom; just armed with bullhorns, a blog, a radio station, a youtube channel…) They will continue, bullhorns in hand, to run down everyone they see, everywhere they go, and by whatever means possible. They will continue going to the ends of the earth to make a convert to orthodox HannAmeriaCalvinanity only to make them twice as much…

And a few of them will stop by here and tell us about how they have been saved by grace and how important it is for them, and how the rest of us are wrong because we are concerned about ALL HUMAN life on this planet. Why? Because for the ODM’s of the world, purifying the church of all undesirables is far more important than bringing peace, hope and comfort to the lost and dying and hopeless of the world who suffer and whom they claim are going to hell and can only be rescued if America is awash in conservatism.

(I know, I know…far too broadly generalized right? I know, I know…not all ADM’s are like that. I know…I know…Tony Compola and Shane Claiborne and Jim Wallis have questionable theological points of view…etc…etc…ad infinitum. I know, I know…I’m guilty too and thanks to God for saving me and we need to warn people about the fires of hell and helping people without preaching the Gospel is meaningless and blah blah blah…yeah…I know, I know…homosexuality is wrong and AIDS is God’s judgment against them and therefore we should hate them and not love them…and war is good because it is God’s sword…and so on and so forth…and we should not feed the hungry unless they convert or put shoes on their feet unless they thank us in Jesus’ name…yada yada yada…And Myley Cyrus didn’t answer correctly when asked about ‘gay marriage’ so she’s wrong, and Miss America answered right and she’s wrong, and Rob Bell is vague…and it’s wrong to drink coffee during worship or to sit on couches instead of pews…and sing Chris Tomlin instead of John Wesley…yes. yes. yes. I know.**)

Hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right’ in this present darkness.

And in more irony, on the same front page…I learned about Chinese children not getting treatment for AIDS…but the ‘good times in Boston roll’ because the Red Sox have won eleven in a row!!!! (And hardly a whimper from the ‘christian’ ‘right.’) Here’s a pic:

Hardly a whimper. But we should worry about the socialization of ‘America’ and we should fret because Obama is doing what we knew he would..as if people only suffer under Liberal Democrat administrations. And Evangelicalism is equivalent to being an American. And hardly a whimper. To hell with the world, the poor, the hungry, the afflicted, the transgressors. And hardly a whimper.

Hardly a whimper.

But we need to really, really, really worry about President BO. More conservatives! That will help! More war for big brother! That will help! More death! More violence! More hatred! We need more anti-christians (you know, anti-Rob Bell christians, anti-Rick Warren Christians, anti-NT Wright Christians, etc.) That will bring the Kingdom down!! That will save America and purify the Church!!!!

Hardly a whimper.

Washington – A woman in sub-Saharan Africa will be among up to 90 million people forced into extreme poverty in 2009. A baby in South Asia will be one of 400,000 to die this year. And a man in Latin America will join the 1 billion chronically hungry people in the world.

Hardly a whimper.

**I gave up sarcasm for Lent, but I hope you will spare me this one time.

Q: Why are Southern Baptists opposed to pre-marital sex?
A: Because it leads to dancing.

If you are now or have ever been a member of an SBC church (like I was at one time), you’ve probably heard that joke.

Sadly, for some, it’s not a joke, but rather another in a long line of (1) focusing on the wrong thing, (2) elevating opinion/preference to the level of doctrine, and (3) drawing definitive conclusions that have little or no basis in reality.

Such is the case for Mary Kassian in her criticism of William P Young’s The Shack.  Now, I am by no means a fan of the book.  It contains some (at best) questionable theology, has a troubling back-story, and many of its more strident fans often can’t seem to decide which genre it is in.

If you aren’t familiar with the book, Kassian’s criticism largely revolves around the fact that God the Father appears as a black woman named Papa.  Criticisms regarding this issue are numerous and have ranged from concern that Young has crossed a line to emphatic assertion that Young is promoting “goddess worship”.

It is fairly clear that what Young was probably trying to accomplish was to shake up the reader’s image of God, addressing the unfortunate issue that we have often created Him in our image, particularly in Western culture.  Unfortunately, Young’s attempt falls flat in that he trades in one humanly recognizable (and ill-conceived) image for another.  (Put another way, while it is true that God is not Wilford Brimley, He’s not Aunt Jemima, either.)

