I recently read this blog post by author Brian Mclaren and it helped me a lot. I find that when in ministry you become an easy target for people to fire at… and despite repeated mantras of “It’s almost never about you,” or “Don’t take it personally,” it is still an ongoing struggle to absorb that kind of “surprisingly vicious, factually irresponsible, and admirably persistent” criticism (quote per Brian’s post). Hope this helps you as much as it did me!

Enjoy!
http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/q-r-on-liberal-and-conservative.html

Very different reviews of Everything Must Change & Brian Mclaren.

Hearts & Minds Books: (by Byron Borger)

Yet, despite a hefty speaking engagement set for tomorrow morning—and more books to set up, first—I just have to tell you about two new items that we got in the store today. They have brought me joy and some hope, even amidst my goofy mood.

Brian Mclaren’s long-awaiting new book arrived, a bit earlier than I had expected. It is called Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crisis and a Revolution of Hope (Word; $21.99.) I have been carrying around a beat-up early draft for a while, now, and have been itching to write about it, and now, the time has come, and I don’t have time or energy. Still, this is not a sleep-deprived rant, but a well-considered evaluation: this really, really, is a very, very important book. Read the entire article.

The Emergent Village: Tony Jones interviews Brian Mclaren.

Brian Mclaren and the Dangers of the Emergent Church

Gary Gilley Reviews: Everything Must Change

Warning — If you are Emergent leaning — you will be offended and probably a little angry by this audio clip.

Marked for life: discernment ministry in light of Ezekiel 9:1-11

How did Emergents Start?   — from Brian Mclaren

Emergent grew out of the Young Leader Networks, which was launched in the mid-90’s by Leadership Network, a Dallas-based foundation. Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, Andrew Jones, Brad Smith, and others were involved before I was, and they did a great job of setting a tone and direction for the emergent conversation. (Online source)

Emerging conference:  Christianity 21: Faith in the 21st Century. – Doug Pagitt says:

[Christianity 21] is quickly shaping up to be one of the most important Emerging Church events of the year. Utilizing innovative adult learning approaches, creative use of speakers and media, interactive design, cutting edge thinking from the nation’s top religious thinkers & community practioners, a rarely assembled network of attendees, and an unusually economical price this event is one you will not want to miss.

Consider joining these attendees and hundreds more at Christianity 21:
Shane Claiborne, Chris Seay, Tim Conder, Mark Scandrette, Becky Pierson,  Shane Hipps, Tony Jones,… (Online source)

The Evolving Church:
Brian Mclaren, Donald Miller (CCO/Jubilee Speaker, 2008), Chris Seay (CCO/Jubilee Speaker, 2010)

“Christ is here to meet your great true needs.” — Chris Seay

Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Daily Bible Study Acts 9 Bible

Daily Truth Bible Study  Acts 9:22-43   Let us continue to follow what God is doing in the Church during its formation. How does this compare with what is happening in the “church” today?

Verse 22 tells us that Saul/Paul confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus proving that Jesus is the Christ. Now we know that it was not the lesser of the Jews he was confounding because, in every other situation we have seen, the leadership of the Jews is always out in front of the confrontation. It was true in the very beginning. The Jews who were leading the battle against Jesus were the leadership and that continued. So do not think that Saul/Paul was sneaking around and talking to the lowest level of Jew only. He was confounding the leadership and proving that Jesus was indeed who He had said He was.

How did Saul/Paul do this? I would say that he did it the same way he continued to do it throughout his ministry. He taught that Jesus is the Son of God who died, rose, and ascended to be with the Father. He taught that there is salvation in no other name except Jesus. This is the same message Paul taught throughout his ministry. The power of God was also involved without question. God’s power was at work to accomplish His purpose. Saul/Paul was only as able as God made him to be.

Now, I would like to combat the thought popular today that “since modern people do not want to hear about doctrine, we need to be relevant to them and meet them where they live”. This type of thinking is bankrupt. It implies that God and His word is not relevant unless man gives it the right to be. This is an abomination! God is Holy, Holy, Holy. He is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-encompassing. He determines what is relevant.

The “relevance to the world” crowd are working from the belief that man is sovereign in determining whether or not he will accept God. They may not admit it but it is true. Why else would a person think it necessary to the relevant to a group in order to tell the group what it needs to hear? They are trying to get the group’s approval or buy-in.

We have already covered the fact that God is sovereign and determines those who will be saved and is justified in doing so. God predetermines and calls those who will be saved unto Himself. This is why God is always relevant. People need to hear the truth so the elect will come to God in repentance (which is a sign they are the elect). 

Saul/Paul could talk the talk and reason with the educated. He was a well-educated pharisee before his conversion. If he had wanted, he could have argued Jewish beliefs all day long. As an educated man, he could have also argued Roman politics and world events. He did not do this however. He preached Christ alone as the savior of the world.

Next, look at verse 23. After many days, the Jews plotted to kill him. Here we go again. Not much has changed. The Jews realized they were in trouble of loosing their hold over the people. Saul/Paul’s message threatened to undo their religious system. Their hardened hearts were not capable of repenting (apparently) and thus they planned to kill the messenger so as to remove the problem.

Wow, what a religion! They could not win the argument with facts and they did not apparently have a great deal of faith in their religion so they plotted to kill Saul/Paul to quiet him.

What does this tell you about Saul/Paul and his message. There was real power there. If not, would the Jews desire to kill? Maybe. Saul/Paul’s message was considered blasphemous to them. However, watch how they planned to kill him. They were not planning to walk up to him and kill him publicly. They waited at the gates to catch him. This may suggest the Jews were not acting with the popular opinion of the population of the area.

Regardless of the exact reason for their plans, Saul/Paul was not to be stopped. God made a way for his escape. Saul/Paul was a force to be feared by the Jews. He carried the message of redemption to his part of the world.  

Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Evolution Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Bible Study Bible Study Theology Doctrine Daily Truth Calvinist Calvinist Calvinist Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Evolution Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Baptist Bible Brian McLaren Christianity Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Conservative Creation Discernment Doug Pagitt Faith Fundamentalist God Gospel Intelligent Design James McDonald Jesus Christ John MacArthur Joel Osteen John Piper Liberal Logic Relevance Missions New Age New Testament Old Testament Paul Washer Politics Post-modern Purpose Driven Religion Rick Warren Rob Bell Scripture Spiritual Theology Truth Inspirational Intellectual Calvinist Orthodox Bible Study Bible Study Bible Study Christian Christianity Religion Religion Religion Reigion Grace Grace Grace Hope Hope Hope Change Change Change  Doctrine Doctrine Bible Bible Bible Relevant Relevant Relevance Post-Modern Church Truth Truth Truth Truth Truth Emergent Church Emerging Church Emergent Church Emerging Church Emerging Church Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Discernment Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Soteriology Apologetics Hermeneutics Peace Mercy Grace Peace Mercy Grace Apologetics, Hermeneutics, Soteriology, Mercy, Grace, Peace, Hope, Change, Bible Study Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Perry Noble Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Mark Driscoll Perry Noble

I can’t tell you how many popular books I have that I’ve read, never read, and will never reread.  

