Mike Corley responded to Joe’s open letter.
It is pretty interesting, and I think most of you would enjoy hearing it.  After hearing this, I feel more secure in our mission here.  I was frustrated and scared about what these men were doing even a few months ago.  I see now that God is raising up people to contend for the faith and the Bride of Christ here and at other sites run by our brothers and sisters.  Our grassroots voices are being heard and having an effect.  It is amazing to see what God is doing in this new generation of believers, unashamed of the gospel and not afraid to infiltrate culture. 
Many of us understand here that while a few splinter groups in the emerging/emergent movement have gone astray, we cannot and will not paint anyone who looks different with the same brush.  Film, music, dance, candles, incense, helping our non-following neighbor all can aid in sharing the gospel.  That changing the methods DOES NOT change the message.  We understand the true meaning of being in the world, but not being of the world.  We see a dying world outside of our four walls and a steeple, and we will do whatever asked of us to show these people the faith, love and hope of Jesus Christ. 
Anyhow, listen to the response and hear for yourself.  These were two quotes that I really enjoyed.             

“I don’t ridicule Erwin McManus, and Doug Padgett, or Mark Driscoll, or anybody else”

“We are not about analyzing people”

 

Let’s change gears a bit and get some discussion going on another topic away from our friends at Slice 2.0/CRN. What would you do if a sex offender wanted to worship at or join your church? Go here and read the article.  I blogged about this a little over a year ago when I found out a sex offender lived down the street from me.

Just a few random bits of thoughts from my lunchtime perusal of CRN:

Beatlemainia vs. Hyperlegalism

As I read Ingrid’s article, I got to wondering: Which is more concerning-  A) A Christian college hosting a Beatlemania concert; or B) this quote:

WELS Lutherans are instructed that they should not even pray with someone of another denomination, including fellow conservative Lutherans.

I think I’ll have to go with “B” on this one (which is not to say I would or would not have supported “A”).

Wow

Just when you thought nobody could more incoherently slander Rob Bell than Ken, it seems that Ken dug a guy up who would fill that bill in today’s article on CRN.  [Caution - poor readability and sad "Christian" logic follow that link]

What made the linked article rather sad/humorous just off the top of my head was:

1. The open mocking of another church’s missions program

2. The mocking of the very name of the church (Mars Hill Bible Church)

3. Complaining that the worship music page from the church doesn’t mention using one’s heart in worship, yet the opening words on the linked page are: “Join in with all your heart, soul, mind and strength”

4. The icing on the cake – Finishing the article up with the quote “If it’s true it’s not new”.  Match this with the introduction from Rob Bell’s book, Velvet Elvis:

“If it’s true, it isn’t new. I am learning that what seems brand new is often the discovery of something that has been there all along – it just got lost somewhere and it needs to be picked up, dusted off, and reclaimed.”

What’s in a Word?

OK, so on Monday, Ken wrote a scathing complaint about one of the most conservative ‘emerging’ church pastors out there, in terms of theology, Mark Driscoll.  His problem was twofold: 1) An ad for a church celebration on Cinco de Mayo included a reference to ‘cervesas’, which is a misspelling of the Spanish word for “beer”, ‘cervezas’.  The inferrence was that Mark must be ‘Emergent’ (which both he and Mars Hill do not claim) because the church would had beer at a function; 2) The ad referenced a church New Years Party (which had a champagne toast) called the ‘Red Hot Bash’, which Ken then twisted to imply that it was sexually raunchy (another supposed trait of ‘Emergent-cy’).

So then yesterday, Ken writes a complaint about how the ad from Mars Hill’s Cinco de Mayo changed to remove the word ‘cervesas’ – the implication being there’s something sinister going on here.  Besides the fact that I doubt that Mark does the web-work for Mars Hill and probably had no involvement in this ‘tempest’ (I wouldn’t even call it a ‘tempest in a teapot’, because the ‘tempest’ exists only in Ken’s mind), I can think of dozens of reasons for the change. 

For starters, I know a good number of highly educated folks whose grasp on the meanings of foreign words falls far short of reality.  I had a high school teacher who used a particular yiddish word for years when describing certain types of students.  When she was informed what the word meant, she turned white as a sheet and never used it again.  In this manner, since ‘cervesas’ was misspelled in the first place, I wouldn’t assume that the person was sure of the meaning in the first place.

