I’ve had some people ask me if I’m concerned about it; if I’m concerned about “closer competition”; if I’m worried that we might lose people to the big, bad mega-church.

On a similar note, a popular book on church stewardship came out a few years ago with a new definition of “competition.” The first paragraph of the book tells how the number of non-profits in America doubled in the last ten years. Then it says, “What these numbers show is that in ten years the competition has nearly doubled.” The rest of the book is about how to get people to give your church more money when competition for charitable dollars is so stiff. (My conference actually encouraged all of its pastors to read that book.)

According to those who asked me about the mega-church, the local church’s competition is other churches.

According to that popular book on stewardship, the local church’s competition is all other non-profits – church and non-church alike.

Friends and colleagues, let’s please not miss this:
The church’s competition is sin, injustice, and heresy!

So long as other local churches aren’t teaching heresy or condoning sin, they’re our allies. That mega-church people have asked me about has made some great strides in the battle against injustice, both in Lexington and around the world. Years ago, one of my closest friends began taking his faith seriously as a result of their ministry. They’re allies, not competition.

And the children’s hospital, the blood center, the homeless prevention center… Competition? Really?!? For Christ’s sake! Literally. Surely we see these as great allies!

Scarcity and Abundance

I think those who see the the non-profit charity banquet and the church down the street as competition are operating out of a scarcity mentality: there are only so many Christians with only so much money to go around.

If our concerns are as petty as getting people to our church rather than the one down the road, getting people to give to us rather than the shelter for battered women, is it any wonder that the American church is in decline?

Here’s the truth: there is an abundance of competition out there. There’s no shortage of evil in this world.

And there is an abundance available from God to go out into our world and fight back. If you don’t have enough money to do something worthwhile, it’s not because the blood center took it all.

So mega-church, grace and peace to you. I hope your new campus this weekend has an encouraging start. We need your help. Darkness covers the earth. We need the light you’re providing.

Children’s hospital, homeless prevention center, para-church youth outreach, grace and peace to you. Thank you for identifying some particular places that need a special outreach and witness and giving them your full attention. We need you.

Church – and especially church leaders – how about offering the gospel more and spending less time on these petty issues?

And a small note to the other side

I’m remembering some conversations I’ve had about “the Reformed folk kicking our tails.” There are some secondary “competitions” within the Church, and I think they’re okay and healthy.

So for instance, I believe every church should be celebrating weekly Eucharist – and in a meaningful, not half-baked kind of way. But those who don’t (which, as it turns out, includes that mega-church)? I still consider them friends – just in need of some more persuading – not foes!

I believe in Wesleyan theology. It has been life-changing for me. I believe it’s better and truer, richer and deeper than Reformed (often called “Calvinist”) theology. I wish it would be taught better, proclaimed more boldly, available in more resources. In that, yes, the Reformed folk are kicking our tails. But on the whole, the Reformed, the Pentecostals, the Roman Catholics, the independent evangelicals, yes, even the Dispensationalists, are allies, not competition. If any of them start a new church down the street, I wish for their success.

If I really believe a church or non-profit is doing more harm than good (e.g. the infamous Westboro Baptist), then they’re at best mis-guided allies, or perhaps outright evils that need to be combatted. The best I can wish for them is serious reform, or to go away. But those are the rare exceptions, certainly not the rule.

Right now, the ones that concern me the most are those whose Christianity is so shallow and mis-guided that they wake up each day to do battle against those villainous children’s hospitals and mega-churches.

Was this helpful or interesting to you? If so, JOIN my e-mail update list.

Related articles

• Attracting with buildings…
• “Keeping the lights on” vs “Giving to missions”
• Offer the Gospel!

I’m told I break a cardinal rule of writing. My primary audience is me – for my own therapy. None more so than this. I hope my own therapy may be encouragement for some of you, too.

Advent

I spent this morning talking with a group about Advent. This season may be the most confused and neglected of all in the church’s year. It stands in tension with so much else happening in our culture, in our homes, and often even in our worship.

Advent is about preparation… expectant waiting…

Advent reminds us of Israel’s long wait for a promised Messiah.

I think we rarely understand their longing. This was a nation of people who were in and out of slavery and usually the “little guy” caught between world powers when they were free. I suspect a song like “My Deliverer is Coming” would have held a different, deeper meaning for a harassed and helpless people than it often does for me.

Advent is supposed to reflect our same waiting today. All is not right in this broken world, so we wait for a coming deliverer.

But we’re just not very good at waiting. And as a free people in a free, wealthy, powerful nation, we don’t feel much need for somber preparation. We prefer celebration.

We want Christmas, not Advent. The radio stations know it. The mall knows it. Most of our churches know it. We want jubilee – joyful and triumphant - Gloria in excelsis Deo! And the somber, stripped-down expectancy of Advent just doesn’t seem to fit.

School shootings

And then this afternoon, as I headed to pick up my kindergartner from school, I heard the gut-wrenching news about senseless shootings in a kindergarten room in Connecticut.

My Facebook and Twitter feeds were filled with “Come, Lord Jesus” and “Kyrie Eleison” (Lord, have mercy) along with posts about anger, confusion, and sadness. There were even posts from people taking comfort in the thought of a final judgment and hell.

Instantly, a tragedy in Connecticut has plunged us into Advent, even when so many of us just wanted Christmas.

Though we want to sing “peace on earth and mercy mild,” another tragedy reminds us that we are in many ways yet a captive people longing for freedom.

We are not captive to any oppressing foreign nation, and we give thanks. We are not captive to sin – neither to its guilt nor to its power over us. Praise God! But we find ourselves still captives in a fallen and broken world.

