Somehow I think Rick Warren is behind this…

SEATTLE – Starbucks is shutting its doors for three hours Tuesday night, the latest drastic step in a companywide bid to improve its sagging fortunes.

The shutdown is one of several big moves spearheaded by Chairman and Chief Executive Howard Schultz, who recently took back the reins of the company amid concerns that it was losing its edge and facing increased competition from the likes of McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

Schultz has said the shutdown, which begins at 5:30 p.m. local time, is a way to energize its 135,000 employees and provide some barista re-education in the “art of espresso” at its 7,100 U.S. locations.

Read the rest of the article here.

Who knew the Onion was so prophetic? 

I don’t know what this has to do with anything really, but for the more conspiracy-minded of us out there, I’m sure it does.

I heard there was a direct correlation between latte and frappucino consumption and heretical beliefs.

Bon Appétit!

Slice of Laodicea received this transcript from Rob Bells new NOOMA video, Open.

…Now to understand why Jesus prays like this, we have to understand that Jesus took very seriously the creation poem Genesis, that the Bible begins with. And in this creation poem God creates, but God creates things that are capable of creating more, and so God creates trees but then gives trees the ability to create more. God creates animals and plants and fish but then empowers them to create more. And then God creates people, and gives them the ability to create more. So everything in creation is essentially unfinished, God leaves the world unfinished, and invites people to take part in the ongoing creation of the world. Now, when you create, you always run the risk that what you’ve created, won’t turn out how you wanted it to, it may go a different direction, it may not be everything you intended it to be. It may veer off course, and it may break your heart…

Her comments on the excerpt will leave readers scratching their heads.

Rob Bell begins his video with the same emotional storytelling that his other emerging peers like to use. While there are still tears on the face of his readers, he inserts something heretical and wraps it all up with some devotional idea that nobody would argue with.

I am not sure how to take this. Is she saying that everything he is saying is completely biblical, but deep down inside he is secretly harboring heretical teachings? I mean, if nobody would argue with his devotional idea, then where is the problem?

We participate with God in the creation of the world? This is rank heresy that abounds in New Age teachings. The idea that we are co-creators with God is a key tenant of New Age belief. We are all co-creators with God, they say. God needs us to carry his creation forward.

Of course we are co-creators in the world. Ingrid created a blog and a radio show that has the expectation of creating what the world (specifically America) should look and feel like. We create churches, ministries, political organizations, small groups, blogs, and television stations all to CREATE a different future. By simply bringing a child into the world, we dramatically change the landscape of the world in which we live. If we actually believed that what we do has no effect on creating the future, we would not get up in the morning. Also, just because the new age movement believes in something, does not make it heretical. The new age movement believes that God is ultimately good, and has an unconditional love for humanity. Should we dismiss that as heretical, just because they believe it?

Creation is unfinished, Bell says, even though Scripture records God as calling His work “good” as he concluded the 6 days of creation. In Rob Bell’s world, Genesis is not a literal account, it is a poem.

Did God mean that all creation was finished by calling it good? That is a far stretch. Also, where did Bell say that he did not believe in a literal creation account? Even if he did, there are several credible reasons to believe that the Genesis account might not be a literal one. Lastly, anyone who has done any type of study on Genesis would know that it is written in ancient poetry form, closely resembling the literary style of early writings and oral tradition. If this statement negates the validity of the scriptures, then calling Psalms a song collection, or Ecclesiastes a framed wisdom autobiography would do the same. It is a far leap in logic to say that becasue Rob Bell bleives Genesis is written in poetry form, he denies the literal account of creation.

Ingrid closes her piece by quoting the famed new-aged guru Dick Raucher, and informing the world that Rob Bell IS moving towards this theology. If that is the case, then Ingrid is quickly moving towards a Fred Phelps theology (since we are all saying whose theology we are moving towards). I have to chuckle at all the attempts these guys make to catch Rob Bell in their nets. Apparently he is now responsible for Christian witchcraft.  Sometimes they are really stretching it.