Setting aside the myriad negative motives that Kassian ascribes to Young, it would appear that she doesn’t even think that an assertion of goddess worship promotion is strong enough. Alluding to a mid-80s sculpture of a female Christ hanging on a cross, Kassian claims:

If you [don't think that The Shack contains terribly wrong concepts about God], then you’re well on your way to accepting the image of the Christa on the cross. In a few years, you’ll be hanging her up in your church.

No cautions that the wrong concepts could lead to other problems.  Rather, absolute and definitive statements of what will, without question, happen.  Do not pass GO.  Do not collect $200.  (Somebody call God and tell him that Kassian said He isn’t sovereign anymore.)

The only comment that I’ll make about her very next sentence (”I don’t think I’m overstating the case”) is to allude to gunplay, aquatic creatures, and large cylindrical containers made of wood.

Kassian’s criticism is not only over-the-top, but in some cases, just as theologically bad as — if not worse than — the book she is criticizing.  As part of her overall context of examining the imaging of God, she states (emphasis hers):

In the Old Testament, God instructed his people to reject female goddess images and images of God as a bi-sexual or a dual-sexual Baal/Ashtoreth-type collaboration. God hated this imagery so much that he had his people destroy it and all those who promoted it.

Combining these statements with others peppered throughout the article, Kassian comes dangerously close to (if not outright) implying that God’s main problem with Baal/Ashtoreth wasn’t the whole false god thing, but simply that those who worshiped Baal/Ashtoreth had imaged God wrong.  This is the same lousy logic that says that the Allah that Muslims worship is the same entity/person as Jehovah.

I have, on numerous occasions, cited my dismay with those that espouse an idea and then search the Scriptures for support of that idea (see also, “cart before the horse”).  But at least such eisegesis is only a misapplication of the text.  It’s sad that Kassian apparently feels that, in order to criticize the re-imaging of God, she must engage in the re-imaging of His Word.

(or Ingrid never ran over my puppy)

OK, people, time for a level-set.

It would appear that the (irrelevant and inaccurate) references to this site in the meta of Tim Challies’ post the other day have garnered us some new readers.  To them I say “Welcome”.  This post is actually in response to “pre-Challies” readers of this blog who seem to have missed something.  Before you new folks make the honest mistake of ascribing to the same misconception, maybe we ought to clear it up (again).

Many of the veteran detractors of this site routinely state that the purpose of this blog is to spew hatred against a select few.

The Greek word for such a viewpoint is “skubala“.  A (very) rough English translation would be “baloney”.

Some time ago, Chris Lyons (with input from other contributors here) wrote Our Mission, detailing what this blog is all about.  Chris outlines six guidelines for this blog, only one of which deals with the addressing of points in which we disagree with those that write the various watchblogs out there.  In fact, Chris calls this “the lowliest” of these six tasks.

Even if we throw several bones to the skubala-merchants and ignore the existence of the other five tasks, their viewpoint is still inaccurate.  Which brings me to the point of the title of this post.

I don’t hate Ken or Ingrid or Chris R or PB.  Regardless of the mutuality of the sentiment, I consider them all Christian siblings of mine.

Now, admittedly, I do hate theological error — very much so — especially when it is presented at the expense of others.  And this is what I write against.  This is why I am here.  The fact that it often happens to be presented by one or more of the afore-mentioned people (that I allegedly hate) is either purely coincidental or cited as an example.  While I sometimes cross the line, I do my best to remember that my anger is not directed at them, but at the error that they are presenting and the damage that it can do to others.

Sidenote: I do find it rather telling that one of the most vocal (and oft-repeated) accusations against Tim Challies’ post was that he didn’t “name names”.  The fact that he didn’t screams that his “beef” was with a concept, not a person.  Such writing demands that the reader not simply write Tim off as a “hater”, but actually determine if the points he made are applicable to themselves.  (Or at least gripe about the fact that he didn’t “name names”.)

As Chris noted about himself recently, I used to wield a weed-eater indiscriminately, too.  But God worked on my heart, both directly and through others, to see my sin.  My purpose here is to try to be the “others” for someone else.  Not as someone who has arrived, but as someone that’s been to a few “places” that you’re better off avoiding.