We now go into movie theaters and send our children to school with the fear of this world’s devils. And we feel mostly powerless and confused. Who will save us from this wicked world?

Revelation 20

And then this afternoon I was attempting to finish a sermon on Revelation 20. The first two verses go like this:

And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.

The book of Revelation was written to a group of early Christians who were already undergoing persecution. The message of the book wasn’t all encouraging, either. Expect the persecution to intensify, it warned. The wickedness of the world has not yet reached its full measure.

But the message was also this: God still holds the keys. That ancient serpent who leads the world astray will ultimately be bound and cast into the lake of fire. Our deliverer is coming.

Making a direct reference to Revelation 20, Martin Luther wrote this verse, which seems particularly appropriate today:

And though this world, with devils filled,
should threaten to undo us,
we will not fear, for God hath willed
his truth to triumph through us.

The Prince of Darkness grim,
we tremble not for him;
his rage we can endure,
for lo, his doom is sure;
one little word shall fell him.

Luther concludes the song with “the body they may kill; God’s truth abideth still; his kingdom is forever.”

On a day when so many innocent children were killed, we are left the tragic reminder that our world is filled with devils. As a Christian, what I cling to today is the assurance that God will triumph, though today’s outlook is so bleak.

Revelation 20 goes on to point to a final judgment – of both the wicked and the righteous. While our enlightened world usually doesn’t like talk of judgment and damnation, on days like today, many of us are reminded why it makes sense to believe in a God who is both loving and just. Revelation 20 tells us that today does not have the last word – neither for the murderer nor for his victims. Praise God!

On a day like today, we’re reminded why we still need Advent. We pray, “Come, Lord Jesus.” Bring justice to a wicked world. Bring mercy to a hurting world.

Though they break down into many smaller tribes, there are generally two camps in the discussions I see: those who believe the church should be fully open to homosexuals, and those who don’t. I dislike all of the typical terms used for these two groups, so here I’m going to refer to these groups as the Openness Camp and the Holiness Camp, respectively, based on the primary arguments I tend to hear from each side. [I'm hoping to be neutral with these two identifiers. I'm open to suggestions of better terms and not trying to make any larger statement with them.]

Let’s try to properly frame the issues here.

Sexual orientation

Holiness Camp, you need to quit talking about sexual orientation in negative terms. Quit debating whether someone can be inclined to homosexual attraction from birth. And for Christ’s sake, don’t even think about excluding anyone from the church or Christian fellowship because of sexual orientation!

You begin with the premise that homosexual behavior is sinful. We’ll get to that later. But you’re doing incredible harm and creating a logical inconsistency for yourselves when you assume that anyone of LGBT orientation needs to be “fixed” or should be excluded from church membership or leadership based on sexual orientation.

Attraction isn’t the issue here. If you exclude everyone who is attracted to someone whom they shouldn’t have sex with, you’ll just about empty the church. Nor is the issue about an inclination to do something you believe is sinful. Some people are born inclined to compulsive consumption of alcohol. We call that alcoholism. Some are born with a unique urge to steal. We call that kleptomania. Surely the church doesn’t exclude anyone with these inclinations. Inclinations and sexual orientation aren’t the issue.

Hospitality

Openness Camp, you need to drop the hospitality rhetoric. Stop saying things like, “The church should be open to all people,” in reference to this debate. You don’t mean it, and you’re going to back yourselves into an uncomfortable corner.

First, if being open to all people means “regardless of sexual orientation,” then I think we should all be able to agree. Yes – full membership and leadership in the church should be open to people of all sexual orientations. See above.

Second, if being open to all people means “regardless of sexual behavior,” then I don’t think you really mean it. Will you allow full membership and leadership rights to someone who openly has one-night stands every week? Yes, we believe God still loves this person. Yes, we believe final judgment belongs to God alone. Yes, we believe Jesus called us to love and hospitality and gave an example of such. But still, you probably won’t give this person full membership and leadership rights. You have lines, too. The “hospitality” and “love” arguments don’t hold up for you. It’s time to drop them (except when the Holiness Camp is violating what I asked them to drop above).

The Real Issue

Openness Camp, some of you were just offended that I used one-night stands in analogy to homosexual practice. That’s likely because you don’t believe homosexual behavior is sinful (many of you would qualify that to say, “if it’s in a committed, monogamous relationship”), but you believe one-night stands are. And that leads us to the two real issues – how the church handles sin and whether homosexual practice is sin.

Let’s handle the easier one first. The church cannot be fully open for membership and leadership to those who don’t earnestly repent of their sins. Persistent, willful sin can’t be ignored. There are thousands of sub-debates that can ensue. “What makes one sin worse than another?” or “Who made you judge?” or “Sounds like a witch hunt.” Yet I think those are mostly red herrings. Go back to the example above of the promiscuous person. Will you allow that person to be your pastor? That persistent, willful sin was judged problematic enough that almost everyone will exclude that person from leadership, possibly membership (an issue to get into more later). So I think we’re nearly all on the same page here. Persistent, willful sexual sin should at least prevent someone from being in leadership in the church. Yes, I said “sexual sin.” I say that because I know of no churches that will stand for their pastors committing obvious sexual sin (e.g. one-night stands or adulterous relationships). My hope is that we’ll go well beyond “sexual sin,” but it seems there’s at least already a line in the sand here.

This leads to the more difficult issue: is homosexual behavior sinful? And for this, we have to do the hard exegetical and hermeneutical work. We need to look at Scripture and the Church’s tradition. I’m not attempting that in this post. But I believe this must be the framing issue for the discussion.

