Clones/Chameleons **Updated**

I ran into a guy I used to go to church with the other day. We hadn't seen each other in over four years, yet he immediatelyl knew me and I immediately knew him. Even more interesting, I immediately knew WHAT he was. But just to comfirm my suspicions, I asked him: "Where are you going to church now?" I wasn't surprised by his response. "LifeChurch!"

LifeChurch is one of those "emergent" type churches that appeals to people that have become disinchanted with "traditional church." They tend to draw younger, 20 to 30 somethings that prefer a more casual worship in styles and content. Music more closely resembles a secular, contemporary style rather than the traditional hymns; preaching is replaced with "talks" or "dialog" and the idea of absolute truth is looked down upon. For a detail critique of the "emerging church," check out The Truth War by John MacArthur, available here.

So what tipped me off? Well, this guy is my age (45-50). When I last saw him he had salt-and-pepper hair, wire-rim glasses and a paunch around the middle. When I saw him today, he had lost some weight, colored his hair with blonde highlights, and was sporting some of those small, rectangular shaped plastic frames. He was also wearing a bland colored shirt opened to show off a small leather necklace with a silver cross. He looked like this guy!

The man in the picture (link in previous paragraph) is Rob Bell. He is the senior pastor of Mars Hill, a church he and his wife founded that is one of, if not THE, models held up as the emergent church success story. So what does he have to do with me meeting my "friend?"

Well, inevitably, when discussing the emergent church with its supporters, at some time the conversation will turn to attire--emergents don't like anything that looks traditional, especially suits and ties. They will usually say something like: "All you talk about is the way we dress! What makes wearing a suit and tie better than a t-shirt and jeans?! Our church isn't about the way we dress!" But--and this brings me back around to my "friend"--if that is the case, why is it that THEY ALL look and dress alike?!

Emergents pride themselves in what they believe are unique, innovative, relevant and new methods of sharing the Gospel/teaching the Bible/reaching the lost. If they have such "new" ideas, how come everyone in their church fellowship¹ is a "clothing clone" of the each other?!

** UPDATE ** : You may be "emergent" if...

¹ Emergents don't like the word "church," either. They prefer "fellowship" or "community." Again, I think THEY think it makes them less conspicious, less offense-sounding within the culture. That's their big thing: melding into the culture to reach the culture. But what usually happens is they just look more like the culture instead of changing it.

What's In A Church Name?

We usually drive when we go to my parent's home in Florida. They live in the Florida panhandle, so it's about a 14-15 hour drive when the whole family goes. I made it in approx 13 hours once when I went by myself--not nearly as many potty stops. Anyhooo, along the route we go (Tulsa-Arkansas-corner of Louisiana-Mississippi-panhandle of Alabama-Florida), we pass through some pretty small towns; some of them REALLY small. What's interesting is to see some of the names of the churches in those small towns. Like any good small town, there are always at least two churches--one for each corner.

There is the usual First [Second, and even Third] Baptist, First [United] Medodist, First Assembly of God. There are quite a few A.M.E. churches along the way, especially in the lower parts of Arkansas. Some of the church names are a little more creative or out of the ordinary than others. Mt. Zion Baptist Church seems to be pretty popular. Mount Sinai Missionary Baptist Church is another good one. There's Morning Star Baptist, St. Peter and St. Paul AME churches (I hope one is not robbing one to pay the other). I even heard of one church in Arkansas called Lily of the Valley Church of God in Christ--that pretty much covers it! One of my favorite church names is King Solomon Baptist Church. I don't know, but I just have an aversion to naming a church after a known womanizer.

So what does the name of a church say about its congregants? What does it say about the church's doctrine or beliefs. The Baptist, Methodist, AG, or AME churches should be pretty easy. But what about the more obscure names. The trend lately seems to be finding a name that still sorta says "church," but doesn't really commit to any one system of theology/doctrine. I'm talking about churches named "Woodlake-A Christian Community" or "Compass Pointe Fellowship." There's one church named "Oak Leaf Church" (they went ahead and used the "C" word); I heard they refer to the church as "The Leaf." Hmmm. I wonder if I can find a church named "The Bark" or "The Stone" or...I digress.