In this article by Ingrid, she links to this website.

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the website. I am trying really hard to figure out why Christians are so obsessed with letting the world know the truth behind homosexuality. If I felt like they were doing it because they cared deeply about the people who live the lifestyle, and want desperately for them to experience the life that God designed for them, I would not have a problem with all of it. However, that is certainly not the vibe I am getting from these sites. They are more concerned about winning their debate than facilitating life transformation in the hearts of homosexuals. It’s basically saying “we don’t care about you, but we want you to know that we completely disagree with your lifestyle.”

And why is it just homosexuality. They act as if that is the BIG sin in the scriptures, dismissing all other destructive behaviors and choices. So, I will faithfully be waiting for the following websites to emerge, if these people are really trying to get biblical truth out there

Americans for Truth about Lying
Americans for Truth about Gossip

Americans for Truth about Bitterness
Americans for Truth about Slander

Americans for Truth about Poverty

Americans for Truth about Widows

Or maybe these groups are not at all concerned about people who are far from God connecting to, and living out the life that God dreams for them, but simply condemning those they disagree with. unfortunately we are now warring over truth, and not warring for the hearts of people. I don’t think that’s what God was hoping we would become.

I think the Editor at CRN may need to brush up on his talking points.  In the span of the last two days we have been treated to three stories on the Emerging Church.  The first one says that Emergent thinking is swallowing youth.  Oh no!  Sounds scary, right?

The next story says the Emerging Church is receding.  Phew, that was close!

Wait, what’s this?  This article says that Brian McLaren “continues to gain more and more acceptance within the mainstream evangelical camp”.  Oh no!  Panic again!

As a reader, I wonder who edits the Editor?  We got a story to sell here boys!  Either the EC means impending doom, or it can be laughed off.  Let’s get our facts straight for once.

Ingrid recently went on a rant about how compromising and heretical Chuck Colson is. She really had no argument for how compromising or heretical what he had to say was. Her whole argument went as followed

1. Chuck Colson is a heretic because a spoke at a conference sponsored by an unorthodox church
2. Chuck Colson is a heretic because he accepted a cash award from an unorthodox religious organization

First off, I was at the ReThink conference, and Chuck Colson was more than orthodox in everything that he had to say. In fact, he was somewhat boring because what he had to say has been said for years and years. If any believer had the opportunity to speak truth, let alone in a place where the truth is often skewed, they should jump at the chance to do so.

Second, why are we not celebrating when the religions of the world recognize Christianity as the one community that is leading the way in actually doing what the scriptures say? I mean, if an organization comprised of people who were “strapping unicorn horns onto their heads and leaping through the hotel lobbies” sees that Christianity is actually making an impact on the world… throw a party! Don’t criticize someone for accepting the recognition.

Using the logic behind this article, Jesus and Paul were probably shining examples of heretics. Preaching among pagan leaders, accepting recognition from whores, thieves and drunkards, and drinking wine on top of all that! Man… why would anyone ever listen to what they had to say?

I’ve been studying more recently on the the use of parable, example and story vs. expository teaching, as the former methods have been proven to be much more “sticky” (i.e. getting the message to ’stick’) when teaching principles to adults than the latter.

In this light, I was wondering what a series of parables or stories might look like when framing the debate between ODM’s and the all-encompassing ECM ‘menace’.  And here on my lunch break, this video might do well in symbolizing some aspects of the non-”conversation” between the two in many venues…

I like this example because you can’t clearly show that either the cop/ODM or the kid/ECM was completely in the right in their actions, and you can see how each can become a stereotype that is completely non-indicative of their demographic, as a whole.

(Note to self:  Police officers don’t like to be called “dude”. File next to: They don’t like “bro” either…)

In his latest rant at CRN, the editor is deriding this contest at the Emergent Village site.  The contest is described in these terms on the EV website:

In order for the rich benefits of alternative atonement theology to move beyond the circles of those who read theology books we must develop alternative imagery. We need not just a golf bag full of different explanations; we need a bag full of different imagery to use in conversations over coffee, in sermons, youth meetings, on blogs, etc. This contest aims to help this happen both through encouraging a wide number of people to work at developing an image, and then also by sharing the best images so that many others can use them.