If we call homosexual practice sinful, then the arguments about hospitality and God’s love can only address this in terms of how we remain hospitable and loving in the face of sin. And the Openness Camp must admit that they don’t fully open membership and leadership rights to everyone, regardless of sins they are committing.

If we don’t call homosexual behavior sin, then all of the rest is null and void. If this is acceptable behavior in light of Scripture and the orthodox faith, then it should have no bearing on full membership and leadership opportunities.

This may all strike you as rather obvious. Yet I think it’s necessary to emphasize a proper framework here, since it seems that the discussion keeps ending up chasing the rabbits of hospitality and sexual orientation – or even worse, making appeals to what our culture thinks is best or arguing about how our secular government should rule on gay marriage.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on whether I’m framing this correctly.

BIG NOTE: I don’t want the comments turning into a fight over whether homosexual practice is a sin. I want to know what you think about the framework. I will DELETE any comments that turn the argument here into the question of whether this is sin.

Related articles

• Why The Church Is So Concerned With Same-Sex Marriage and Homosexual Ordination – Tim Tennent wrote this excellent article to people who already believe that homosexual practice is wrong, explaining why the debate must be a big deal for them in the church, even if they don’t want it to be. You really should go read it if you’re among those who believe homosexual behavior is sinful.
• Stealing - an attempt to show that whatever the issues are here, I don’t think they are about bigotry or inhospitality. At least, they shouldn’t be.

I’ll start with this. I think the missional church’s critique of the attractional mindset is good and needed. See my posts, “Attracting with Buildings” and “Offer the Gospel!” And I think the missional church folk have generally had a good message for us: the church must get outside the walls of its own buildings and its programs for members.

But I’m also concerned that some of those influenced by missional church ideas have gone too far and are misunderstanding the church. An example comes in this blog post that was just sent to me. The post is actually very good. A helpful assessment with some great points. You should read it. But this statement in it made me cringe:

Theologically, I’m convinced that the Church is in the business of putting itself out of business. The mission of the Church, after all, is not the Church but the coming reign of God (emphasis mine).

This statement comes from an understanding of the Church that has an entirely outward focus. It calls on the Church to go into the world in outreach and witness until no more outreach and witness are necessary. If those goals were accomplished, the author reasons, there would no longer be a need for the Church.

Some use this mindset to say that the Church can and should bring the kingdom of God on earth by ridding the earth of all social evils. We’ve seen that before. In one of its most popular and recent manifestations, it was called the Social Gospel movement.

Others have rightly said that the kingdom of God and the defeat of evil will only come at Christ’s return. Still, they have argued that the Church’s sole purpose should be to work toward those goals. Even if we can’t “put ourselves out of business,” we should still work as if that’s the goal.

But for the Church to try and put itself out of business tragically misunderstands the nature of the Church. This kind of understanding assumes that the Church’s only calling is outward in witness and outreach. That understanding forgets that the Church is the bride of Christ, that Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her (see Ephesians 5:22-33). That understanding likely assumes that corporate worship is only for equipping people to go back out into the world in mission. It would see the only purpose of Christian fellowship as a form of preparation for the mission.

This article by John MacArthur – “Inward, Upward, or Outward?” – illustrates that mindset well.* I saw the article’s title and thought someone else was making my point. Instead, I found MacArthur proving the problem. In the article, he makes it clear that the Church’s “inward” and “upward” activities are fine and good, but the Church’s real purpose is “outward.” His concluding words:

Fellowship, teaching, and praise are not the mission of the church but are rather the preparation of the church to fulfill its mission of winning the lost. And just as in athletics, training should never be confused with or substituted for actually competing in the game, which is the reason for all the training.

I think MacArthur is totally wrong. I was excited to see his title, thinking he was going to argue that the central calling of the Church is inward, outward, and upward. They can’t be teased apart. One can’t be favored. And all three are essential. I was disappointed to find him making the opposite point.

Fellowship, teaching, and praise are not training – they are the very being of the Church! If we call our worship, our fellowship, our prayer, our sharing in communion, and our study of Scripture simply training, we take the typical pragmatic, man-centered turn that seems to plague most of the American Church’s thinking today. We make all of these into pragmatic steps toward accomplishing the mission and miss the deeper point of these actions.

The Westminster Catechism famously asks, “What is the chief end of man?” and famously answers, “To glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” In all, I’m concerned that some influenced by the “missional church” movement have a new response to that question. They want to answer that the chief end of man is to glorify God by outreach and witness. All else is just training.

Why do we worship? Not primarily to be equipped for mission, but primarily because we are the people of God. 

The central purpose of our worship is to worship God – to praise and enjoy him. And that’s enough! I hope it prepares us for mission, but that’s a secondary purpose.

The central purpose of our prayer is to pray to God. And that’s enough!

The central purpose of our fellowship is to share deeply with each other as the Body of Christ. And that’s enough!

And the central purpose of our outreach and witness? To show compassion, to fight for justice, to advocate for the oppressed, and to testify to the gospel. And that’s enough!

All of these works are an end unto themselves. They don’t need to lead to another point. They are the point. Or if we insist, we may say they all lead to glorifying and enjoying God. But let’s make sure we keep that as the chief end of man and the Church — inward, upward, and outward. The business of the Church isn’t to put itself out of business. It’s to glorify and enjoy God, to be prepared as a radiant bride for Christ, to live in fellowship and mission as the body of Christ.

For more, SUBSCRIBE for e-mail updates.

————

* Note: MacArthur is no figurehead for the “missional church” movement. But I find his statement here reflective of the mentality that I see sometimes coming from that movement.

Related articles

• The People Don’t Perish Without a Vision Statement
• Offer the Gospel!
• Attracting with Buildings
• Encounter or Entertainment?

Speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil?