For you new(er) folks here, please be warned — the veteran dissenters on this site will state unequivocally that I am lying and what I have written here is not the true nature of what’s in my heart.  They will most likely misappropriate the first half of Matthew 7:16 as proof-text of their ability to read my heart.  These are people who apparently ignore passages such as 1 Samuel 16:7.  By tacitly stating that they are God (by the measure of this latter verse), they are committing nothing short of blasphemy.  I would ask that you think for yourselves, rather than take the word of a blasphemer.

Maybe even use a little discernment.

Following on the heels of Tim Challies, Michael ‘iMonk’ Spencer has truly outdone himself with a beautiful metaphor that I wish I could just steal and claim as my own.  Weed eaters.

Spencer writes:

There’s nothing quite as empowering to a middle school boy as to be given a weed-eater of his very own. Armed with the machine, safety glasses and an orientation, they come marching across the campus taking on weeds and untrimmed grass like Sherman’s march to the sea.

If there was ever any tentativeness in these weed-eating workers, it all vanishes when they get their first taste of the power of the weed-eater. With a squeeze of the trigger, the power to eliminate weeds replaces the fear of what might happen in using such a dangerous device. Lazy middle school boys are transformed into the scourge of weeds and untidy lawns everywhere.

As I read the article, I can remember my own days as a freshman at a Christian college, incredulous that there could even be a Young Democrats chapter at a Christian college.  What an oxymoron, right?  And the zeal with which I argued and debated friends and rivals, alike, on the evils of alcohol – because teatotalling is right next to godliness.  And the folks who believed in anything other than literal 6-day, young earth creationism?  Make way, you godless heathens, wolves in sheep’s clothing!

There is, unfortunately, a not so charming side effect of this transformation. In the ensuing attack on weeds and sidewalk scruffiness of all kinds, most of the other flora and fauna of the campus is put at some risk from overenthusiastic weed warriors.

So in addition to a tidy campus and well attended faculty and staff lawns, there are frequent attacks on flower beds, gardens and much loved decorative hedges and bushes. Small fences are no obstacle to a boy convinced that some stray sprig of wayward grass is attempting to survive the Day of the Weed-eater.

Flowers and other decorative plants are at real risk when the power of a gang of boys go out into the neighborhood to do good. They are armed and dangerous. The neighborhood will be improved.

Zealousness is not at issue, which I believe sometimes I (and other writers at CRN.Info) am mistaken to be against.  We are called to have zeal for the Lord and to do His work with all of our heart, soul, mind and strength.  Where that becomes a problem is when we start assuming the place of God, in judging the hearts of others, or the Holy Spirit, in convicting them.  We may effectively ‘whack some weeds’, but who knows how many beneficial plants we damage in the process.

Spencer acknowledges this dark side of ‘zeal’ -

So as I get older, I see many of my zealous brothers and sisters armed with the Bible, heading out into the church to do what they believe is a good work of killing weeds.

The results are predictably predictable.

Be less enthralled with your ability to trim the grass brothers, friends. Be less certain that you are qualified to tell the difference between a weed and a flower that has yet to bloom. Learn to use your power equipment carefully. You can do a lot of damage. All does not depend on you cutting down every unknown and out of place plant. You are not saving us from the arrival of the jungle.

And this is where I often find myself.  Reminded of Jesus’ admonition to serve and to love his bride – even the parts I may not personally like.  In a place of a concerned steward protecting gardens and flower beds from undiscerning, yet possibly well-intentioned youths, armed with their shiny new weed-eaters.

iMonk concludes:

It was the Pharisees that Jesus criticized for their weed-eater mentality. They were obsessed with separation. They were tithing their spices. They were experts in staying on the case until the weeds were revealed.

Jesus wants us to be gardeners, but we do have to deal with weeds. Did any gardener ever say “Let the weeds grow” except for Jesus?

Some of us have set our sights (sites) on being full-time weed eaters and we’re having a very good time. The body of Christ needs a few. But only a few. And be careful, please. Very careful.

And I would wholeheartedly agree.  This is why we support true, professional discernment ministries like Reasons to Believe, Christian Research Institute, and Ravi Zacharias International Ministries.  While we recognize that these ministries may not always agree with one another, nor always we with them, they are managed by Christians who understand that there’s a place for weed eaters, and there’s a place for more careful trimming.