Popular Christian books are those that make the New York Times Bestseller list.  They are often written by people like Max Lucado, John Eldredge, Joel Osteen, TD Jakes, Philip Yancey, Charles Stanley, et al.

~ They Make for Lovely Decorations ~

Though we see each other quite often, I don’t think we like each other that much.  We’ve grown apart.

In fact, I think my nerves will be at peace when they leave.

(This is the fourth post in a series examining the thoughts of Deep Church by Jim Belcher. Jim has written this book in an effort to offer a Third Way beyond the Emerging and Traditional Churches and the increasing divide between the two)

The most frequent charge I hear against the emerging church, leveled especially at its most well known leaders, is that their theology has become un-Biblical because of their view of the atonement. Specifically, there is a charge that emergents have rejected or downplayed the significance of the penal substitutionary theory of atonement.

In brief, this theory states that Jesus’ work on the cross was willingly and intentionally Jesus exchanging his life as a payment for our sins. This substitution allows us then to enter into right relationship with God through a payment we could not have made on our own. Jesus suffered and was punished on our behalf, a punishment that was necessary based on our sinfulness.

In Deep Church Belcher delves into his own struggles with the traditional churches handling of the gospel, his struggles with emergent theology of atonement, and tries to find balance between the two. His charge, that many have made of the traditional church over the past hundred years is that salvation has become far too individualized. We talk about Jesus’ death on the cross as if it was simply a way to get us to heaven. We believe, we are saved, and we are saved from hell end of the story. But the primary focus of Jesus’ teaching was on the Kingdom of God and how Jesus came to offer hope for a better life right now. This is a hope that carries us into a glorious future when he returns, but his death on the cross wasn’t to give us fire insurance.

Reacting to this reduction of the gospel, that stripped out much of the theology of the kingdom of God from the traditional church, emergents and plenty of traditionalists alike have worked to bring kingdom theology back into the Gospel. The charge against the emerging church, however, has been that they have gone the way of liberalism and grabbed a social gospel that doesn’t need the cross and abandons Christ’s work on the cross. Is this a fair charge?

Belcher thinks it is an unfair charge that is leveled at emergents especially Brian McLaren. McLaren fully embraces the need for personal salvation through the blood of Jesus. But Belcher believes that some of the theology coming out of the emerging church has lost the importance of substitutionary theories of atonement. He contends that it is in fact Christ’s work to pay for our sin that allows him to usher in the Kingdom of God and to subdue the powers of evil at work in this world. Kingdom theology stresses Christ’s dominion over this world and his work to redeem and subdue evil, but without the justification that comes through his work on the cross this is not possible.

Of all the sections of the book, this is perhaps the most interesting aspect of Belcher’s work. In his search for a third way, a path of unity for emergents and traditionalists, he is working to demonstrate how a life of true kingdom living is most appropriately based in a belief in the substitutionary work of Christ on the cross. He contends that traditionalists have often erred in not realizing that the outcome of satisfied punishment is not just forgiveness but redemption and restoration and that emergents have erred if they have tried to root kingdom living in theology outside of blood of Christ as a substitution for our sins.

I think Belcher is on to something in this section of the book, working to do fair justice to both sides of the aisle, but I am not sure there is a problem with most emergents having lost a belief in substitutionary atonement. But there has been such a strong reaction against the church on this issue as a litmus test of orthodoxy that a group of people who are naturally anti-establishment have fought back in an unnecessary battle.

The atonement is a multifaceted mystery of God’s love for it. I would contend that scripture strongly supports substitutionary atonement, but I would also contend that it supports other theories and aspects of the atonement that are vital to us embracing the fullness of the gospel and to live fruitfully in the kingdom of God. Substitutionary atonement is at the center of our understanding of Christ’s work on the cross but we can understand this part of the atonement and still miss out of the fullness of the gospel. This is an area in which emergents and traditionalists are wise to listen humbly to one another and seek a way forward together.

²¹ From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. ²² And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.” ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” Matthew 16:21-23

From what I gather on blogs, books, and discussions with Emergent people,  at worst the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement is not essential to the faith of Christians or at best is not as important as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, and giving to the poor.

So why did in this passage Jesus see it necessary that He die on a cross and rise from the dead and ascend into heaven; and not only necessary, but as  far more important than Him sticking around forever and just going around the world healing everyone?

That’s what Peter wanted.  For Jesus to set up some earthly kingdom where everything was all better.  Jesus refers to Peter’s thinking as that of the Devil.

Jesus’ healings, miracles, and everything else were not a end in them self.  Jesus did not heal to simply heal.  If that were the case He would not have rejected some to being healed (Matthew 13:38).  But rather He did so to point everyone to HIM.  He was the Christ, the Son of God who had come to deliver sinners from sin and wrath so that they may worship Him.

Yes poverty is sad.  So is sickness, nakedness, and hunger.  And we should strive to help those in need!  But those are not mankind’s greatest threats.  The wrath of God is.  That is why Jesus’ primary concern was His death, resurrection, and ascension.  Because it is not our social work or justice that saves but Jesus’ work alone that  truly saves.

Let us hear Jesus’ rebuke on Peter afresh and learn, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.“

-Blessings

Stephen

New book recommendation:  The Justice Project

Edited by Brian McLaren, Elisa Padilla, and Ashley Bunting Seeber, is a eye-opening follow-up to The Emergent Manifesto of Hope.  It continues the theme of approaching a topic, Justice, from an array of voices.  While there were notables such as Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Peggy Campolo, and Lynne Hybels, the book mostly consisted of names I’d never heard of, activists working to challenge the status quo from their niches

It was that broad range of experiences that drew me in.  A chapter by Peggy Campolo challenged me with a story of a gay-affirming church here in Arkansas, as well as challenging the typical notion of what “Biblical family values” really are.  Her son Bart explained why campaign finance reform might just be the most important political “Justice” issue out there.  One writer told of her experience in a barely post-Civil Rights black church, which looked up to MLK, Jr. they way we look up to Jesus, and this backed up nicely to stories from South Africa where white anti-Apartheid advocates feared the suspicious, “accidentally” fatal car incidents with cops.  Then a description of Just Conservatism and Just Liberalism.  Samir Selmanovic, author of the newly released It’s Really All About God: Reflections of a Muslim Atheist Jewish Christian has a provocative piece on decolonizing God’s name.

Particular sections where particularly biting.  The entire book was absolutely replete with Scripture.  An early chapter asks if capitalism can be just.  Has there ever been an economic system that paradoxically produced more good while at the same time producing such imbalance of wealth?  A definition of justice is in order, given that we have to decide whether Justice is distributive or redistributive; is Justice starting where we all are and going from there, or is it inherently redistributing and hence imbalanced against those who start off with more.  The West has traditionally ran with the former while the Tanak inarguably aims at the latter.  The question is whether or not a capitalistic system which, while creating a great deal of good, inevitably creates inequality is a redemptive system.  That takes it pretty far, maybe beyond what I am comfortable with, but it does strike me as true that there will be no room for any inequality in God’s economy.