So can somebody enlighten me as to what is wrong with this?  We commonly speak in metaphors when describing Biblical principles because it is a way to bring understanding to a wider audience.  Many of the narratives and events in Scripture contain truths that can be gleaned from a surface level reading, but once one digs deeper, a more multi-faceted picture emerges.  By limiting ourselves by saying our view of Christ’s death and resurrection is the “one true meaning of Christ’s atonement”, as the Editor puts it, we are, I believe, closing ourselves off from important truths that God might want to reveal to us.

I would be interested to hear what the Apostle Paul said was the “one true meaning” of the Atonement.  It seems to me that Paul used a whole arsenal of images and metaphors at his disposal to describe the work of Christ on the cross to the people to whom he was writing.  In Romans, Christ’s death is described in judicial terms because these image were something the Romans saw everyday.  They knew what it meant to be condemned by the law.  In Colossians, Christ is described as being victorious over the power of Satan.  These images would be normal to a city that celebrated milatary strength and power.  In Philipians, Christ is held up as the ultimate example.  The list could go on and on.

The thing is that none of these descriptions invalidates the other.  They are merely different perspective on the grand, cosmic event that was the death and resurrection of Christ.  As long as we point to the that as the center of gravity that our faith orbits around, it seems part of the Church’s mission is to communicate it as best as possible wherever and whenever we are.

Saw an interesting and disturbing post over on Slice today. It’s a profile of Phil Wyman, a pastor in Salem, Massachusetts. Apparently Mr Wyman was kicked out of his denomination for confusing reaching out to Wiccans with trying to help Christians embrace these poor, misunderstood people. Seeing as how I’m not God, I won’t claim to know Mr Wyman’s spiritual state, but it would appear that he’s got some pretty whacked-out beliefs.

All in all, it’s pretty creepy stuff.

Almost as creepy as the Slice post title (emphasis mine):

Evangelicals and Wiccans Together? Emerging Pastor Fascinated by Witches/Pagans

Nowhere does the word “emerging” appear in any of the links provided on that post. Nowhere does any derivative of that word appear. Nowhere does any reference to any emerging leaders appear. Nowhere does any allusion whatsoever to anything even remotely emerging appear.

Even in the post itself, even the author could only muster a sixteenth-hearted (it wasn’t even close to half-hearted) attempt to somehow tie Wyman to emerging beliefs.

So tell me again, why should I take anything that she says about emerging seriously?

It’s been twelve years or so since Ted Kaczynski, aka “the unibomber”, was finally caught and brought to justice. One of the quirks of the case was Kaczynski’s anonymous letters to authorities, insisting that they publish his unaltered ‘manifesto’, Industrial Society and its Future, in a reputable, public newspaper. In the interest of public safety and with the hopes that someone might recognize the writing and identify the bomber, the FBI allowed New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the document.

I remember picking up a copy of that document and trying to wade through it, to see what kind of person was behind such senseless violence. As I sifted through the manifesto, it became pretty obvious that, with its conspiracy-saturated ramblings, esoteric terminology, paranoid delusions and apocalyptic visions of doom, the author was completely off his rocker. It was hard to imagine that I’d ever see a document quite so off-kilter and swimmingly delusional, attempting to document a worldwide conspiracy.

Apparently, I was wrong.

In looking for boogeymen within the church – with conspiracy, esoterica and innuendo to tie them all together – this piece (referenced today here), with a tinfoil-hat-fairy-tale version here, seems to be wanting to give Ted a bit of competition. [Please note that this is not, in any way, to infer that the author of this piece is an anarchtic terrorist, but rather, I was making a comparison of tone, timbre, function and pathos.]  In the end analysis, the unibomber’s document likely contains more truth than the other, which is a sad commentary in itself.
______________________________

All comparisons aside, this is a rather sad document, in which the author arrogantly places huge swaths of God’s kingdom under the umbrella of Beelzabub:

So I have very good reason why I “lump” the Purpose Driven Church, the Emerging Church and the Word Faith Church together as they are pureed in Beelzebub’s blender into today’s Christianity Lite.