I'm thinking about all this church name stuff because I recently encountered a church--whose privacy I will respect because they obviously WANT to remain anonymous (you'll see in a minute)--that exercises an interesting "method" regarding their name. It all started when I stumbled upon this church's website. They were planning a big Easter service, complete with easter egg hunt for the kiddos AND a motorcycle to be given away to one lucky adult attendee! The church name, [-----] Christian Church, implied the congregation was part of what is known as the Restoration Movement (Christian Church/Churches of Christ) churches. I recognized that several of the staff had attend CC colleges. When I checked out their "what we believe" page, I noticed a couple of things that appeared to be missing.

If you know anything about CC's, you know that they refer to themselves as New Testament churches or sometimes Bible Churches. They have no national governing body and no national convention where they "vote" on resolutions, etc. A couple of things they do believe is that baptism is not only an integral part of salvation, it is THE point and time in which one receives the gift of the Holy Spirit. In fact, you rarely hear of someone being "saved" in a CC; they are "baptized." The words are used interchangably because they believe baptism is the point and time one IS saved. They also believe that an individual can lose their salvation. I've heard some refer to it as "divorcing" God--simply deciding one does not want to be saved any longer. Neither of these things were mentioned on the website. (Just for the record, I attended a CC for 16 years; even served as an Elder before leaving four years ago. I never believed either of these doctrines. I just attended the church because it was the one my wife was raised in. I eventually grew weary of their infatuation with Rick Warren and Bill Hybels.)

So I contacted the church and asked if they were indeed affiliated with the Restoration Churches and if so, was the omission of the two "doctrines" I mentioned above intentional. Their response? "Yes, are a Restoration Movement church and yes, those doctrines were purposely omitted from the website." Why? "Several of our staff lean more toward 'Baptist' doctrines/beliefs.'"

My question is: How can you say you're part of a church/organization, but are not willing to publicly align yourself with their historically accepted doctrines? The answer: contextualization. It's all about making yourself as appealing as possible so that you don't offend or scare anybody off. It obviously works.

Too Many Words

One of the blogs I read from time to time is run by a group of people that are obviously educated to some degree. They throw around some pretty big words sometimes, usually when they are attempting to prove a fairly simple point.

Yesterday, they were discussing an interview with Doug Pagitt (emergent church people love the guy) where, in the hearing of some, he came across as "hesitant and most unable to give clear answers to simple questions." (NOTE: DO NOT speak ill of Doug Pagitt on emergent friendly blogs! They really become upset when you do that.) I didn't hear the interview, but it appears that at some point, Pagitt pulled a "Joel Osteen" and "hummm'd" and "haaugh'd" around a question. One commentor took him to task for not hitting the softball out of the park.

Question: When a muslim dies where does he go?
Answer [what Pagitt should have said]: He goes to hell which is why we must tell him about Jesus.

Sounds right to me, but then one of the regulars (big emergent defender) jumps in with:

Here is the thing...in Platonistic dualism (emphasis mine) you are right on… yet biblically all will be judged according to what they have done. Jesus stated that, that is what is stated in Rev 20 in the Great White Throne Judgement...

WHAT DID HE SAY?!

I took a psychology class my senior year in high school. Not because I wanted to, but because I already had enough credits to graduate and I had to take some classes to fill up my schedule. The class was taught by one of the football coaches (go figure) who took a pretty lax approach to education. Most days were: "Read the next chapter." or "What did you learn from the chapter you read yesterday?" There were, occasionally, pop quizes or tests over some of the material, but all-in-all, it was a pretty easy class...especially the "year-end final."

Coach walked into the classroom, stood at the front and stated: "Today is your final. Get everything off your desk expect a clean sheet of paper and something to write with." Then he walked over to the chalkboard (remember those boys and girls?) and in large letters wrote:

What do you think?

"That's your test," he said--and he sat down at his desk. We all looked at each other with that "what the?..." look. That's IT?! "What do you think?" How is that a test?

The students around me started writing feverishly, recounting many of the topics we had covered throughout the year, waxing eloquent about all kinds of philosophical and psychological theories. I sat there a moment...pondered the question, and then, in my best penmenship wrote: "I think it takes a big dog to weigh a ton." I signed my name to the paper, gathered my things, walked up to Coach's desk, turned in my "test," and walked out of the classroom.