Then cut to a discussion on immigration reform in which a Latino writer recounts a discussion with a friend.  One asks the other if he also carries his ID with him in his sock whenever he leaves the house so much as just to jog.  It’s a world I cannot imagine, where naturalized citizens of the US live in fear of illegal deportation because of the stories they heard about the unlucky neighbor who forgot his drivers license when jogging.  That neighbor is picked up, presumed illegal, detained and/or deported away from his family.  The author barely has to imply the Scriptures that call for lavish welcoming of the squatter immigrants among us.  It challenged me because I know we need serious immigration reform and laws to guide us.  But I also know that Scripture holds up this ideal for sheltering the alien that many of us consider simply too idealistic.  Maybe it is, but it is Just.

Just ecology.  Just land.  Just business.  Justice in the slums.  Justice in the suburbs.  Just parenting.  Just Trade.  Just church-planting.  Justice in religion.  Justice in racial issues. Just elections.  Just family values.  Prophetic Justice.

This is one of those books that has perspectives that anyone but the most hardened ideologue will have their heart melted by.  I’m really encouraged to see the awakening of much of the church to the Biblical primacy of Justice as integral to the Gospel.  The church’s Justice awakening has gained such a tide that there is even now a resistance to it by Christians who feel we should drop such emphasis on Justice and “get back to Jesus.” The Justice Project is one of those books that reminds me why that perspective isn’t much good news at all.  It’s got a perspective to unsettle, teach, encourage, anger, and give hope to anyone.

Below is another article writtem before  Unholy Trinity, which I believe hits the nail right on the head. This is taken from  Shepherd’s Fellowship

(By John MacArthur)

Former NASDAQ chairman Bernie Madoff ran a ponzi-scheme swindle for nearly 20 years, and he bilked an estimated $18 billion from Wall-Street investors. When the scam finally came to light it unleashed a shockwave of outrage around the world. It was the largest and most far-reaching investment fraud ever.

But the evil of Madoff’s embezzlement pales by comparison to an even more diabolical fraud being carried out in the name of Christ under the bright lights of television cameras on religious networks worldwide every single day. Faith healers and prosperity preachers promise miracles in return for money, conning their viewers out of more than a billion dollars annually. They have operated this racket on television for more than five decades. Worst of all, they do it with the tacit acceptance of most of the Christian community.

Someone needs to say this plainly: The faith healers and health-and-wealth preachers who dominate religious television are shameless frauds. Their message is not the true gospel of Jesus Christ. There is nothing spiritual or miraculous about their on-stage chicanery. It is all a devious ruse designed to take advantage of desperate people. They are not godly ministers but greedy impostors who corrupt the Word of God for money’s sake. They are not real pastors who shepherd the flock of God but hirleings whose only design is to fleece the sheep. Their love of money is glaringly obvious in what they say as well as how they live. They claim to possess great spiritual power, but in reality they are rank materialists and enemies of everything holy.

There is no reason anyone should be deceived by this age-old con, and there is certainly no justification for treating the hucksters as if they were authentic ministers of the gospel. Religious charlatans who make merchandise of false promises have been around since the apostolic era. They pretend to be messengers of Christ, but they are interlopers and impostors. The apostles condemned them with the harshest possible language. Paul called them “men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain” (1 Timothy 6:5). Peter called them false prophets with “heart[s] trained in greed” (2 Peter 2:14). He warned that “in their greed they will exploit you with false words” (v. 3). He exposed them as scoundrels and dismissed them as “stains and blemishes” on the church (v. 13). 

Those biblical descriptions certainly fit the greed-driven cult of prosperity preachers and faith healers who unfortunately, thanks to television, have become the best-known face of Christianity worldwide. The scam they operate ought to be a bigger scandal than any Wall Street ponzi scheme or big-time securities fraud. After all, those who are most susceptible to the faith-healers’ swindle are not well-to-do investors but some of society’s most vulnerable people—including multitudes who are already destitute, disconsolate, disabled, elderly, sick, suffering, or dying. The faith-healer gets lavishly rich while the victims become poorer and more desperate (cf. Ezek. 34:1-4, 10).

But the worst part of the scandal is that it’s not really a scandal at all in the eyes of most evangelical Christians. Those who should be most earnest in defense of the truth have taken a shockingly tolerant attitude toward the prosperity preachers’ blatant misrepresentation of the gospel and their wanton exploitation of needy people. “But we don’t want to judge,” they say. Thus Christians fail to exercise righteous judgment (John 7:24). They refuse to be discerning at all.

How many manifestos and written declarations of solidarity have evangelicals issued condemning abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, and other social evils? It’s fine, and fairly easy, to oppose wickedness and injustice in secular society, but where is the corresponding moral outrage against these religious mountebanks who openly, brashly pervert the gospel for profit 24 hours a day, seven days a week on international television?

Advocates of abortion and euthanasia don’t usually try to pass their message off as biblical. The people who say we need to redefine marriage haven’t portrayed themselves as an arm of the church. But the prosperity preachers deceive people in Jesus’ name, claiming to speak for God—while stealing both the souls and the sustenance of hurting people. That is a far greater abomination than any of the social evils Christians typically protest. After all, what the prosperity preachers do is not only a sin against poor, sick, and vulnerable people; it also blasphemes God, corrupts the gospel, and profanes the reputation of Christ before a watching world. It not only tears at the fabric of our society; it also befouls the purity of the visible church and abates the influence of the true gospel. It is surely among the grossest of all the evils currently rampant in our culture.

In the weeks to come, we’re going to be looking at the preposterous claims and false teachings of some of religious television’s best-known figures. We’ll analyze why a disproportionate number of celebrity faith-healers and prosperity preachers have succumbed to serious immorality. And we’ll see what Scripture says about how Bible-believing Christians ought to respond. I hope this series will challenge you to take a more active stand against the phony miracles and false teachings that are being peddled in the name of Christ.

From the Creators:

Previously most Bibles and biblical reference works were produced by professional scholars writing in academic settings. The Voice uniquely represents collaboration among scholars, pastors, writers, musicians, poets, and other artists. The goal is to create the finest Bible products to help believers experience the joy and wonder of God’s revelation. This is the first-ever complete New Testament in The Voice translation. Writers include Chris Seay, Lauren Winner, Brian McLaren, Greg Garrett, David B. Capes, and others.

Four key words describe the vision of this project:
Holistic: considers heart, soul, and mind
Beautiful: achieves literary and artistic excellence
Sensitive: respects cultural shifts and the need for accuracy
Balanced: includes theologically diverse writers and scholars

We have taken care that The Voice is faithful and that it avoids prejudice. As we partnered biblical scholars and theologians with our writers, we intentionally built teams that did not share any single theological tradition. Their diversity has helped each of them not to be trapped within his or her own individual preconceptions, resulting in a faithful and fresh rendering of the Bible.

READ about The Voice from these blogs:  Hear TheVoice & Emergent Village
Discernment Resource: Crossroads

I found this link on Brian McLaren’s blog.  Ummm…this article reflects that it’s amazing how we think Truth can only be found in what we deem appropriate – for some, it’s not only the Bible, but certain translations of the Bible!  I feel God’s Truth is everywhere out there and it just depends on whether we feel secure enough to take our Christian-ghetto sunglasses off.