Sadly, this is reminiscent of an incident recorded in the Gospels:

Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebub! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.”

So Jesus called them and spoke to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house. I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin.”

He said this because they were saying, “He has an evil spirit.”

While it is commanded of us in scripture to “test” what is being taught, what this particular bit of screed does goes far beyond ‘testing’ and into the realm of slander and quite possibly blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

That, unlike the ramblings of a mad-bomber, is a serious thing to consider…

Are there churches that use “Purpose Driven” methods which have been taken to extremes and watered down the gospel?  Certainly.  Are there churches that use PD methods in a thought-out, balanced fashion, which produce spiritual fruit? Certainly, as well.

Are there “Emergent” churches which have jettisoned scripture and embraced liberal ideology?  Certainly.  Are there ECM churches that hold scripture in high regard and are living examples of salt and light in the world?  Most certainly.

Are there “Reformed” churches which are bastions of legalism, clinging onto systems and traditions as if they were biblical doctrine, all the while being functionally dead to the world?  Certainly.  Are there “Reformed” churches where orthodoxy and orthopraxy are in good balance?  Certainly, as well.

Is there “false teaching” (i.e. teaching a different gospel, apart from grace, that is sending people to hell – here and in the afterlife) going on in the church as a whole?  Certainly.  Is it as wide-spread and ingrained as the ODM’s would like you to think?  Highly doubtful.
There are aspects of most every denomination/tradition in modern Christianity which are either on the wrong track or are being poorly executed. Some are more guilty than others – but every one of them is made up of individuals – indivduals who are our brothers and sisters in Christ. Even if we hold differences where doctrinal unity would be unwise or unteneble, relational unity is still important to hold within the church, as a whole. Attempting to toss millions of faceless Christians under the bus as products of “Beelzabub’s blender” is an unordained, fruitless, loveless exercise with a very real danger of hellfire…

There’s an old maxim: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Unfortunately, this can be taken too far. Like if you hear one quack, and declare duck-dom.

The mid-80s (yes, I’m older than dirt) saw the first big wave of Christian bands that sought to “cross over”, i.e. take their music to the larger, secular market. Regardless of the actual motivation of each individual that did this, a blanket “discernment” was made by many that every last one of them had impure motives. And so they were regularly attacked for allegedly “selling out the Gospel”.

But apparently, there were not enough targets to be attacked, and even the ODMs of the 80s were getting tired of flagellating the expired equine. So new musicians were found and (mis)labeled as Christian cross-overs. What were the criteria for the “research” that went into finding these artists? One quack.

Mr. Mister was allegedly a Christian cross-over because of their song, “Kyrie Eleison”. And in what has to be the most stunningly laughable association of all time, George Michael was declared a Christian cross-over because of the title of one song, “Faith”. These associations also had the added benefit to the critics that they could then ascribe whatever unChrist-like actions (no matter how bizarre) that these artists did to actual Christian musicians. One would imagine that they viewed Bob Hartman as being 5 minutes away from being arrested for lewd acts in a park restroom.

Lest you think that such far-reaching associations were a thing of yesteryear, we have this post from C?N. Because a father-to-be out-of-wedlock uses a little spiritual terminology, the logical conclusion (apparently) is that he will be embraced by emergents. This illogic is then compounded by stating that McConaughey sounds “amazingly similar” to “some of these new breed emerging church pastors”. Never mind that no names or quotes are cited — we’ll take the Editor at his word. And, of course, never mind that — in many of his words — McConaughey also sounds “amazingly similar” to any and every super-conservative pastor out there.

The Stretch Armstrong of logic just snapped and that green ooze is going everywhere.