Several days later, Coach walked into the classroom with a stack of papers--our graded finals. We sat there as one by one, he passed out the papers. Then he came to my desk. "Whitfield," he said, "you actually answered the question--what do YOU think? Not exactly what I was lookin for, but you told me what you thought." He handed me my test and there at the top...was a big, red "A"!

Sometimes, it's best not to use too many (or too big) words.

A Non-Biblical Defense

If you can't make your case from Scripture, just use crude language. It may not make your point, but it will certainly catch people's attention. WARNING: Very crude language for a supposedly "Christian blog."

Apparently, some of these guys (another Christian blog) think the "favorite song" is appropriate. I look forward to hearing how they work it in to a Sunday morning sermon.

PS: Todd (you know who you are), I tagged this one "blasphemy" just for you.

Let It Be...Christmas?

Granger Community Church (Granger IN) recently announced a new sermon series entitled Let It Be...Christmas, obviously based on the Beatles album. They are sending out mailers announcing the series. I took the liberty of creating some additional artwork for them, just in case they're interested (see below). I put an elf hat on John Lennon because he really doesn't believe in anything that's real (except that he was more popular than Jesus)...although Santa Claus isn't all that real either. Anyway--thanks to Slice of Laodicea for the heads up.

You can probably guess where I am on this one.

Hot Church

According to this video (it's real), the way to determine if your church is "hot" and doesn't s**k :

• The pastor is good looking
• The pastor can play ball
• The pastor's wife "is too hot for him to have."
• YOU can find a "hot wife!"

Thanks to A Little Leaven for the video link.

Jesus came to seek and find a really hot wife. -- First Emergent 3:16 (from the New We Do Church More Relevant Than You version. Coming to a bookstore near you.)

Pornographic Bible

In this previous post, I decried the use of what I considered a crude/crass euphemism attributed to Mark Driscoll to describe (in part) the circumstances surrounding Jesus' birth. In recent days, I have interacted via the internet with several individuals that basically take the stance:

• "There's a lot worse in the Bible!"
• "I think Mark is closer to things the way he is stating it."
• "I love it when people apply a particular contemporary sub-culture’s stringent understanding of language to their readings of pre-modern (read: ancient) texts of Holy Scripture."
• "What I do have a problem with is denying the circumstances of the Biblical narrative out some misplaced sense of propriety. I don’t care if you think the bare facts laid out by Driscoll are somehow shameful and unworthy of Jesus to the point where we have to clean up or deny what was actually going on."
• "The quote, “At least we know who our father is…” comes to mind. Now, what could they have meant by that?"

When I think about it, to some degree these people are right. Seriously, why should we shy away from things in the Bible that we find offensive--only because we are applying some modern-day criteria of what is and what isn't appropriate?

We're not living in the days of the Puritans! For whatever reason, God deemed it necessary to include EVERYTHING we have in our Bible, including passages such as Ezekiel 23:18-23 which was noted by several people in our conversation. (WARNING: This could be considered very graphic language by some.)

When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her nakedness, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled. (NIV)

A little rough? Yes. Biblical? Yes. Should we be offended? Not according to the emergents! God is simply describing how wretched and defiled the people had become. I have to admit, it certainly drives the point home.

I'm working on a flannel-graph of these verses for our 8-year-old Sunday School class. I hope I can get it finished before Sunday...

This post has been rated "S" for heavy sarcasm.

Thin Skin

One of the blogs I frequent created some satirical posters a while back, pointed specifically at the "emerging church" movement. I thought they were funny, clever, and showed a lot of creativity. At the same time, the posters pointed out some of the silly arguments and activities of a group that believes THEY have "discovered" how church is to be done. I can only assume that many of them have not heard of the Regulative Principle nor taken the time to read and understand the Scriptures from which the Principle is derived. Our pastor is currently taking us through a study on this very topic. Very interesting and informative.