There is much lamenting these days, particularly on blogs, about the state of Christianity in America. It is not uncommon for contemporary (and I strategically avoid the term “modern” at this point) Christianity to be criticized for its lack of biblical fidelity and for churches to be criticized for their methodology and/or beliefs – though the two are often confused. Usually the remedy involves some form of return – return to the Bible, return to tradition, return to…

And today a study was released showing the decreasing value Americans place on religion in general and their decreasing belief in Christianity in particular.

Most often, those complaining the most vigorously display three flaws in their reasoning: 1) an overly simplistic reductionism that assumes there is, or every was, such a thing as monolithic “American Christianity” or “the church in America” in the first place; 2) a dismissive misunderstand of the current trends within younger emerging generations of Christians; and 3) as well as a completely lack of any grasp of history.

There is no doubt that there is a segment of today’s “American Christianity” that is barely biblical… that is, they are Christian in only the most tangential manner. Many voices are promoting an openness to ideas that are quite incompatible with historic biblical Christianity. That this exists there is no argument.

Of course, this is nothing new; a brief review of American Evangelicalism will show it has its very birth in the liberal swing cause by modernism in (predominately) New England over 150 years ago. And those who are so quick to blame and deride post-modernism for Christianity’s downfall in America should remember that it was an embrace of modernism that first gave momentum to the liberalization of the mainline denominations. Couple this fact with the popularity of Deism and Unitarianism in Colonial and antebellum America and any claim that “American Christianity” is, somehow, just now threatened shows an astonishing level of their naïveté.

And while the bloggers lament, and the pollsters poll, hundreds of little churches meet every Sunday as faithfully as their predecessors did in the last century and the one before that and the one before that and the one… And while the bloggers lament and the pollsters poll, hundreds of new churches are being started by a new generation of Christians. And although they may be significantly different in appearance and methodology and even world-view – they to are just as faithful to the Scriptures, to their heritage of the faith, to their Savior as faithfully as their predecessors did in the last century and the one before that and the one before that and the one…

Personally, I have grown tired of the “Chicken-Little-ness” of it all. The beauty of Christianity (its truth notwithstanding) is its translatability. Christianity is ultimately translatable because it is not bound by any one culture… and those who are screaming loudest about the state of “American Christianity” are often those who are the most willing to bind the faith in their own traditions – all the while complaining about the “Man-centeredness” of how others express the faith.

It’s a good things those of whom I speak were not present at the Council of Jerusalem as recorded in Acts 15 – for if they had been, they would have shouted down Peter and Barnabas and Paul as they told stories of Gentiles receiving the Spirit… and when they lost (which the purposes of God would guarantee) they would have been the first to blog their lament of the demise of Palestinian Christianity by those emergents in Antioch.

**UPDATE in response to this post being addressed at CRN:**

This post was not a swipe (not so veiled or otherwise) at “ministries” like CRN (and in this case I use quotations in the same spirit as they are often used at CRN). A “swipe” would be a critical or cutting remark with little or no further comment (e.g. my parenthetic comment above regarding ministries in quotations would be a swipe). What I offered was a reasoned post, an alternative interpretation of “Christianity in America” – which, in true ODM style, was glossed over… the heat ignored for the flash of rebuttal. Just repeating the same “The sky is falling” mantra, yet again, does not make it true.

In true ODM style, though, the editor’s response took a true swipe at my/our biblical literacy by suggesting we blow the dust off our Bibles and read Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians – at least we were given credit for having a Bible. And in true ODM style, it was implied that the editor’s brother in Christ is among those who are unsaved… those who do not have the light of Christ. It’s a shame that instead of addressing the issues raised, my/our status in Christ was questioned. Instead of addressing or rebutting the argument, it is assumed that disagreeing with the editor means I/we lack the light of Christ and are, instead, among those in darkness.

At this point I will not get into a debate on the possible applications of Paul’s warning in 1 Thessalonians 5 – for that is not the point. In this post I never advocated “peace and security.” I did not deny the existence of many unbiblical churches. I even went so far as to acknowledge the same. Further, assuming this passage is speaking of the ultimate end (as we know it) it seems arrogantly ethnocentric to assume this end is at hand based on an interpretation of what may be happening in our own particular culture… ignoring completely the massive work of the Spirit in emerging cultures. This too is typical ODM myopia. If God is supposedly losing his grip on America – the end must be near.