I got a lot of responses from my last post, “Christians and Pornography.” I got a lot of “Amen”s and “thank you for saying it”s. I was really glad to see those. For those rejecting things that have become common in our culture, it sometimes feels like we might be all alone. Nice to know there are others.

From some, I got objections. Some objected that I didn’t focus on violence. I agree that depicted violence is a problem – though in a slightly different way, see the comments to the last post – but it wasn’t my focus.

Some people justified why they just don’t think this material is as bad for them as I make it out to be. I disagree with those people, but I’ve always intended this to be a place for provoking thought and conversation. If everyone agreed, I would probably be keeping it too tame and generic. And it’s good to hear the other side. My wife tells me I’m not right about everything. (She doesn’t really. She’s incredible and constantly affirming. That just sounded good right there.)

But then I received the below from an anonymous responder. (I’m okay with anonymous response when it’s of a confessional nature like this.) I thought it was perhaps the most helpful and honest response of all. He provides something I may have left out: avoiding cultural temptations is difficult. I suspect he says a lot of what many of us feel. I’m leaving it in the exact form he sent it. I hope it’s helpful to you…

An Anonymous Response to “Christians and Porn“

Confession time: there is no doubt that I have seen some of those movies, and I will admit that I like some of those movies. However, I don’t “consciously” think I like those movies because of porn, usually I think they are really funny-but, I digress.

I think anyone that tries to defend watching any of these types of movies is being disingenuous with themselves and God. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can legitimize watching any of these things other than pure, selfish enjoyment – which you can not describe as being Holy or even close.

I throw myself right in there; I know when I am watching these shows that I shouldn’t; but, my normal excuse would be “it isn’t that big of a deal, I’m not REALLY contributing or acting certain ways because of this—it’s innocent for me.” I know that doesn’t cut it; and it shouldn’t if I want to be sanctified through Christ. I need to be better. It isn’t easy—THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO ADMIT . . . but, Jesus told us it wouldn’t be easy. And if we are being honest, most “Christians” DON’T want to be sanctified; they want to go to church and say all the right things without the work . . . Now, please don’t take this as being sanctimonious. I am not near where I need to be; and, I can admit that I know that and I really WANT to be better.

As an additional comment; I would also say that movies including language are right up there for me as being unholy. I REALLY like the standard of kids-in-mind for their rating system. . . We just need to find that “line” that you are talking about for each area.

Great post again; very convicting, and certainly something I will be praying about more often.

I was encouraged to see this post by JillAnn Meunier, a junior in college who decided not to read a book for class because of its graphic depictions of sex and violence.

But I’ve been far more often discouraged to hear of a number of professing Christians who have no problem taking in porn.

The book Fifty Shades of Grey has become the best-selling book of all time in Britain and is wildly popular in America. A lot of those sales are to church-going women. But the book is an erotic novel. People are calling it “mommy porn.”

In the last few years, have you watched any of these movies?

• The Watch
• The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
• Cloud Atlas
• The Hangover Part II
• Sex and the City
• Magic Mike
• The Reader
• Old School

All of these, at least judging from the raw descriptions of them, are exceedingly vulgar, erotic, and yes, pornographic. Yes, I’m sure I could have chosen others. I thought this was a good, representative sample. The links are to ratings and descriptions of each movie’s sexual content, violence, and profanity from Kids In Mind. Judging by these descriptions alone, it’s hard for me to believe there’s a proper place for any of these movies in a Christian’s life.

The New Oxford American Dictionary says pornography is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” By this definition, wouldn’t we say all of the movies listed above contain pornography?

Why are Christian women reading “mommy porn”? Why are proud church-goers (and even leaders in the church) watching pornographic movies without any qualms?

A few of the reasons I think people may give, and my responses…

“I’ve never even considered that there’s an issue with these.”

I’m sure this is true for several people. And that’s one of the reasons I write this. I hope you’ll consider it. You were created and called to be holy. And taking in profane things like this surely is detrimental to that, at best, and an outright rebellion against God’s intentions for you, at worst.

“It’s important for me to share things like this with friends – especially those who aren’t Christians. How can I ever share my faith with them if we have nothing to talk about?”

I get it. You may have truly pure intent behind this. But I just don’t buy it. How far will you go to build relationships so you can be relevant and share your faith? Going to strip clubs with them? Using illicit drugs? Where’s the line?

I wrote about this in “Relevance and Holiness.” I hope you’ll read it, too.

“Speaking of lines, how are you so sure this is where the line should be drawn?”

This may be the most common objection. Why am I drawing the line right here? Maybe for others, the line is just in a different place (e.g. anything that’s not in the “adult” section of the movie store is fair game).

But I’m not drawing the line here. Honestly, I think drawing lines is very difficult – a constant struggle for me. How do we ever decide where the line should be drawn? And yet, we all must draw a line somewhere. Otherwise, nothing would be off-limits.

What I’m suggesting is that all of the particular examples I’ve given here are well beyond the line. If you can acknowledge that something is pornographic, I think that’s enough to say a Christian just shouldn’t be involved with it. Yes, many moral decisions will be difficult, but I think these all pass beyond that.

“I disagree with your definition of pornographic, so this whole argument is null and void to me.”

Okay, you don’t like the dictionary definition I use above. You don’t think that’s what “porn” truly is. Porn is the stuff that gets an X-rating. We can quibble over the semantics, but I think we can agree that the things I’m mentioning are intended to stimulate erotic feelings. And whatever word we assign to those things, I don’t think we can call them godly.