A commentor on another blog (just to be fair, here's the blog link) had this to say about the posters:

I think the photos chosen are telling. First, there is a strong prevalence of dreadlocks in the photos. While the individuals sporting them are white, the implication is clear: dreadlocks are “weird” and definitely not normative. (I think of the justification for mocking “weird” people: we aren’t to give an appearance of evil. So maybe dreadlocks are evil.) Unfortunately, dreadlocks are a big part of the black culture in this country. It’s in poor taste to mock a style of hair that is so closely linked to the black community.

Second, the posters, ironically perhaps, are more diverse, presumably, than the churches these men attend. There is at least one man of Asian descent and several that appear to be Latino.

Tackling the simpler--and maybe sillier comment re: the "diversity" of the posters: I have personally attended the church where Phil Johnson ministers and actually **gasp** sat by person "of Asian decent." I also not only SAW several Latinos in the congregation, the gentleman sitting on my other side was Latino! We had ourselves an ETHNIC people sandwich going on there!

As far as the "dreadlocks" comments, below are three posters (out of my count of 54) that feature individuals sporting dreadlocks.

First of all, 3 out of 54 doesn't add up to a "strong prevalence" (5 percent of the total ain't gonna win an election, fella!).

Second, the charge of "racism" isn't going to fly either. I don't think the point of the posters is dreadlocks are “weird” and definitely not normative. (I think of the justification for mocking “weird” people. I don't believe the creators of the posters were making any statement about any particular race of people...other than WHITE people that THINK they look good in dreadlocks! I made the following comments to the blog re: this bogus accusation:

...it’s not the dreadlocks that look/are weird–it’s the WHITE folks sporting them, trying to look like something/someone they are not that looks weird! It’s almost as painful as listening to an all-white choir trying to sing backup for Larnelle Harris (showing my age) or Kirk Franklin!

My sister-in-law is a “person of color;” My wife and I are not. My sister-in-law can and does wear clothes/hair styles that look great on her, that would never work for my wife (or me). Her skin color and features are such that she can wear those things and bring a beauty to them that whites/caucasians cannot.

We can’t jump and we shouldn’t wear dreadlocks!

Some people just look for something to complain about. And when they can't find it--they make it up. Grow some thicker skin, people!

I noticed there there are SIX posters featuring bald people. Maybe we should get our BVD's in a wad over that! Bald people of the world UNITE! Maybe they are saying bald people are weird and evil! I say: BUFFALO BAGELS!!! (aka bovine excrement).

See all of the emergent posters here.

I Need a Break

I need a break from some of the blogs I read. A lot of what I read online is connected in some way with doctrine/theology/church life/etc. Some of it falls under the category of "critique" of other ministries, some of it deals specifically with and in defense of the "emerging or emergent church" (however you choose to label it).

After looking at this, this, and this, I've reaffirmed my belief that some of these so-called pastors exist simply to generate as much controversy as possible--to be as flippant, "in-your-face" irreverant as they can be. One of them actually states his goal is to "tick people off." A Biblically, noble, Christ-honoring goal I must say. It makes me sick and sad at the same time. They claim they are seeing conversions in droves, but what are the people converting to? So...at least for now, I'm taking a break from reading their tripe. My blood pressure will be better for it.

An encouraging thought: it ain't gonna last. This fad will go the way of others before them. Two years ago, you couldn't swing a dead cat in a Christian bookstore without knocking over a Purpose Driven Steak Knife Set, Purpose Driven Swiss Army Knife or Purpose Driven Combination Mouse Pad/Daily Journal/food processor! These guys and their silliness will go away...I just hate to think of the bodies of unsuspecting "followers" that will be scattered along the wayside.

The emerging bloggers won't miss me...and I certainly won't miss them.

PS: I've got set a "Prayer of Jabez" lawn furniture listed on eBay if anyone is interested.

How To Fix Your Church

The headline read: Once Thriving Church Closing Its Doors. The newspaper article stated: "At its peak, [the church] had more than 600 members. On one Sunday, 45 new members joined...The large education wing was bustling with children. Now it stands empty. 'There are no youths in our church,' [one member] said. 'The youngest members are in their 50s, and most are in their 70s and 80s. People got older and didn't come any more.'" A trustee of the church was quoted as saying: "The theatre churches are taking over. People like to be entertained."