Burnt Offernings from WSJ.com

John MacArthur has come out with all guns blazing in the article below. The sad thing is that some of the same people who ‘agree’ with this are the same ones who will be saying amen after their sermons. This is because they have been so indoctrinated that they dont even realise that they are deceived and swallow every wind of doctrine that comes their way without searching the scriptures first like the Bereans (Acts 17:11). Even in the UK, we have many churches which are also following this deceitful pattern, yet they are the most popular churches that are polluting the pews every week and have TV ministries that are polluting the airwaves.

John MacArthur

I don’t watch much television, and when I do I generally avoid the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). For many years TBN has been dominated by faith-healers, full-time fund-raisers, and self-proclaimed prophets spewing heresy. I wrote about the false gospel they proclaim and the phony miracles they pretend to do almost two decades ago in Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. See especially chapter 12). I had my fill of charismatic televangelism while researching that book, and I can hardly bear to watch it any more.

Recently, however, while recovering from knee-replacement surgery, I decided to sample some of the current fare on TBN. From a therapeutic point of view it seemed a good choice: something more excruciating than the pain in my leg might distract me from the physical suffering of post-surgical trauma. And I suppose on that basis the strategy was effective.

But it left me outraged and frustrated—and eager to challenge the misperceptions in the minds of millions of unbelievers who see these false teachers masquerading as ministers of Christ on TBN.

I’m outraged at the brazen way so many false teachers twist the message of Scripture in Jesus’ name. And I’m frustrated because I’m certain that if these charlatans were not receiving a large proportion of their financial support from sincere believers (and silent acquiescence from Christian leaders who surely know better), they would have no platform for their shenanigans. They would soon lose their core constituency and fade from the scene.

Instead, religious quacks are actually multiplying at a frightening pace. One thing I discovered to my immense displeasure is that TBN is by no means the only religious network broadcasting poisonous false doctrine around the clock. The channel lineup I receive includes at least seven other channels whose schedules are filled with false teachers and charlatans. There’s The Church Channel, Daystar, GodTV, World Harvest Television (LeSEA), Total Christian Television, and several others. Some of them feature blocs of family television programing and a few fairly sound teachers who provide moments of escape from the prosperity preachers. But all of them give prominence to enormous amounts of heresy and religious claptrap—enough to make them positively dangerous. And TBN is singularly responsible for kicking that door open so wide.

The continued growth and influence of TBN is baffling for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the thick aura of lust, greed, and other kinds of moral impropriety that surrounds the whole enterprise. A long string of scandals involving notable charismatic televangelists between 1988 and 1992 should have been sufficient reason for even the most credulous viewers to scrutinize the entire industry with skepticism. First came the international spectacle of Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker’s moral, marital, and financial collapse. That was followed closely by the revelation of Jimmy Swaggart’s repeated dalliances with prostitutes. Shortly afterward, an episode of ABC’s Primetime Live exposed clear examples of deliberate fraud on the part of three more leading charismatic televangelists. Those incidents were punctuated by a score of lesser scandals over several years’ time. It is clear (or should be)—based on empirical evidence alone—that preachers promising miracles in exchange for money are not to be trusted. And for anyone who simply bothers to compare Jesus’ teaching with the health-and-wealth message, it is clear that the message that currently dominates religious television is “a different gospel; which is really not another” (Galatians 1:6-7), but a damnable lie.

TBN is by far the leading perpetrator of that lie worldwide. Virtually all the network’s main celebrities tell listeners that God will give them healing, wealth, and other material blessings in return for their money. On program after program people are urged to “plant a seed” by sending “the largest bill you have or the biggest check you can write” with the promise that God will miraculously make them rich in return. That same message dominates all of TBN’s major fundraising drives. It’s known as the “seed faith” plan, so-called by Oral Roberts, who set the pattern for most of the charismatic televangelists who have followed the trail he blazed. Paul Crouch, founder, chairman, and commander-in-chief of TBN, is one of the doctrine’s staunchest defenders.

The only people who actually get rich by this scheme, of course, are the televangelists. Their people who send money get little in return but phony promises—and as a result, many of them turn away from the truth completely.

If the scheme seems reminiscent of Tetzel, that’s because it is precisely the same doctrine. (Tetzel was a medieval monk whose high-pressure selling of indulgences—phony promises of forgiveness—outraged Martin Luther and touched off the Protestant Reformation.)

Like Tetzel, TBN preys on the poor and plies them with false promises. Yet what is happening daily on TBN is many times worse than the abuses that Luther decried because it is more widespread and more flagrant. The medium is more high-tech and the amounts bilked out of viewers’ pockets are astronomically higher. (By most estimates, TBN is worth more than a billion dollars and rakes in $200 million annually. Those are direct contributions to the network, not counting millions more in donations sent directly to TBN broadcasters.) Like Tetzel on steroids, the Crouches and virtually all the key broadcasters on TBN live in garish opulence, while constantly begging their needy viewers for more money. Elderly, poor, and working-class viewers constitute TBN’s primary demographic. And TBN’s fundraisers all know that. The most desperate people—”unemployed,” “even though I’m in between jobs,” “trying to make it; trying to survive,” “broke”—are baited with false promises to give what they do not even have. Jan Crouch addresses viewers as “you little people,” and suggests that they send their grocery money to TBN “to assure God’s blessing.”

Thus TBN devours the poor while making the charlatans rich. God cursed false prophets in the Old Testament for that very thing (Jeremiah 6:13-15). It’s also one of the main reasons the Pharisees incurred Jesus’ condemnation (Luke 20:46-47). It’s hard to think of any sin more evil. It not only hurts people materially; it deludes them with groundless hope, deceives them with a false gospel, and thereby places their souls in eternal peril. And yet those who do it pretend they are doing the work of God.

That’s not all. Almost no false prophecy, erroneous doctrine, rank superstition, or silly claim is too outlandish to receive airtime on TBN. Jan Crouch tearfully gives a fanciful account of how her pet chicken was miraculously raised from the dead. Benny Hinn trumps that claim with a bizarre prophecy that if TBN viewers will put their dead loved ones’ caskets in front of television set and touch the dead person’s hand to the screen, people will “be raised from the dead . . . by the thousands.”

Ironically, one doesn’t even need to be an orthodox Trinitarian in order to broadcast on the Trinity network. Bishop T. D. Jakes, well known for his rejection of the Nicene creed in favor of oneness Pentecostalism, is a staple on TBN. Benny Hinn has repeatedly attempted to revise the doctrine of the Trinity in novel ways, notoriously teaching at one point that there are nine persons in the godhead.

And yet evangelical church leaders typically show a kind of benign tolerance toward the whole enterprise. Most would never endorse it, of course. They may joke about the gaudiness of the big hair and tawdry set decorations on TBN. Ask them, and they will most likely acknowledge that the prosperity gospel is no gospel at all. Press the issue, and you will probably get them to admit that it is a dangerous form of false doctrine, totally unbiblical, and essentially anti-Christian.