However, rather than just assume anything, I decided to use this brand new, modern invention called a “telephone” and I called Mars Hill and asked.  Their receptionist was in (it’s lunch time out there), and told me to send him and email and he’d get an answer back to me.  If they are OK with me publishing the answer, I will…

I wonder if Ken wrote/called Mars Hill to inquire about this function, or if he is just making assumptions, with the assumption being that their motives were somehow deceptive or impure?  Or is this just another case of looking to be offended and finding what you sought in whatever you found…

To his credit, though, at least Ken posted the following quote from Driscoll’s book, The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out:

“Why does all of this matter?” It matters because alcohol is a very real example of the pitfalls of syncretism and sectarianism. Prohibition began as a syncretistic liberalism that took away alcohol and the Christian freedom to drink. This happened because churches aligned themselves with a non-Christian feminism that attempted to eliminate the pub as a gathering place for men to do theology, politics, and business. This syncretism undermined the clear teachings of Scripture in an effort to fabricate a theology that supported its cultural form of morality.

Over time the prohibitionist mindset became so entrenched in evangelical and fundamentalist thinking that it is now a sectarian belief intended to keep God’s people out of the pubs, clubs, and dinner parties where sinners gather to make friendships and memories–the very places where Jesus was often found… Confusion about the gospel is truly at the root of this issue.

Does this mean, though, that Ken has changed his stance on alcohol, or that he expected this to prove his point (in which case, it didn’t).  Ken, can you answer?

I am finding that many of these watchdog sites are basing a lot of their information on what goes on during a Sunday morning service.  Posts like this one from Christian Research Network show that these men and women judge a church primarily by what happens from 8am – 1pm on Sundays.

Most of us know that a church is not a Sunday morning service.  But for some reason, that magic hour on Sunday has become the most pivotal for many people.  For those of us who are actively participating in a local body, we know that the Sunday morning experience is a very small part to what “church” is.  In fact, for those of us serving, we know that most “ministry” usually takes place outside of the large group corporate setting.

Because of this, I believe that it is ok for a Sunday morning service to be seeker sensitive or geared towards evangelism when the church is healthy as a whole.  Healthy churches have deep and impacting relational dynamics that take hold within their communities.  What is rarely looked at by these watchdog blogs are the small groups, discipleship classes and community that happens apart from what is described on a website or in a pastor’s book.

At Mosaic, our gatherings are designed to appeal to everyone in any walk of life.  The believer can come and receive something as well as the non-believing, homosexual post moderns who attend the gatherings on Sunday nights in the Mayan Nightclub in Downtown Los Angeles.  Looking at just that, one might see our community as shallow and unhealthy.  However, we have tons of small groups that meet literally all over Southern California and “disciple” people in the word of God.  And, we actively get people into these groups.  In fact, in order to be on our volunteer staff (our version of membership), you must be in a small group!

Tonight I will be going to a small group where we have been going verse by verse through James.  Next month we are starting in on Ecclesiastes.  We have seen three people come to Christ here and are being “fed.”  These are not just “hang-out” groups, but a place to learn, grow and experience biblical community.

I think this is my biggest problem with most of the criticism I have seen from those attacking PD ministries, seeker-sensitive, postmodern ministries.  In order to attack a church you must look at the WHOLE, not just what takes place on Sunday.  In order to understand the dynamics of a family you must live with them and experience what happens on a day to day basis, nit just sit outside with binoculars.  And yes, there are a few out there who are unhealthy, but that can be said for any church “group”.

Don’t get me wrong, Sundays are an important part of what we do, and we are not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together.  But the church is much more than a few hours on one day of the week.

More thoughts, I would love to hear them….

Ken posted a critique of the critique that iMonk did on MacArthur’s The Truth War on apprising.org today.  iMonk makes a great point on the book.  The whole premise of the book is to basically defend what is true.  That there is a war going on against all that is truth and we need to step up as a community of faith and defend it.

However, MacArthur fails to meet with and personally investigate the ministries that he claims to be fighting against truth.  Anyone knows, both in the literary and scientific world, that the first step is together the facts.  You must have as reliable of sources as possible to get a grasp on what is really taking place.  So, if I was going to do a critique of The Disney Corporation, I would get in contact with as many Disney executives as possible to come up with the clearest picture possible.  To find the truth.