I wish they had called me-- I think I could have helped them out. I've been watching this church thing for a while and I think I've figured out how to prevent situations like this.

The trustee is on the right track. People don't want to come to church; they "want to be entertained." That's where you have to start. You've got to change things up a bit. Make it more fun...and for gosh sakes, don't make it sound like CHURCH! Here's a list of things (in no particular order-and certainly not a complete list) you need to change in your church if you don't want to end up like this congregation.

• DON'T use the terms "church" or "congregation." DO use terms such as "community" or "gathering"; they sound less formal.
• DO NOT refer to the unsaved as "sinners." Nothing bruises an individual's psyche like making them feel inferior. DO refer to them as "non-believers" or "unchurhed" (hereafter UPs).
• Ditch the "churchy looking building. See that pointy thing on the top of the church in the picture. That's a steeple--it's means "church." "Formal church." Formal church = bad. Meet in a movie theatre, old warehouse or even better an old brewery...EVEN BETTER, an existing brewery or pub! Unchurched people love that kind of thing.
• Pack up the hymnals! Hymns are a big turn-off for the UPs. They don't know how to sing A Mighty Fortress is Our God, and they could care less about a "bulwark." Also get rid of the organ and piano and replace them with a keyboard, couple of guitars, a bass, and at least three backup singers (aka the "worship team"). A horn section is also a nice addition. Music should "rock the house."
• DON'T refer to the preacher as the "senior pastor." DO refer to him as the "lead pastor." Also, refer to any additional pastors as the "leadership team." (Associate Minister is a no-no.) AND the Music Minister should be refered to as: Pastor of Christian Arts, Worship, and Drama.
• DO NOT refer to others in the church as "Brother So-And-SO" or "Sister So-And-So." "DUDE!" works for everybody.
• Encourage your pastor to use edgy language from the pulpit. He should say things like: "I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this)!" OR "That really s**ks!" Use of the words he** and da** should not be discouraged. This makes your pastor, er uh, lead pastor sound more down to earth to the UPs.
• DO NOT refer to sermons as "sermons." DO refer to them as "talks" or "lessons."
• Encourage your lead pastor to blog and post comments like: "My wife IS hot and ALWAYS WILL BE and I think its biblical to brag about it (Song of Solomon) and if that makes you mad I'm sorry your's (or you) is (are) ugly!" (Just in case you think I made this one up, click here.) This makes him sound really funny and again, down to earth--AND should cause you to wish your wife was as hot as his...although "hot" is in the eye of the beholder, but I digress.
• Change the name of your church to something like "The Hill" or "The Orchard" or"Potters House", or...you get the idea. Never use the word "church" in the name of your community.

Of utmost importance, a church that wants to avoid the demise of the aforementioned church should put their lead pastor through an "extreme makeover." UPs are NOT comfortable with coats and ties or anything else that resembles formality. Below is an example of what you can do to make your pastor look more relevant to the UPs.

The picture on the left is a typical Senior Pastor (not the pastor of the church in the article). The picture on the right has been altered to make the pastor more appealing to the UPs. Get rid of the jacket and tie and opt for the open sport shirt. (A gift certificate to the local tanning salon would be a nice touch.) "Rob Bell" style glasses say: "Hey dude! Welcome to our community. The worship band is off the hook this morning!" (I know this to be true because one of my sons has glasses like this, and he's "off the hook", too. He's not a pastor, though.) Your pastor should either shave his head OR go with the rockabilly look. Either one works. A goatee or "soul patch" finishes off the look.

So there you have it. If your church is on the brink of collapse or needs a little shot in the arm, implement some or ALL of the suggestions here---you're sure to pack the house. And someday you'll be able to say: "We're the fastest growing church in [fill in your town or city here]!" Glad I could help.