Why, then, is there no large-scale effort among Bible-believing evangelicals to expose, denounce, refute, and silence these false teachers? After all, that is what Scripture commands church leaders to do when we encounter purveyors of soul-destroying substitutes for the true gospel:

The overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict. For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain (Titus 1:7-11).

Those who remain silent in the face of such grotesque lies may in fact be partly responsible for turning people away from the truth. Consider the testimony of William Lobdell, religion reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who once considered himself a devout evangelical Christian, but after doing a series of investigative reports on the moral and doctrinal cesspool at TBN; then “finding that his investigative stories about faith healer Benny Hinn and televangelists Jan and Paul Crouch appear to make no difference on the reach of these ministries or the lives of their followers, he [gave] up on the beat and on religion generally.”

All those who truly love Christ and care about the truth have a solemn duty to defend the truth by exposing and opposing these lies that masquerade as truth. If we fail in that duty because of indifference, apathy, or a craving for the approval of men, we are no less guilty than those who actively spread the lies.

For those who don’t follow, I recently had someone leave a comment on my post “Brian McLaren, really?“. I attempted one response that was a bit long and he responded back with a long response as well. Rather than engage in a “comment debate,” I’d rather just post my full reply as a post, since it will be a bit lengthy. I’d encourage you to read the comments before reading this post.

Well after reading that and reading your link, it looks like you are not interested in thinking any differently then you do now.

Well, to be honest, unless given a good reason to change my beliefs on something so central to the worldview I follow, I don’t see why I should be open to changing my views. Though we should always be open to examine our views, this is generally done by looking at rational arguments and evidence against our position. If our position holds strong against such critiques, there shouldn’t be a willingness to abandon it.

Our Christian Bible, many would say, is just as sexist as the Qur’an or Hadith, (maybe not in as blunt of ways). There are scripture in the Bible that talks about Woman not even being able to talk in Church. We can’t say that the Church treats woman fairly even now, I mean there is a reason why 90% of Church leaders are MEN.

If you define “fairness” by responsibilities, then yes, men and women are not treated equally. However, I think your attempt to equivocate the two is quite unfair. For one, both the Qur’an and Hadith teach that women are ontologically lower, that is, they have less rights, less value, etc by nature of being a woman. This is why rape, beatings, and the like are allowed by many Muslims. One simply look to Surra 2:282 to see that men are a “degree above women.” Prior to this, 2:223 says that men are to treat their wife (or wives) as property and do whatever they will with them. The justification is that women are lesser than men by nature. The Hadith is actually worse considering that the writings of Bukhari, chapter two, verse twenty-eight, states that the majority of Hell is composed of ungrateful women. If you look to Ishaq 593, we’re told that women are plentiful and it’s okay to leave the one you have to find another one. All of this shows that women are, by nature, lower than men and to be treated as property, a bit above animals (though Muhammad’s youngest wife A’isha complained that Muhammad was created women to be on the level of dogs and donkeys [Muslim 4:1039]).

The Bible, alternatively, teaches that men and women are ontologically equal. One merely look to the narrative in Genesis to see that men and women are both made in the image of God (“…male and female He created them…”). One can turn to the works of Paul, specifically in Corinthians, and see that he says the wife’s body belongs to the man and the husband’s body belongs to the wife, thus showing it’s equal. If we turn to Galatians, we find Paul telling the husband and wife to submit to one another. Elsewhere he tells husbands to lead with authority as Christ leads the Church, which is completely self-sacrificial. Paul also says that a man who doesn’t provide for his family, but can (and “provide” in the Greek implies both material and immaterial [i.e. emotions, psychological well-being, etc]), is worse than a heathen. Though women were devalued in Jewish culture, in the New Testament we see that Christ has no problem interacting with a sick woman who needs healing, a woman who is on her 7th marriage and considered a whore by the community, a prostitute who washes His feet with perfume, and the first witnesses of the Resurrection in all the Gospels are females.

All of the above indicates that the Bible sees women as ontological equals. Now, for whatever reason, God has declared that on some issues, men and women have different responsibilities, but this does not make them unequal or elevate men above women. Only those who are power-thirsty would see authority as a standard for equality. Authority has nothing to do with equality – some people, male or female, aren’t called to be in a position of authority. Does this mean they are unequal with those who are called to such a position?

So as you can see, I don’t see your argument as compelling.

If you are going to say that the majority of Muslims support the rape of woman, I would show some scripture from the Qur’an, that supports your statement or maybe take quotes from a Muslim you know that supports it. Also I would like to hear some Muslim Scripture that talks about it being okay to murder others because someone doesn’t believe in their God?

A fair request. The one that comes to mind (I don’t have time to research right now) is Iman Mesbah-Yazdi, a Shi’a Iman in Iran stated that rape is permissible when done to a non-Muslim. To do it to a Muslim generally warrants the death penalty, whether the victim is male or female. If not a Muslim, however, it’s usually seen as justifiable. He probably gets this from the Qur’an, which has multiple verses that discuss how a man can take his wife or slave girl at whim, whether they want it or not. However, further justification probably comes from the Hadith, which is far more explicit in its condoning of rape.

The Hadith of Sahih Bukhari (9:506) talks of how the argument of Muhammad’s men after taking women from a city was whether or not they should pull out before ejaculation so as to not impregnate the women. However, it was expected by both Muhammad and others that the men would force themselves upon the non-Islamic women. The Hadith of Abu Dawud (2150) gives the historical context of Surra 4:24 (And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.). The context that Dawud gives is that the men were uncomfortable having sex with these slaves in front of their husbands. Muhammad told them, “Who cares, it’s your right.” That may not explicitly say “rape,” but it certainly is implicit; Muhammad’s soldiers were going into captured towns, enslaving men and women, and then forcing themselves on the women, married or not.

The list goes on of course of how Muhammad, his generals, his men, and even his adopted sons would use men as prizes for war. If you don’t believe me, read both the Hadith and Qur’an for yourself.

When you say that Christianity was not violent until 325 A.C. you might be completely right. I would not compare the Church today however to the original “Church”. Christians have their faults like every other religion. I however think, based on my life of being a Christian and what I know from scripture and example of friends from religions such as Buddhism and Islam, that they promote peace and furthering of true faith.

You missed the point of what I was saying. You were attempting to say that the violent Muslims we see today lack justification from their Qur’an, Hadith, and history to be violent. I was merely comparing and contrasting. The fact of the matter is that it took 325 years for Christians to begin to engage in violence en masse. Until that point, most Christians were either complete pacifists or had an extremely narrow view of justified war. Much of this is due to the writings of Christ. So when we see war-mongering Christians, whether it be the modern age or the Middle Ages, we can say, “This is most likely inconsistent with the history of their faith and their Holy Book.” The same cannot be said for Islam.

I was attempting to show from history that from the very beginning, Muhammad engaged in war and genocide and his followers didn’t let-up. They continued on. There was no peace to be found except in surrender. So your claim that Islam is peaceful needs justification, most specifically by using its holy writings and validating your interpretation with the history of Islam.