MacArthur does not do this.  He makes vague and generalized claims, occasionally throwing in a few antidotes, and then attaches people’s names to his work.  One of the men whom he has criticized, Erwin McManus, has a church within a short drive to investigate and interview.  That was not done. 

Ken’s rebuttal is this:

Did Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Rob Bell, Dan Kimball or Erwin McManus personally sit down with anyone else remotely affiliated with each one of those like MacArthur who hold to the doctrines of grace before they began defecating upon them?

Last time I checked, these men did not write books that personally attacked MacArthur’s ministry.  I also find it interesting that Ken associated the doctrines of grace directly with John MacArthur.  That is, if you poop on the doctrines of grace (or defecate, at Ken so elegantly writes), you are actually attacking John MacArthur.  The logical conclusion would be that those who poop on the doctrines of grace attack the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Not a man.
 Lastly, I am still confused about what “doctrines of grace” Ken keeps referring to.  I am almost sure that all five of these men would subscribe to the scripture “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and that not of yourselves.  It is the gift of God, not of works so that no man can boast.”  Maybe I am missing something here.
          

Ok, I don’t have much time but talk about misquoting!  Slice 2.0/CRN has an article up where they take a jab at one of their favorite whippping boys, Rick Warren. You can read their filth here. The thing is I think Warren’s right in that quote too–Jesus probably would be hanging out with people who had AIDS.

 I want to quote the ending of the article, I’m guess that they didn’t have this part of the article when Slice 2.0/CRN put it up.

 

“But the truth is, Easter is the greatest significant event in history, in fact, it split history into A.D. and B.C. Even people who don’t believe that Jesus Christ died and was resurrected for our sins use Easter as a reference point every single day of their life. When you write a date April 3rd, April 4th, 2007, you’re using this — what’s the focal point? It’s Easter, because God came to earth and split his try into A.D. and B.C., it’s the most significant event.”

You can read the whole article here. I’ll have to write more about this later.

I guess nailing down the CRN folks is kind of like nailing Jell-O to the wall these days.

For so long, they’ve been trying to define anyone/everyone with a differing theological opinion as ‘emergent’ – with this term implying a lack of orthodoxy.  [Granted, there are a number of churches in the 'Emergent' movement who have moved too far in favor of liberal interpretations (or no interpretations), but much of what I see in the 'emerging' church is not this far out - as Dan Kimball has aptly demonstrated in recently disembowling the arguments of Johnnie Mac's lackey.]

Now, though, it seems that non-adherence to legalistic orthopraxy is on the table, as well.  In the continuum of the ECM, probably the most conservative of voices has been Mark Driscoll of the Mars Hill church in Seattle – a strict complementarian, 5-point Calvinist – whose chief sin has been to set up a church in downtown Seattle and to minister to the culture there, without demanding that the church’s culture bow to traditional (not Biblical) norms.  In fact, Mark has said on recent occasions that he doesn’t consider Mars Hill ‘Emergent’ (though he would consider it ‘emerging’), and a growing number of fundamentalists (like John Piper) have been cautiously welcoming Mark into their fold to discuss how to be relevant without watering down the message.

[In fact, I would recommend Mark's podcast, available on iTunes, though I sometimes think that he holds some of the 5-points a little too closely.  Generally, in terms of orthodoxy, it is right on par what you'd expect to hear from John MacArthur's pulpit minus the legalism and treatments of "who's 'in' and who's 'out'".]

But, of course, who would have imagined that Ken wouldn’t buy Mars Hill’s ‘Emergent-ness’?  And what is the evidence of this “sin”?  The church is holding a Cinco de Mayo celebration which serves beer (seems Ken is answering our question from last week).  And Driscoll, that awful dude in black, is a “chelero, a bebedor de cerveza” (a beer drinker, for those of you who don’t want to run to AltaVista Babelfish).

Also, the advertisement referred to a New Year’s celebration which had a champagne toast and had a “Red Hot” theme (which, from the context of the original message meant to wear red…).  Of course Ken’s dirty mind made this into a sexual reference of some sort (had this actually been the case, if you listen to Driscoll and know how he deals with certain issues, he would not have minced words in forcing a change in clothing/atmosphere).  Leave it to Ken to manufacture slander against a brother, but who’s really surprised anyomore at his outrageous lies?  Really?