Jesus Songs

One of the blogs I frequent is a watchdog-watchdog site, i.e. they critique the content of blogs they DON'T like that critique the content of blogs they DO like. It makes for some interesting (and sometimes mind-numbing) dialog. They are particularly fond of words that NO ONE uses in everyday conversation, e.g. missive, missional, emerging/emergent, and abstruse. (I guess I should clarify "no one" as being me and the people with whom I conversate...man, that sounded really pretty smart, didn't it?!) Anyway, they have a post today that I'm still trying to figure out:

1. Is it real?
2. I mean, do they really, REALLY think like this?

Here's part of the post. The writer is talking about a sermon series he is working on for Easter (next year, I guess):

I was toying with the idea of what entrance music would be appropriate for Jesus after the resurrection (or if you want to think of it this way, what could be playing on the soundtrack during/after the resurrection). The idea here is to capture the kind of moment that it is. The song doesn’t have to be completely relevant (as in some of the lyrics may not quite fit), but it should set the proper mood/feeling of the moment. This can be for the resurrection itself, or the appearances Jesus made afterwards. I only have two stipulations:

1. The song needs to be well known enough that people will generally be familiar with it.

2. Provide some explanation.

The writer then went on to make a few suggestions-- one of which REALLY caught my attention. He suggested, and I quote: "Back in Black – AC/DC. Mark Driscoll describes Jesus at the second coming as an ultimate fighter. Totally sweet, and he’s got a tattoo. The b***s to the wall attitude of this song is perfect. It lets everyone know that the man is back in town." (My edit)

You can read the rest of the suggestions and comments here. By the way, I was the only person that suggested hymns such as "He Arose" or "Christ the Lord is Risen Today." I know, I know. Too traditional, and not very easy to dance to.

It's Like This

I've been trying to talk with some people¹ about a particular topic, but it seems almost impossible to get a straight answer.

It's like trying to do THIS!

 

¹ I don't want to name names...but they belong to a church movement that begins with "e" and ends in "mergent."

It's Not About the Bible - Pt 2

I guess we need to start with some definitions.

• The Church is, biblically speaking, the body of Christ or the bride of Christ or the body of believers/those who belong to Christ. (See Eph 2:20-22; Col 1:18; Heb 3:6; 1Cor 12:12ff)
• The Church is NOT the building. The Church CAN meet in a building. The building doesn't have to have a steeple. It doesn't even have to have pews.
• For our discussion here, the term church is anything that embodies the idea of church, whether the building or the people in the building, or the things that go on inside the building, i.e. preaching, The Ten Commandments, formality implied by dress or structure of a "church service."
• Unchurched. That's just another way of saying unsaved or non-Christians. (Some might even use the term pagan.)

Some--and I said SOME--churches today are doing everything they can to avoid looking "church." I've already chronicled some of the ways they accomplish that in my previous post. The argument is that they are being evangelistic by getting "unchurched" people (UP's) to come to venues/activities where they are more comfortable. This sounds like bait-and-switch to me. The new church planters say they are not changing the message, just the method. Sounds good, at first. But what are they really saying/doing?

So, the new church planters go and find out what turns people off about church and then build their church around the opposite of those things. The problem is they've missed the point. I said it before, and I'll say it again: It's not about the church. It's not about the Bible.

So what is it? It is about hatred for God. The UP's (at least the ones I've encountered) are looking for something that makes them feel good about the way they live now! They want to give themselves and/or their children a "spiritual foundation," but they don't want it to be "churchy." They don't want someone or anything telling them what to do. "Just tell me how to fell better about my marriage. Tell me how to get a better job. Help me find some new friends. AND DON'T TELL ME I'M A SINNER." Their God is themselves, their opinion, their own standard. That's a violation of the First and Second Commandments:

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me (Exodus 20:3-5)

What the UP's need is for people to quit lying to them; quit trying to sucker them into church. They need to hear that God is love; but they also need to hear that He doesn't tolerate sin. They need to hear that He is a jealous God and that He will not "share" His rightful place with anyone or anything else. Don't sugar-coat it; don't down-play it. Just tell the Truth. Tell them ABOUT the Truth (John 14:6).

Here's the deal. Before God regenerates any of us--NONE of us want anything to do with God, church, the Bible, etc. Our hearts are dead to those things (1 Cor 2:14; Eph 2:5). We shouldn't be surprised that UP's "don't like church"--neither did we at one point. But God "made us alive," drew us to Himself and gave us the desire/ability to cry out to Him for salvation (Eph 2:8-9).

Our job IS NOT to try and make church appealing to UP's--because we already know it ISN'T!