Some may say, “No! The Reader uses these depictions artistically. And The Hangover uses them for humor.” I’ll get perhaps uncomfortably blunt here. Does this material sexually arouse you? I think that was a part of the intent. Don’t tell me the producers of The Hangover weren’t counting on excited young men being more motivated to buy a ticket because of those scenes. Don’t tell me Kate Winslet nude on-screen for the majority of a movie and having sex with a teenage boy is all just art. And even if it is, is it appropriate art? Should you be watching other people have sex? In most other contexts, we would call that person a pervert or a voyeur, right?

But Jesus says, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15).

Yes, I’m not focusing here on what comes out of a person – good deeds, outreach and witness. And those are greatly important! But are you really going to use this verse this way? Does this verse make it acceptable for you to consume anything you please? I’m just not buying it. Let’s consider 2 Corinthians 6:14-17:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers” is typically used in evangelical circles to tell Christians not to marry anyone who isn’t a Christian. I think the passage intends far more than this. “Come out from them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing.” I think this is telling us that we should expect Christians to touch and participate in markedly different things from the rest of our world. When we abstain from worldly things, can we still be relevant and still have a witness in the world? I sure hope so. If not, I hope we’ll choose to abstain anyway. See “Prophets and Pragmatism” for more on that.

“There are so many other things to consider in our reading and viewing choices. You’re focusing too much just on sexual issues.”

Yes, there are many other issues to address. They don’t make this particular issue any less of a problem, though. If you want to list other things we should consider abstaining from in addition to some of these, feel free. And if you want to say I’m focusing too much on what not to do rather than what to do, well, I think we need both.

The reason this is all upsetting me so right now… At the same time as I’ve seen a number of American Christians making entertainment choices no different from the rest of our world, I’ve been reading accounts of Christians in other parts of the world who were severely persecuted for things like refusing to work on the Sabbath. I’m disheartened at our level of commitment if we won’t abstain from some of these things at no real hardship to ourselves while others around the world are taking much bolder stands at risk of suffering and even death. Would those brothers and sisters around the world, who are persecuted for their faith, be shocked that we call ourselves Christians but can’t abstain from pornography because of our culture’s influence or our own desires?

I know I’m going to come off as a prude to some people. The word prude comes from the same root as prudence. And I suppose that’s what I’m asking for: a bit more prudence (and temperance) in our choices. If you disagree, help me understand what I’m missing.

Related articles

• Relevance and Holiness
• Prophets and Pragmatism
• The most important thing in our faith
• Stealing

The analysis of the earthly city is cautionary, pressing Christians to recognize that cultural systems are often fundamentally dis-ordered, in need of both resistance and reordering by Christian labor in all streams of culture.

You’ll find here another angle at what I’ve been suggesting about Christians and politics. It will give you a small introduction to Augustine’s City of God, one of my Top 10 Christian Classics. If you see anything that seems to contradict what I’ve been saying, there’s a misunderstanding or miscommunication somewhere, because I wholly agree with Smith.

Really?

My recent post on capitalism has brought several questions about how Jesus would handle the political world today. I’m not sure I can identify the political world that Jesus would envision.

The libertarians say, “Surely Jesus would want everyone to make charitable decisions on their own. And more people will have more purchasing power  to do more good and help more people in a more free market.”

The statists say, “Surely Jesus would want the needy cared for. And the individual wealthy clearly aren’t doing it on their own. Look at all the poor still among us and the enormous wealth inequality.”

I hear people of all different political stripes say that Jesus would agree with them politically. And they all have a decent case. But I’m not sure if Jesus would take a stand for any of our existing parties or systems.

I see a very political Jesus in Scripture in one sense, but also a very apolitical Jesus. To the secular world, his primary message seems to be ”repent.” Stop oppressing people and take care of them. And also: your only real hope will be found in communion with God, not by your own strivings. We could get into skirmishes over the best economic and political systems, but I don’t think any of our secular models really work. In a fallen world, they all break down when it comes to caring for the most needy. [see "Christians, Capitalism, and Ayn Rand" for a brief take on why these all break down]

I think Jesus’ more political statements are for believers. And his call to them is to live out a different economy than our world’s, not to go advocate for a better system within the world.

To clarify my earlier suggestion: I’m suggesting that Christians give their energy to living out a Christian economy in a secular world. I think that’s our better contribution than trying to make secular world political decisions. I don’t think we need to waste much of our time affirming one economic system or another or choosing one party affiliation or another. I think we can provide a third way.

That’s not living in a bubble. It’s just engaging in a very different way. Not stepping into the back-and-forth political fray – which seems to be mostly about power – but instead creating an alternate economy.

I don’t know whether Jesus would be an advocate for big government or small government. What I do know is that among believers, “Anyone who has two shirts should share with the one who has none, and anyone who has food should do the same.” We’re not doing that yet. I think much more fruit will come from that than engaging in the secular arguments, where I’m starting to believe both sides are wrong.

Oddly, a lot of these thoughts came for me when I started reading Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and other capitalist economics. The more I read, the more I realized that these people really think our society’s great hope is unfettered capitalism, and it was all based on assumptions I disagreed with — about the point of life (some form of material prosperity and happiness), the point of society (more middle-class people with purchasing power), and the state of humanity (generally good, just needing more freedom).

[See the problem with our notions of independence and freedom]

I got so frustrated with those assumptions that it made me start questioning the whole system. I realized that I had wanted to make Jesus a capitalist just as much as others had wanted to make him a socialist or Republican or Democrat. And what we consistently see in Scripture is that when people ask Jesus “A or B?” he typically says something to suggest, “wrong question” or “have you considered C?”

I wonder if my questions – “Republican or Democrat?” “Capitalism or Socialism?” “Big government or Small government?” – were the wrong questions all these years. I wonder whether Jesus’ challenge back to me would be: “How come you have two shirts and your neighbor has none?” Woe be it to me if I say, “Because the wrong person got elected!”