Therefore the editor’s employment of this passage is moot.

If, in the future, CRN wishes to debate a topic or question within the bounds of the brotherhood of Christ, and if CRN is willing to address a topic beyond the myopia of American ethnocentrism, I would be more than willing…

According to a list posted at CR?N of the Ten Marks of a False Convert, one such mark is belief in macro-evolution or Darwinism.

We’ve read other times at this ADM and its sister sites about the abomination of disbelief in a literal, 7-day Creation. Alas for one of their “heroes of the faith” Charles Haddon Spurgeon -

“In the 2d verse of the first chapter of Genesis, we read, ‘And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.’ We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God. But before that era came, wherein man should be its principal tenant and monarch, the Creator gave up the world to confusion.” [emphasis mine]

– Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Sermon delivered on Sunday, June 17, 1855 at New Park Street Chapel.

Granted, you can’t call him a Darwinist, since this was 4 years before Charles Darwin wrote Origin of Species, but what he’s describing is inclusive of macro-evolution.  False Convert! Shame!  The next thing you know, people will be saying that Chuck S was a smoker and drinker, too!

Poor Charlie…

An observation from the mailbag (along w/ my own thoughts):

One ADM writes:

I have observed a strange thing. Churches will spend time and money on the most shockingly moronic videos of their pastors engaging in things like shaking their fannies into the camera (a memorable church-produced “Christmas” video) and worse. The videos are posted on YouTube, available to the entire world. Some of them are up for more than a year. Then, when I post a link to this infamy on Slice to demonstrate the shambolic state of evangelicalism, there is a sudden embarrassed rush to hide the videos as “private”, or to remove the videos altogether. One church just kept editing out the comments from Slice readers who pointed out the disgraceful behavior of a so-called “pastor.” Why is this? Are these people suddenly overcome by something called shame?

Observations:

1) She overlooked another possibility. No one wants to deal with her or her readers. Its easier to pull a video down than to talk to the unpleasant Slice of Laodicea hordes. That’s something to be really proud of.

2) She also overlooked that many Christians have an ability apparently missing from her gene pool – the ability to laugh at themselves.

3) Shame is an unhealthy byproduct of guilt, both of which are derived from sin. The last time I checked, producing sub-par-quality art (or high-quality silliness) was not enumerated in a list of biblical sins. Rather, acting peaceably w/ brothers & sisters IS something desired, and thus, the churches who pull down/privatize videos and erase anti-Christian vitriol (from other Christians) are following Christ’s example far more than the harpies and vultures who’ve ascended from the Sludge of Laodicea to stab them in the back…

And more bitter slicing:

it is difficult to imagine that Christianity used to produce some of the finest minds in the world. The brilliance of men like John Owen and Jonathan Edwards who submitted their minds to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, continues to shine down through the centuries. Harvard and Yale were at one time Christian institutions, dedicated to the Gospel and developing minds to the glory of God.

Fast forward to 2009 and the rotting corpse of Western Christianity. This buffoonery is what now fills churches today—the entire idiotic scene inspired by a children’s cartoon of singing and dancing vegetables. Infantalism rules, literacy is dead, and God-given intellects are dead, suffocated under years of video game playing, movie and television watching. Hard to believe that Christians used to produce books like “Bondage of the Will”, and translations of the Scriptures from the original languages. Today, pastors and church laity are reading “graphic novel” (comic book) versions of the Bible because they struggle to grasp anything beyond a one syllable word.

Observations:

1) Where to even begin? Apparently historical criticism was not taught in the Milwaukee schools years ago, as the writer cannot seem to discern cultural shifts from theological shifts to save her life. Moaning that the digital age doesn’t meet the success criteria of the print age – and that this is, somehow, a theological issue is more pathetic and sad than frustrating. The shift from modernist print means of communication to post-modernist visual means is a cultural one, that no amount of “spiritual maturity” (neither the author’s definition, nor the actual definition) will “cure”. Which begs the question – must one convert to modernism before one can legitimately accept Jesus? Apparently, one shrill voice believes so…

2) Buffoonery is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find much of Christian Talk Radio to fit the bill of “buffoonery” and irrelevancy than a YouTube video parodying VeggieTales – the key difference being that the folks in the video are purposely acting a certain way to reach a certain audience, whereas many in CTR are buffoons without purpose or method to their madness.