So how do we reach the UP's with the Gospel? We take it to them--just like Jesus said: "Go out..." (Matthew 28:19-20) We take the Gospel to them in our words, our actions, our attitudes at work, etc. To quote Bill Hybels: "[Just] walk across the room."

The UP's are most certainly welcome in our worship services. We want them to come if they will, but that shouldn't change what we do because they might come. We want them to hear the glorious songs of praise to our Almighty God. We want them to hear the prayers for healing, for encouragement, for peace. We want them to hear the Word, unashamedly preached. We want them to feel welcomed. We want them come back. We want them to be saved. That's what church and the Bible are about.

I Can't Help Myself!

---

EDIT 07.25.2007 : In an effort to maintain some symbolence of peace around here, I have removed the names of people and places from the post below. I still say, it wouldn't matter what this guy was selling, discussing, promoting, etc. He could be promoting worship, selling Amway or discussing woodworking...it wouldn't matter. I'm not taking him serious looking like that. If he had some type of deformity, etc. that would be one thing, but he did this on purpose!

---

When somebody lobs you a softball like this one, you just HAVE to wack the snot out of it!!!

One of the people pictured below is--from what I've been able to put together--an author of several books related to the emerging church (and no I haven't read any of them). It seems he is also looked to as an authority on worship--particularly in emerging churches. He recently appeared at a "church conference." I had never heard of this man before now. The only way I know about him is because of a this video on YouTube that was linked from another blog I frequent.

I didn't watch all of the video. I couldn't. I could not get past the hairdo!!! And I know--because it's already happened--that this man's fans will scream bloody murder over my comments (if they read them), but really now--WHAT DOES HE/THEY EXPECT?! How in the world does an ADULT walk out of the house looking like this and think: "Man, my 'do' is looking goooooood today!"

To the people that will see this and be offended, may I offer the following: If you REALLY want to be taken just a little bit serious...DO NOT WALK OUT OUT OF YOUR HOUSE LOOKING LIKE THIS!

Call me "mean", call me whatever you want, but I can't help myself on this one. One YouTube commentor said: "Oh for pity's sake, just put a gun to my head..." I feel your pain, brother!

Why I'm Not Relevant (i.e.Emergent)

The past couple of days, I've been watching (and participating) in a dialog at the Relevant Christian blog. The "Relevant" folks-- comprised of Aaron Crawford, Jimmy Eldridge, founder and main contributor of the blog, and Pastor Timmy Gibson¹ (how come Aaron doesn't have a name that ends in "y"?) --recently aired their frustration with some Christians in a post entitled: Why Christians Su*k

Well, the title of the blog certainly caught my attention, so I headed on over to see just what had these fellows so upset. In their own words, the "relevants" explain their upsettedness (I made that word up) as follows:

This is one of many reasons I am finding it difficult to "like" Christians. Yes, I of course in reality love Christians, shoot I am one! This is just my way to VENT my frustration over the Pharisee type Christian who violates the John 8 scripture where Jesus has a women caught in adultery thrown at His feet to judge. And if you know the story, Jesus of course DOES NOT judge her to a hot hell. But He does address those Pharisees who brought her to Him to judge by saying, “ye without sin cast the first stone.” Thank God that didn’t happen today, because I truly believe some Christians would be throwing stones. And that my friends is what bites my tail! Christians who think they stand in the position as Jesus… perfect and able to cast stones.

Several people, including myself, commented on the post, particularly the choice of title. My comments were more focused on what I saw as a misinterpretation of the passage. I stated that in order for "adultery" to have taken place, there had to be a man (noticeably absent) involved with the women. Additionally, I saw the Pharisees' actions are more of a trap for Jesus than a path to guarding of the the Law they supposedly revered. In response to Pastor Timmy's statement: "Jesus of course DOES NOT judge her to a hot hell", I pointed out that though Jesus apparently saw the adultery charge as a ruse, he DID tell the woman to "go and sin no more" implying that she was not entirely guiltless. Jesus loved her enough to confront her with her sin.