Some of our friends who “live on the borders of distrust” and believe that now is “a glorious time to be in the internet wars” would tell us that “the only cure for AIDS is death.” They also would tell us that it is a waste of time to attempt to feed people who are hungry. They also might tell us that “we will always have the poor with us.” Well, to them I offer this short missive by a guy named Isaiah. He lived a long time ago in a world far far away from our own. It would seem that God (using this man Isaiah) is very concerned about these same things. Could God be emerging????? P.S. you can find this passage here

6 “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:
to loose the chains of injustice
and untie the cords of the yoke,
to set the oppressed free
and break every yoke?

7 Is it not to share your food with the hungry
and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—
when you see the naked, to clothe him,
and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?

8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness ^[a] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard.

9 Then you will call, and the LORD will answer;
you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I.
“If you do away with the yoke of oppression,
with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

10 and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.

11 The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.

12 Your people will rebuild the ancient ruins
and will raise up the age-old foundations;
you will be called Repairer of Broken Walls,
Restorer of Streets with Dwellings.

Paul Walker made a response to our article entitled “Double standard” here at CRN.  While he did clarify that the people removed were not taken out because of their “emergent” ideologies, he failed to answer our question.  Why is it ok to remove people from a church over Matthew 18, but not even contact “emergent” leaders before calling them apostate?  Anyhow, Paul put a spin on the article, saying that he was like a proud dad, bragging on his kid.  However, I feel that he is not conveying the gravity of the situation.

When someone is removed from a church, it is not an opportunity for the church to brag about how biblical you are.  It should be a time of mourning and grieving in the whole community over what you just had to do.  You are basically saying this close brother has fallen and is now being turned over to Satan.  That shouldn’t be something to write a positive blog about, unless you are writing with a hope that this person will be restored.  I did not hear that tone with Paul’s article at all.

The question still stands unanswered.

In an attempt to break down the idea that men like Rob Bell and Erwin McManus are “emergent”, I am finding articles that would help prove this. This was a recent article written by Erwin Raphael McManus entitled “Emerging Angle”

Broken and Fragmented

I must confess I was a bit apprehensive writing under the moniker of emerging church. There is so much baggage that comes with this term. This is not a term I have ever chosen for myself or Mosaic. Mosaic by the way is the community of faith I serve here in Los Angeles. Yet it seems everywhere I turn this is the designation that is placed on us.

So my disclaimer is that I don’t get anywhere near speaking on behalf of all of those who would identify themselves as emerging. On the other hand I will acknowledge that what is going on in L.A is different than what would be described as a modern church – even the innovative ones. Let me begin trying to help you know and understand our heart, who we are and why we do what we do.

In my case I am from El Salvador. That means that I have the Spanish language and the Roman Catholic Church in my background. My grandmother taught me the name of Jesus and my grandfather taught me reincarnation. They both fit comfortably into my belief system – as did aliens, astral-projection, trans-channeling; and pretty much anything else meta-physical.

While studying philosophy in college my mother came to a personal faith in Jesus Christ. Through her and the first Baptist church of Orlando I also came to embrace Jesus.

When I gave my life to Christ it was not to go to heaven or avoid hell or even to have my sins forgiven; it was for one reason above all the others – Jesus could change me to become like him in his character and in him my life would not be wasted. For me the gospel was a call to live a heroic life marked by honor, wisdom and sacrifice.

This is central to the heart of Mosaic. Jesus didn’t die just to get us out of trouble. His death was the price for our lives – so in him we become fully alive. As followers of Christ we live to love and love to live. Jesus pulls us out of a life of mediocrity to live a life defined by passion and compassion.

We choose the name Mosaic because it is an art form where broken and fragmented pieces are brought together by an artist to create something beautiful out of the imperfect and irregular pieces. We are a work of art formed by the hand of the master artist. He is creating something beautiful through us all using even our brokenness and imperfection.

This is at the core of what is happening on the edge of what has been historically known as Christianity. It may also be the best way of understanding what we are about and why it is so hard to embrace at times. What others see is the mess of our pieces scattered all over the place in disarray; what we see is the future Mosaic.

It is different; but different in a good way. It is more raw, more honest, more authentic, more transparent, and in this way more dangerous and less palatable. Sounds like the first century church to me.

There is a new church coming. There is a new movement erupting. There is a new future being created. We call it a Mosaic future.