3) We’ve covered Manga and Graphic Novels before, but perhaps it should once again be underscored how silly and stupid the screeching about this form of art/communication is. Graphic novels have become an effective means of storytelling in modern culture. Much like translating the scriptures from a hodge-podge of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin documents into English, translating the scriptures from words into pictures is not going to be a perfect translation – however – it takes the most important story we have to tell and puts it into a format that can best be understood by a certain audience of people. So again, must we convert the “illiterate” pagan from visual media to written media before they can be converted to Jesus?

To sum it all up, it just seems that the shrewish nattering from Laodicea is primarily an elitist, snobbish, country-club view of Christianity – far more in danger of missing Christ in this world and the next – that the targets of its poison-tounged diatribes.

But all hope is not lost.

Even Saul, on his walk to Damascus, was converted from a slanderer and persecutor of Christians and Christ to a living testament to the ability of the Messiah to change hearts and minds…

Let me start my first post on CRN.Info by saying that I see it as a real big privilege and honour to have been invited to write for this site. I first came to CRN.Info via a link on Chad Holtz’s site who I found on A Little Leaven. So never say that nothing good can come from the ADM’s… What I like so much about CRN.Info is that everybody gets a chance to speak their mind on whatever subject is posted and comments only get moderated in the most extreme circumstances. I have only once seen comments deleted and that was to protect someone who frequently comments here and who is mostly critical about CRN.Info. There are not many sites on the web, and that includes Christian sites, that have this kind of integrity and I count myself fortunate to be in such company.

The Forest or the Tree?

Lately there have been a number of posts at CRN.Info that got derailed because of people getting hooked onto one small detail in the post. One such example is the post by Jerry on the 3rd chapter of Rob Bell’s book Jesus Wants To Save Christians. The reason why it bothers me is not so much that the thread got derailed, although it does make me “die moer in”*, but that people missed the message of the post. It just gets lost in all the noise of the comments. This got me thinking about some things my dad taught me.

My dad was a wise man who faithfully pastored small churches, never looked for the glory and had a spotless character. If I can grow to be half the man he was… He gave me these bits of advice:

Put it on the shelf…

When reading a book or listening to a sermon and there is something that you do not like or understand at that point in time, don’t ignore that together with the rest of the book or sermon but rather write the thought down, put it away and revisit it later.

This advice has come in handy on many occasions in two ways. Firstly when something I read or heard some time ago would come back and suddenly make sense or be truth in another context or time. Sometimes it was things that I heavily disagreed with but then God seems to open up some truth to me and use the previously discarded to change something in me. The second way is that when I do that I can actually focus on what I can learn and appropriate now in my life. In other words don’t get so caught up in the detail that you don’t agree with or don’t understand that you miss the core message that God wants you to hear.

He might be a donkey but…

Growing up in a legalistic pentecostal denomination there was lots of preaching that made you feel like a useless piece of you know what and this caused me to dislike a lot of these preachers (my dad was quite the opposite). When there was a service where one of these preachers spoke I protested loudly about going and then my dad would drop this bit of wisdom:

Separate the message from the man. If God used Balaam’s donkey he can use anyone to get the message across.**

I think we can use some of that… I might not like John MacArthur’s Truth War-type attitude but I learned a lot from the Grace To You programs. You might not like Rob Bell’s fuzzy language but his fresh perspective on things might just open something new about God you’ve missed before. Separate the message from the man and you might just hear God speak to you.

The diamond in the rough…

Look for the wisdom, truth that applies to you, in the most unlikely places

Sometimes people will come with the biggest lot of nonsense and you might think what a load of … That is when you need to start prospecting, filter out the dirt and find the diamond. Most of the ADM’s writing falls into this category for me and like prospecting it is hard work but sometimes there is wisdom to be found that can be applied to my life (Even if it is to learn not to act in similar fashion).

These bits of advice might not be deeply philosophical or theological but I found God speaking to me at the most unlikely of times and that makes them precious to me. (And because my dad said so…)

* An Afrikaans expression for very angry
** I’m not calling anyone a donkey