My comments were never really addressed...but they had plenty to say to those that disagreed with the title of the post. The next day, the "relevants" posted a follow-up entitled "No Apology Necessary" which began with: Ok...so...we seem to have pi**ed some people off with a blog entitled "Why Christians Su*k". (They didn't use the asterisks). The post went downhill from there. As of today, there are 150+ comments on THAT post, consisting mainly of the "relevants" defense of their language. It's really not worth the time to trudge through.

OK. That's the background-- so here's why I'm not "relevant", aka "emergent." I don't claim to be an expert on the emerent church/movement, but from what I observed at the Relevant Christian blog and other places, I get the impression that "emergents":

• Enjoy using "off-color" language.
• Use same language for effect. One of the "relevants" stated that his language was my “culture” if you will. There is no attempt on my part to be “cutting edge” as you put it…that just happens to be the way God designed me.
• DON'T like people to disagree with them. They get down-right ugly about it.
• Frenquently pull Scripture out of context to make their points.
• Don't like to comb their hair (based on some of the bio pics I saw)
• Have some really unBiblical doctrines-- Pastor Timmy claims to be "born and raised a Christian." (See the "Su*ks" post)
• Think their method of doing ministry is the ONLY way of doing ministry...until next week when they change their method to what ever seems to be more relevant.
• Think "sin" is a bad word.
• Enjoy using "off-color" language...or did I already mention that?

EDIT: 03.30.2007 - relevantchristian.com has a new post entitled: "True Relevance Part 1: Stats Don’t Mean Cr*p!!!" I'm trying to imagine my own pastor saying something like that from the pulpit or even in everyday conversation...nah, wouldn't happen.

¹ Timmy Gibson is the pastor of Olathe Life Fellowship in Olathe Kansas

This Bud's For You, Brother!

The recently revamped Slice of Laodicea website, now known as Christian Research Network pointed me to the following tibbit of "news":

Theology at the Bottleworks is run by a wildly successful congregation of young St. Louisans called The Journey. The Schlafly [Schlafly Bottleworks in Maplewood, MO] program is part of the church's outreach ministry. And it works.

Every month dozens show up at the brewpub to drink beer and talk about issues ranging from racism in St. Louis to modern art controversies to the debate about embryonic stem cell research. First-timers are invited to check out the church on Sunday, and Journey leaders say many have. Theology at the Bottleworks is just one of The Journey's ministries, but it has helped the church grow from 30 members in late 2002 to 1,300 today...

The Journey is part of what sociologists of religion call the emerging church movement.

(Read the whole story here.)

Boy, I could go all sorts of directions here, but I'll just focus on few.

• I don't claim to be an expert on the "emerging church," but everything I've read causes me to think--"you're not the boss of me"--everytime I see the term. I want to gag every time I see one of these groups talk about being "relevant" or "cutting edge", blah, blah, blah. Like they've discovered something NEW or they've got a better handle on what people need. It's just Purpose-Driven Church with a different book cover.
  
• Looking on The Journey's website, I notice they've got a link to the "Super Bowl." Seems the Journey folks are cancelling church services so people can get together at one of four locations and enjoy "your own beverage" (wonder what that would be), pizza and hot wings. Here's the link.

OK. I love this one. Seems Hillary Clinton is in the middle of a town hall meeting in Iowa this past Sunday, and an individual in the audience asks: "what she had in her background that would make her a good commander-in-chief, given that the world has 'evil' leaders and a lot of them 'happen to be men.'" Her response?

Clinton rephrased the question for the audience because most did not hear what the man said. "The question really is," she said, "we face a lot of dangers in the world, and in the gentleman's words, we face a lot of 'evil men.'

"People like Osama bin Laden comes to mind."

She paused.

"And what in my background equips me to deal" --Clinton waited a beat and got a gleam in her eyes -- "with evil and bad men?"

Bingo.

It took about 30 seconds for the crowd to stop guffawing.

The Chicago-Sun Times article goes on: "Clinton may have unwittingly said something people thought was about her storied marriage to Bill Clinton. The New York senator offered conflicting explanations about her intended target at the news conference. Her warmth turned chilly when a reporter said the audience may have thought the "evil man" was about the "bad side of Bill.''

"I don't think anybody in there really thought that," she said.

Yeah, RIGHT!!!