Something that Christians, who believe in Hell, want to think, is that all unbelievers are completely evil. This is simply not true. I have many Atheist and Buddhist friends, and I find good in all of them. Gandhi, is a great example of a professed “non-Christian”, who did many good things in his life time. Would “justice” mean a Eternal Hell for Gandhi?

Though some might believe in such a proposition, I do not count myself among those “some.” If you’re truly interested in my position, you can read it here. Suffice it to say, I believe humans are capable of moral goodness, but this doesn’t make them righteous. Ghandi did a lot of good things, but he wasn’t perfect, thus he wasn’t righteous. After all, how can our good actions, which are temporal, compare to an eternally good God? So yes, Ghandi or anyone for that matter going to Hell is justice. After all, if we sin against God, no matter how minuscule that sin seems to us, it falls short of the infinite goodness of God. Our offense is infinitely separated before God. Because God is a God of justice, He can’t simply ignore an injustice, for then He would be unjust. If you want to argue and say that God isn’t a God of justice, keep in mind that concepts such as “grace” and “mercy” and even “love” as we know it are contingent upon our understanding of “justice.”

When Jesus was on this earth, He seemed to find good in the lowest of people. Even if there is only an ounce of good in someone, they do NOT deserve Eternal Punishment. I thank God for Grace. I am not saying that all paths lead to Heaven. I only believe in one Path, through Jesus, but I think all of us will eventually find it.

This really doesn’t make any sense. If we allow that one of the attributes of God is that He is just (which, if we want to believe that He is gracious and merciful, we must first admit that He is just) and that His standard is Himself, then anything that falls short of Himself is infinitely evil. Consider the following:

Let’s say that Johnny has been told multiple times not to play in Mr. Smith’s yard. Johnny fails to heed the warning and while playing in Mr. Smith’s yard, he damages some of Mr. Smith’s property, causing $500 in damage. Now, Mr. Smith could ignore this, but Mr. Smith happens to be a judge for the county court. Since Johnny broke a property law, Mr. Smith asks Johnny to do some work around Mr. Smith’s home to pay off the $500 owed. No matter how good Johnny is, he has still committed an offense that has cost someone something and justice dictates that he must pay for that offense.

Imagine how it is with God. God is infinite, meaning any offense to His character is equally infinite. Thus, to make up for any offense to God’s character, we must pay it off eternally. Since we are temporal beings, this is quite impossible.

Now, you might say that God can just forget about it and forgive us, no matter the cost. But then God wouldn’t be a God of justice. The poor and oppressed of this world would have no one to turn to. The hope of victims is that even if temporal justice is not handed out to perpetrators, eternal justice does await them. What you are saying is that a man who brutally rapes women and never shows any remorse for his actions gets a free pass in the afterlife, so long as he baked cookies for the local homeless shelter or did a lot of good things as well. Your system of belief portrays God as nothing more than a stone hippie who looks the other way when injustice rises up. This is hardly a God worth worshiping.

I would be careful about acting as though you have found God completely. For example, you might think the Bible clearly talks about an Eternal Hell. I however, have studied the scriptures for many years, on the topic of Hell, and think the Bible clearly speaks against an Eternal Hell.

I have never stated that I understand God completely, for such knowledge is impossible. However, the Bible is extremely clear that Hell is eternal. Christian tradition dictates as much. The idea of a temporal Hell is a relatively recent one, one that lacks the proper justification in its claim.

I was delighted to be able to receive a copy of The Sout Project’s debut, entitled Story, in advance of its launch next week on 11 Dec.

The Sout Project is the brainchild of Nic Paton, who has been around in the South African music industry a longer time than most actually know. His experience and talent as a composer and producer on the album really shines – with truly brilliant instrumentation that is a pleasure to listen to with a set of headphones on (how one should always listen closely to an album, in my opinion).

The first thing that must be said about Story is that it is by no means a commercial album. From a musical point of view, don’t expect pop, rock, rap, electronica or anything that most of us are used to; from a lyrical point of view, don’t expect the usual either.

Story has been labelled a Christian worship album in various places by Paton, who has made a point of saying that it isn’t your standard run-of-the-mill Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) worship album. I’m grateful for that as I’m a little tired of all the usual stuff we see floating around, usually with cheesy pop tunes and cheesy lyrics to boot. Seriously, a five year old can come up with “I worship you my King, to you I sing” and most of us probably know how little depth a great deal of CCM has. There’s nothing wrong with simple lyrics and music, but we need a bit of simple and depth in the mix.

Personally, I love world music and when Paton first told me about the idea of Story I got very excited. I imagined a mix of Sting and Paul Simon and perhaps a bit of 80’s Peter Gabriel all thrown into the mix. I think a Gabriel influence is definitely evident on this album.

I’ve been wanting to experiment with different musical styles from all over the world in worship for ages myself, but just have never quite had the resources. So I was very stoked when someone else echoed my heart in this respect.

Track one on the album sees the popular author Brian Mclaren narrate and sing over the famous Irish traditional hymn “Be Thou My Vision.” He is joined by a choir, a child, and a number of other singers. It opens up the theme of the album nicely and has some wonderful violins and bongo rhythms, and what sounds like sitar, amidst some great arrangements; but it is not a very strong song in my opinion. We’ll get to the theme of the album when we discuss the lyrical content below.

Track two is great. The song features the Xhosa traditional bow player Madosini. Right from the beginning anyone who loves world music will be hooked from an instrumentation point of view. When listening on headphones there’s a great eclectic African mix on this song that I really enjoyed, with some choir coming in at the end. The song really shines at the end with great arrangements.

Aumen (track three) has a fantastic electronica arrangement at about 2:15 minutes in, with the song having built up to this point. The vocals are great from this point as well with really enjoyable sitar solos coming in a little later. The song builds up nicely and continues to surprise as it goes. I’m not a fan of the narration a little later though.

Track four, “Be Still”, is probably my least favourite track but it mixes nicely into track five. Track five, “Held”, is pretty average in my opinion, until about 2:40 minutes in when a beautiful classic guitar solo reminiscent of something we’d hear from Sting shines through. It could have actually gone on a little longer it’s that enjoyable!

Track six sees a change of pace. The song is best described as a world-music electronica dance piece. The melody on this one is really great and the African vocals are fantastic, alongside the inclusion of a host of different instruments. I’m sure there’s a vuvuzela in there somewhere. Paton was having fun with this song. The song reminds me of Goldfish in some ways.

The pace slows down with track seven, “Instrument”, which sounds like a medieval tune. It’s nice and would do if one is in the mood for it.

“Meditation with Mechtild”, which is track eight, has some wonderful synthesisers and sound effects (even birds in the background) alongside a wonderful mandolin (I’m sure it’s a mandolin) piece that repeats over the track again and again. Here we meet some ethereal planes and the song does well in that respect. It mixes wonderfully into track nine, “In All Things”. One doesn’t pick up that these are two separate tracks on the CD until the last track comes up.

“In All Things” sees a change of pace but continues in a similar vein with surprising arrangements. The song is sung in English, Afrikaans and Xhosa – a nice touch. From about 3:05 minutes in the song surprises with a change of rhythm completely and incorporates some medditeranean vibes. I really enjoy this about it.