Also of interest:
The Church as Alternate Economy
Christians, Capitalism, and Ayn Rand
Escaping Conformity

In light of my previous post on Christians, Capitalism, and Ayn Rand, I’m going to share a fascinating video and an insightful infographic.

I’ll keep my commentary brief and related to the previous post…

The video shows the health and social problems that rise with economic inequality. If we assume that we can’t fix the broader inequality, perhaps Christians and churches could look to those problem areas as primary places to get involved. How can we contribute something positive in areas of imprisonment, teenage births, obesity, mental illness and addiction…?

The video is nearly 17 minutes long. It’s worth it. Find some time and watch.

The infographic below is enlightening. It shows a marked gap between our perception and reality regarding wealth distribution. Credit to James K. A. Smith (@james_ka_smith), whose symposium I mentioned in the last post, for sharing the graphic.

This isn’t really a theological post. The last one was. This is just to stimulate some further thoughts in light of that one. What do you think?

In the midst of it all, I’ve spent a lot of time wondering what is an appropriate Christian stance and response.

Capitalism and Christian Economics

Let’s look first at the ardent capitalists. Ayn Rand’s fame has soared in the past few years. People like Edward Conard are writing about how growing income inequality is a sign that our economy is working (see this long but interesting interview with him).

So far as the goal is to increase the number of middle-class people and to increase their purchasing power, I agree with nearly everything the capitalists say. I’m concerned, though, that they seriously underestimate how much people will lie, cheat, steal, and oppress because of their love of money. Rand and Conard clearly don’t believe that the love of money is the root of all evil. Actually, they might say that the love of money is the root of all human ingenuity.

Rand summed up her whole belief system for us: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

The problem: a Christian worldview disagrees with every bit of this. Christ is the hero, who saves depraved humanity from our sinfulness. Holiness, not some secular understanding of happiness, is the moral purpose of life. Service to God is our noblest activity. And reason often fails and deceives.

I can’t get over the feeling that Rand’s (IMHO) bad theology and anthropology led her to develop a bad economic model. She built her model on the assumption that humanity is essentially good and that an individual’s own happiness is the point of life.

Christian theology and anthropology tell me that humanity is corrupt – that without regulation, people will mistreat others to satiate their own greed. Christian theology tells me that greed is at the root of all kinds of evil. Christian theology says Gordon Gekko is wrong – greed is terribly harmful to individuals and society.

I’m not a Socialist

So now you’re thinking I must be a socialist. Or at least a Democrat. I’m not. I’m not going to belabor the point here, but lest all the conservatives begin assuming I’m just another flaming liberal, I’ll admit that I don’t remember the last time I voted for a Democrat.

Governments are run by depraved people, and they’re equally likely to lie, cheat, steal, and oppress. We’ve seen that when we give government more power, they don’t use it all to fight for the little guy. They use a lot of it to pick their own special interests and protect their own power. In a fallen world, socialism is just as flawed as capitalism.

Regardless if your system is capitalist or socialist, it concentrates a lot of power in the hands of the few. That power will rarely be used in the interest of the person without power, status, or wealth. Whether they be at the top of a government bureaucracy or a big business, people love money and power and will fight for more of it.

Chilling for the capitalists is the suggestion that because of that concentration of power, capitalism will lead to socialism.

In the end, I struggle to know what to believe about politics. I think the capitalists’ philosophy only works if humanity is inherently good – or if the goal is creating more middle-class people, often at the expense of the poorest. If humanity were inherently good, socialism would work just fine for those purposes, too.

A Christian Economic View

As economics go, I think Christians should seek to embody an economic culture that reflects new creation — not counting our possessions as our own, selling property and sharing as anyone has need, having no needy persons among us. That’s very different from the goal of creating more middle-class people with more purchasing power, or from forcibly taking from those with more to give to those with less. No policy can accomplish it.

Are Christians today more focused on fixing the secular economy than living out a Christian economy? In a secular world, greed and extravagance will always prevent a new creation economy, regardless of legislation. Someone will always be scammed, oppressed, left on the outside.

Regardless of where we find ourselves in the world — capitalist, socialist, distributist – I wish Christians would give their energy to taking care of the people who got left out of the system. Our culture has been so immersed in the Tea Party-Occupy world of pragmatic, secular economics that I’m worried Christians are forgetting that our economics start from a different place.

If you have the time to read it, the brilliant theologian Jamie Smith participated in a symposium with a Christian economist that is a great depiction of the problem that economists and theologians are having even trying to have a discussion. I think we’re starting with such different sets of “givens” and assumptions that it’s hard to even understand each other in a conversation. Smith’s opening article is great. If you read the whole thing, you’ll see just how much they’re talking directly past each other because of different starting points.

You should also read…

• Jesus and Politics - a further take on the relationship between Christianity and politics
• Economic Inequality and Societies - a follow-up post with thought-provoking video and infographic
• The Church as Alternate Economy - how I believe the Church is called to embody an alternate economy

Dr. Karen Gushta is research coordinator at Coral Ridge Ministries and author of The War on Children: How Pop Culture and Public Schools Put Our Kids at Risk. Dr. Gushta is a career educator who has taught at all levels, from kindergarten to graduate level teacher education, in both public and Christian schools in America and overseas. Dr. Gushta served as the first international director of Kid’s Evangelism Explosion. She has a Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education from Indiana University and Masters degrees in Elementary Education from the University of New Mexico and in Christianity and Culture from Knox Theological Seminary.

On this great day for our country with a Royal wedding, the following article highlights why we who are Christians need to be concerned about the authenticity of our teaching and the importance of proclaiming our faith with the bible as our touchstone. Clearly any Christian minister who offers approval for people to live together before their marriage has left both the biblical mandate and Christian tradition.

Royal wedding: Archbishop backs William and Kate’s decision to live together before marriage

The Archbishop of York has given his backing to Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage.

Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple?s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past Photo: PA By Tim Ross

 

The Archbishop of York backed Prince William and Kate Middleton’s decision to live together before marriage, saying that many modern couples want to “test the milk before they buy the cow”. Dr John Sentamu argued that the royal couple’s public commitment to live their lives together today would be more important than their past. But Anglican traditionalists criticised the Archbishop, the second most senior cleric in the Church of England, for failing to reinforce Christian teaching which prohibits sex outside marriage.

The row came as Prince William and Kate Middleton unveiled their choices for the royal wedding service, which include classically British music and hymns, and an updated choice of marriage vows in which the bride omits the word “obey”. In a television interview, Dr Sentamu was asked whether it was appropriate for the Prince, who is in line to become head of the Church of England as King, to have been living with his bride before marriage. He said he had conducted wedding services for “many cohabiting couples” during his time as a vicar in south London. “We are living at a time where some people, as my daughter used to say, they want to test whether the milk is good before they buy the cow,” he said. “For some people that’s where their journeys are. “But what is important, actually, is not to simply look at the past because they are going to be standing in the Abbey taking these wonderful vows: ‘for better for worse; for richer for poorer; in sickness and in health; till death us do part.’” However, the Rev David Phillips, general secretary of the Church Society, a conservative evangelical group, said the Archbishop had “missed an opportunity to set out Christian teaching” “What he said wasn’t appropriate as he,” Mr Phillips said. “He gave the impression it doesn’t matter whether people live together before marriage. I thought he would have tried to get across Christian teaching on marriage that says it is not appropriate to have sex outside marriage.”

Final thought: My Mother -in-law in Canada suggests this advice “You don’t get free milk before you buy the cow”. The church and our most honoured Royal family ought to inspire biblical godly standards rather than stooping to the swaying standards of modern trends.

I loved this approach to studying and working with youth. It led to many years of exciting ministry in two different locations where the church functioned as a partner with the broader community in working with and for our youth. But I think it is time for the pendulum to swing our sights back to the dark side . . .

The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Kids Count data suggests that much of the progress made in the 90’s has since stalled or even regressed. The Children’s Defense Fund’s “State of America’s Children” seems to agree as stated clearly by Marian Wright Edelman before the U.S. Senate this past Fall. Both of these studies measure multiple indicators of well-being for our young people.

“According to the CDF report, children in America lag behind almost all industrialized nations on key child indicators. The United States has the unwanted distinction of being the worst among industrialized nations in relative child poverty, in the gap between rich and poor, in teen birth rates, and in child gun violence” (From the “State of America’s Children” website).

Simply put, things are not good for our kids.

And yet where is the Church? What is our response? Do we have a role to play beyond Christian education? What does it look like to truly do ministry “for the sake of our kids” and not simply for the sake of the Church’s future? It is time that our concerns and conversations move beyond post-confirmation retention, beyond intergenerational fun nights and beyond all things trendy and emerging. Our kids are suffering.

In chapter two of the book, Lee establishes that the Church of England has always been Reformed, Protestant and Evangelical. It doesn’t feel like that now, does it? Lee’s keen to reinstall Reformed Theology as the basic operating system for Anglicanism. To do this he’s also involved with a Church Society project. They’ve just launched the Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library. They’ve published a couple of volumes of George Whitefield’s sermons. And Lee’s edited those and written an introduction. You can get them here.

This is the blurb from the website

By constitution the Church of England is a Reformed, Protestant, and Evangelical denomination. In its original foundation it was never intended to be merely the religious expression of changing English culture; nor was it designed as a pluralistic melting pot of various contradictory persuasions. As John Stott rightly asserted in 1970, ‘according to its own formularies, this church is reformed and evangelical’ (in Christ the Controversialist). In recent years such firm confidence has been lost, as alternative versions of Anglican identity and history have gained sway. Evangelicals have too often been content to think, act, and be seen as marginal rather than as mainstream Anglicans. Part of the reason for this has been a neglect of the doctrinal deposit and pastoral piety of our rich heritage of heroes amongst Anglican reformers, revivers and writers from years gone by.

It is hoped that this Reformed Evangelical Anglican Library (REAL) will contribute towards a recovery of their more robust vision of Anglican theology and identity. To that end it is hoped, by God’s grace, that this collection will contain a variety of theological, homiletical, and pastoral works from previous generations to both edify and inspire us as we seek to reform the church and reach the lost in our day.

May God be pleased graciously to continue using us and the Church of England for his greater glory, in every corner of our land and throughout his world, as we uphold what the Coronation Oath calls ‘the true profession of the Gospel… the Protestant Reformed Religion.’

Here’s some more on Lee,

Lee is the Editor of Theologian: the internet journal for integrated theology at www.theologian.org.uk , and Review Editor of Churchman.  He is a graduate of New College (Oxford), Oak Hill (London), and Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia), and has worked for churches in Oxford, Kettering, and London.  He and his family live in Cambridge where he is researching seventeenth century biblical interpretation.

Church leaders have been discussing the move for some time and are expected to reveal their decision in July during the General Synod – the national assembly of the Church of England.

Divorced clergy could be allowed to become Church of England bishops for the first time

The change could face heavy criticism from traditionalists who believe it would undermine biblical teaching.