“Bigsmall”, the last track of the album, is probably the weakest of the album, with more Brian Mclaren narration at the end. It closes the album nicely from a theme point of view but I wasn’t too stoked about it in many other respects.

I’ve praised the instrumentation on Story and looked at each song separately. I need to obviously say something about the vocals. The fact of the matter is the vocals are not stand-out amazing; but the idea of the album is more to express than impress, in my opinion, and I appreciate that from an artistic and musical point of view very much.

Now, onto the theme and lyrical content. A review needs to be as objective as possible and lyrics are as important to an album as everything else. John Mayer’s new album Battle Studies, for instance, irritates from a lyrical point of view and drags down the album a great deal. Since Story is said to be a Christian album – and a worship one to boot – I need to keep this in mind when reviewing the album.

Story aims to be more ‘earthy’ in its worship than ‘heavenly’ – which means that its trying to get away from the ‘ethereal plain’ of a lot of worship music. I love the idea and musically this comes across.

The album is very syncretistic in its musical content and in its lyrical content this is also the case. The issue is that this is worship, and that involves theology; the problem is that when theology gets syncretistic it gets controversial, and Story is no exception.

Obviously, with having Mclaren open the album, Christians who know anything about him need to be prepared for a little bit of syncretism. Although Mclaren has often claimed he is not syncretistic, Story is, and this makes it difficult for the standard run-of-the-mill Christian to feel comfortable worshipping to certain songs. In particular, “Aumen” and the meditation with Mechtild spring to mind. Although your standard run-of-the-mill Christian (which I admit is a pretty general term and really doesn’t explain much) probably wouldn’t be interested in this album anyway.

When it comes to worship I’ll usually spin some Matt Redman on my Ubuntu Rhythmbox who I know is usually going to belt out some heart-felt tunes with great theology. His new album “We Shall Not Be Shaken” is really good, for interest sake.

I also think David Crowder Band’s “A Collision” is fantastic; pity American audiences didn’t take to it too well.

But I do usually struggle to find anything in worship music that is different. Redman gets my vote due to his heart and theology, and some great tunes; other guys get no votes as there appears to be little heart, cheesy theology (to put it simply) and bubblegum tunes that you’ll be sick of in a week. Hillsongs United can give you goosebumps, sure, but very few songs last longer than a few months. However, we still sing “Better is One Day” (Matt Redman) at my church and that song is really old now.

What do I think of Story with regards to all this? Well, the tunes are certainly not congregational, but that’s OK I think (it doesn’t always have to be). The album sure has heart, but I’m not too keen on the theology.

But even if I was ok with some of the theology presented I still think the lyrics could have been much better. Lyrics are where I struggle the most in music writing, so I don’t think I’m one to talk when looking at my own skill in this; but I know what is good, and The Sout Project can do better.

Overall, could I worship with Story? No. That’s because of my own theological take on things. Do I enjoy it? Yes. It certainly is a great debut, musically, and fits my world-music tastes in a wonderful way. One or two tracks may even work really well on an African/Electronica/Eccentric Putamayo album of some sort, which is a great compliment as far as I’m concerned.

From a purely sound point of view, Story sounds much better on a set of headphones than it does going through most of the sound systems I used, except for a good hi-fi. I think the mix is done nicely but the mastering might be the real problem here. A good mastering would have given the album the boost it needs to stand out a little more. From the credits it looks like the album was mastered using Pro-Tools and, while this gives a fairly OK master, it doesn’t give it the edge a mastering technician would be able to give it. Mastering is expensive, though, and this is an independent undertaking – something that must be kept in mind.

Conclusion? A great debut with wonderful world music, simply beautiful instrumentation and excellent arrangements. However, the vocals and the lyrics need improving and the mastering is something that should be considered for future installments.

As far as the packaging goes, Story looks great and has some great style and artwork. I’m not too much of a fan of the picture montage inside, but everything else about the packaging conveys the theme and is very creative and original. I really liked it. So well done Sout, hoping to see a follow up come out of this.

See www.soutproject.net for more details about the album.

I have long loved the story related in Matt. 21. The Pharisees come to Jesus, to try to trap Him by asking where His authority came from. Rather than responding, he asks them a “filter-question.” The question had nothing at all to do with the topic at hand: however, Jesus knew how to cut through to the real heart of the issue. His method was to ask them to state their position on a current, relevant issue: “Was John from God or from men?” This question put them between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they had their reputations and institutions to defend – on the other, they had the fear of public outcry. One notices that the question of “truth” did not factor into their discussions at all. Unwilling to cause scandal or offense, and apparently unconcerned with truth, they choose perpetual indecision: “we do not know, teacher.” In response, Jesus denied to answer their question. It is those who worship God in “spirit and in truth” whom the Father seeks (John 4:24): the double-minded man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord (James 1:6-8).

This question applies to the emergent doctrine of “perpetual indecision.” According to some, to state that one knows anything with absolute certainty is pure arrogance. As I heard one person say, “Once you come to a conclusion, the emergent conversation is over.” Instead, the good “emerger” is to remain in a perpetual stasis of indecision on touchy issues.

A famous case of this is Brian Maclaren, who still (as far as I know) has not declared his position on homosexuality.

There are many valid reasons for a Christian to be undecided. A topic may be beyond their expertise (I am decidedly undecided about the science of creation, since I am not a scientist), or Scriptures may be silent or intentionally vague about a topic (e.g. the “end times”), or a topic may be simply irrelevant (seriously – who CARES whether the human is body/soul or body/soul/spirit?!).

I think it goes without saying that none of these caveats apply to the topics of homosexuality, hell, or abortion, to name a few.

These topics are pressingly relevant, spoken of clearly in Scriptures, and  within the scope of every Christian to make an informed decision.

This is yet another water-shed moment for the emergent community. Yes, mystery, toleration and questioning can be good things. But what will one do when one finally emerges out of the mists of confusion, to be presented with the cold, hard words of Scriptures? Will they bow in humble submission to the lordship of Christ, or will they intentionally turn their backs on certainty, to stumble backwards into a perpetual wandering in the wastelands of indecision?

If they chose this latter road, they will find a difference. Indecision as a pathway to decision is a road blessed by God: indecision as a rejection of the lordship of Jesus is a sin. Until this rebellion is repented of, I believe they will feel God’s disapproval in place of his approval, God’s judgment in place of His blessing, God’s God’s silence in place of His voice, as their intentional indecision leads them further and further abroad from His revealed presence.

One of my heroes, Darin Hufford of the Free Believers Network, posted something provocative on his Facebook Page (which he often does):

“The #1 complaint I hear people respond with when they hear this grace message is that God isn’t only loving, He’s also a God of justice and judgment. I think to myself, “Why can’t you shake your bi-polar concept of God? He’s the most loving being in the universe yet He’s got a hair-trigger temper?” God sounds like an alcoholic father.”

(Hmm…sounds like shades of a recent conversation we’ve been having, does it not?)

Darin goes to great length debunking this harmful myth in The Misunderstood God…my friend Brian McLaren goes to great length debunking this harmful slander of God’s character in A New Kind of Christianity, which will be out soon. I want to go to medium lengths exposing this naked emperor god via a couple of relatively recent songs. But first, a Bible break:

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

- Jesus, in Matthew 5:43-45 TNIV. God is not like us – we want to curse our enemies and the misbehaving; we want to withold the blest for the best – which is, of course, us. But like the eccentric, argumentative Psalms of our Holy Write, a couple of contemporary Psalmists wrestle with the character of the prodigal God, and show us what might be a better image of the Divine.

The first, and most in-your-face, example I’d like to offer is David Bazan’s ‘Bless This Mess’ from the I-can’t-stop-listening-to-it album Curse Your Branches.

God bless the man who stumbles
God bless the man who falls
God bless the man who yields to temptation

God bless the woman who suffers
God bless the woman who weeps
God bless the children trying her patients

Trouble getting over it
Is what you’re in for
So pour yourself another
‘Cause it’ll take a steady pair of hands

Holy or unholy ghost
Well now I can’t tell, but either way you cut it
You should get some distance if you plan to take a stand

God bless the house divided
God bless the weeds in the wheat
God bless the lamp hid under a bushel

I discovered hell to be the poison in the well
So I tried to warn the others of the curse
But then my body turned on me
I dreamt that for eternity
My family would burn
Then I awoke with a wicked thirst

By my baby’s yellow bed I kissed her forehead and rubbed her little tummy
Wondered if she’d soon despise the smell of the booze on my breath like her mom
And it makes me want to be a better man
After another drink

God bless the man at the crossroads
God bless the woman who still can’t sleep
God bless the history that doesn’t repeat

This is an ambivalent song, to be sure. Evangelicalism’s erstwhile poster child grew up in the Assemblies of God and spent some time among Calvinists in an attempt to bolster the consistency of his faith – in both cases, just like me. He & I doubtless are coming at the life of faith from different trajectories now, but we both struggle with how to raise our little girls with integrity amidst a world that increasingly has more options. In the midst of it all, we’d like to believe in the God of Jesus – the God who loves, and blesses, indiscriminately – even when we’re hurting ourselves. (You can see other good versions of the song here and here, and perhaps download it here? For more on Bazan’s story, read these three excellent – but R-rated, just so ya know – interviews, in The Chicago Reader, eMusic, and Patrol.)

The most over-exposed man in rock – and perhaps period – Bono Vox Himself, has good reason for getting as much exposure as he does. Among other things, his tenacious vision of God’s peace and shalom over and against the legalism of his Irish youth comes through in his songwriting, album after album. ‘City of Blinding Lights‘ is a great recent example, this stunning HD clip taken from U2’s recent Rose Bowl show:

Selected lyrics:

The more you see the less you know
The less you find out as you go
I knew much more then, than I do now

And I miss you when you’re not around
I’m getting ready to leave the ground

Oh, you look so beautiful tonight
In the city of blinding lights

I’ve seen you walk unafraid
I’ve seen you in the clothes you made
Can you see the beauty inside of me?
What happened to the beauty I had inside of me?

Time, time, time, time, time, time
Won’t leave me as I am
But time won’t take the boy out of this man

Oh, you look so beautiful tonight
Oh, you look so beautiful tonight
Oh, you look so beautiful tonight
In the city of blinding lights

The more you know the less you feel
Some pray for others steal
Blessings are not just for the ones who kneel
Luckily…luckily we don’t believe in luck…
Grace abounds…grace abounds…grace abounds…

Like me, Bono has wrestled with the world-affirming and world-denying in voices like that of Chinese mystic and church planter Watchman Nee. And like me, he’s had to say that what traditional Christianity has meant by ‘the world’ we were meant to ‘come out of’ and what Jesus (and Paul, and others) meant by this enigmatic phrase are two completely different – indeed, opposite – things. Jesus was referring to the world of principalities and powers, those inhuman and dehumanizing forces of religion and empire. He wasn’t referring to culture-as-such, and certainly not to planet earth. Millions of friends-of-God are awakening to the reality that we live in a God-blessed and God-beloved world that God still thinks is ‘very good,’ however marred by egoic haze and degradation its become. We’re all connected – for life or death. As the US Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori recently remarked, the idea of solely personal salvation is heresy. Our redemption begins in this world, its social and public as well as personal – at this stage, in 2009, salvation is planetary in scope. The ecology of new creation needs to be rooted in every aspect of our beings, from creative work to re-creation.

Bottom-line: God is love. Love is orthodoxy. (Agapetheism, as my friend Kevin Beck likes to put it) It’s God’s kindness that leads to repentance, not the big stick that you imagine God’s holiness to be. Let’s join together in the Great Work of our age – becoming the leaves of the Tree of Life for the healing of our relationships, our neighborhoods, our ecosystems, our economies – in short, our world. This begins, as Brennan Manning says, with healing our image of God – and the ones God loves. Which is all of us. God brings abundant blessings…not just for the ones who kneel. May we model this same lavish, indiscriminate, sloppy, positively promiscuous love.

Amen and amen.

PS: What songs, art, poetry and cultural artifacts remind you of God’s blessing breaking out of the confines of empire and religion?

Discernmentalists, we are under direct attack on a daily basis. We need to rally to arms and put on the aggressive defense. Just last month Brian McLaren directly assaulted Uncle Ken Silva and Aunt Ingrid Schlueter of Slice Of  Laodicea. Ingrid was caught yelling in a headlock:

What an appallingly dishonest way to deal with your critics, McLaren.

which  inspired her to write this scathing critique of her ordeal:

Brian McLaren Paints Critics as Gay-Hating Bigots

by Ingrid Schlueter

Emergent author Brian McLaren doesn’t believe in a literal Second Coming of Jesus. He has problems with the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus on the cross. A literal hell with eternal torment for those who reject Christ? Not likely. The Genesis account of the fall of man? Not true. But instead of addressing his own spiritual rebellion, Brian appears to want to paint his critics as bigots. In a recent blog post, McLaren demands that what he calls “discernment websites” (he used the quote marks) address an African country’s attempts to codify severe penalties for homosexuality into law. He seems to imply that these same “discernment ministries” would automatically support the arrest and execution of gays by Uganda.

For the record, Brian, that’s a pretty nasty strategy to use against those who point to your heretical doctrinal views. While emergents supposedly are intellectual, open-minded people who enjoy conversations with subtle nuances and lots of mystery, McLaren actually sees things in black and white. Anyone who is not willing to jettison cardinal doctrine and embrace his “new kind of Christianity” is painted as ready to commit hate crimes and would support mistreating gays. What an appallingly dishonest way to deal with your critics, McLaren.

Ken was found wounded in the fray but not hurt. We asked him for comment and all he could murmur was:

It’s interesting this “minister” would place quotations around “discernment websites.” Well, as one of said sites, I can tell McLaren that I personally do not at all “enjoy featuring and critiquing the work” of any of these postliberal rebels against the final authority of God’s Word. The Lord knows that I’d much rather go back to apologetics and evangelizing those lost in the kingdom of the cults.

Indeed this is why we must go back on the aggressive defense and never compromise on preaching the whole ‘discernmentalist’ truth to all liberal, apostate, heretics!