The Rev David Phillips, chairman of evangelical group the Church Society, told the Sunday Telegraph: “Though one recognises there are very difficult cases, in terms of the public ministry of the Church we should be modelling the standards Jesus set out, which is that marriage is for life.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for bishops to be divorcees.”

The newspaper reports the change was agreed at a meeting of the House of Bishops.

A Church of England spokesman said the House considered the issue during a meeting in May after seeking legal advice.

“The House had asked previously for clarification of the relevant legal background and, in the light of that, has now agreed that a statement setting out its approach to these issues should be prepared.

“It is expected that the statement, addressing the relevant legal and theological issues, will be available in July when the General Synod meets.

“There is no legal obstacle to persons who have remarried after divorce, or are married to spouses remarried after divorce, becoming bishops. The agreed policy is to pursue a discretionary approach on a case-by-case basis. It is a clarification in an area where there has previously been some uncertainty both about the legal background and the policy.”

Thirteen Reformed scholars take on postmodern evangelicals and provide a solid, biblical critique of their ideas.

While self-described “post-conservative evangelicals” enjoy increasing influence in the evangelical world, they represent a significant challenge to biblical faith. Popularizers like Brian McLaren (of Emergent Church fame) trade on the work of scholars like Stan Grenz, John Franke, and Roger Olson, whose “innovations” represent a major makeover of traditional and historic evangelical theology. This is especially the case with the doctrines of Scripture, the atonement, and the character of God—all of which stand at the center of evangelical Christianity.

In Reforming or Conforming?, scholars such as John Bolt, Scott Clark, Paul Helm, and Paul Helseth join editors Gary Johnson and Ron Gleason in analyzing and critiquing the ideas of those who promote postmodernism as a positive force in theology. Pastors, laymen, and college students will find this book a helpful resource in understanding and refuting postmodern evangelicalism. Includes a foreword by David F. Wells.

Experts survey the new media landscape and explore specific ways in which Christians can expand their ministry effectiveness and advance their worldview with discernment and grace.

A Pew Study reports that only 2% of America’s twelve million bloggers claim “religion, spirituality or faith” as their main topic. This leaves a great mission field in cyberspace, say contributors to The New Media Frontier, because the latest forms of communication present so many opportunities to promote the cause of Christ in other topics and fields. Before blindly jumping in, however, Christians need to weigh the possibilities against the consequences, and then proceed with the practical discernment and grace this book provides.

With a foreword by national radio host Hugh Hewitt—who has been at the forefront of the new media movement among Christians—editors Roger Overton and John Mark Reynolds (along with an impressive list of other new media experts) survey the current landscape and explore specific areas in which God’s people can creatively expand their reach to a lost world. By stressing the urgency for Christian involvement, unearthing the dangers, and advising readers on how to use this media with different audiences, this book equips believers to advance, demonstrate, and utilize the Christian worldview in this exciting realm.

Purchase The New Media Frontier

As I read the headlines today of the judge’s order to keep over 400 kids in state custody, my heart is torn.  On many levels I see the court’s intention, but I am unsure of their right.  This entire proceeding began with a single phone call.  From one allegation the police justified removing several families, encroaching upon many homes, and even entering a place of worship.  Even if you disagree, as do I, with the FLDS theology, you must recognize that this group deserves as much access to the constitution as you and I.  Authorities used information from an unidentified source to take all of their actions.  Why is this important?  Precedent has been made.  In the future your church may be the subject of such actions.  Anyone will be able to complain and you will be subject to the undue process that was shown in Texas.

Lest you think I am stretching issue, listen to this story from here in New Mexico.  An Albuquerque photographer was asked to photograph a civil union between two lesbians.  Note, this was not a legal union.  However, the photographer cited her beliefs and refused service.  The two homosexuals then sued the photographer through the civil rights commission.  The result was a $6000 judgment for the couple.  With this mindset and the disregard for due process, Christians will face increased persecution in the future.  Look at the warning signs, don’t let your rights deteriorate without a fight.

First, in the area of health, I noticed several problems with Christians. I want to share one of the more severe issues. STDs have long been the surprise at the end of a night of physical enjoyment for so many people. After getting an STD many face a moral decision. Should they continue their escapades of enjoyment at the risk of their next unsuspecting partner? Can you imagine the stress this puts on a person? May I offer an observation. Christians are to blame for this worry! You see Christians teach that you should NOT have sex outside of a heterosexual marriage. They even deny you the right to sleep around with your high school sweethearts. Think about this, if Christians would ease up everyone would get STDs. When everybody’s got it, you don’t have to worry or feel guilty about passing on that “itch” for love. Matter of fact if the Christians would just shut up, the schools would teach our kids how to have sex at an even earlier age so they can have fear free sex for at least a few years before these diseases get the best of them. Its common sense people… no Christians… no worries!

Next, I want to explore the issue of low self-esteem in children. My heart is broken over the amount of low self esteem in the world. Yet it seems to me that Christianity is the real problem. Everyday young girls must face low self esteem because their Christian parents make them dress in a modest fashion. Everyone knows that when a girl of 11 or 12 dresses like a whore they feel better about themselves. Christian parents daily deny this right of passage. In addition they place unreasonable expectations on these girls. Curfews, monitored dates, conferences with the boy and his parents, and refusal to get them birth control add to their low self esteem. This type of oppression is typical of the harm Christian parents press on their children. This blog would be incomplete without mentioning the terror that Christian parents inflict on their sons. Christians actually believe the Bible’s teaching that a person should work if they expect to eat. Everywhere young boys have to take out the trash, mow the lawn, paint the carport, and do the same for their grandparents! On top of this some of them have to get jobs and pay for their own clothes and transportation, rarely is anything left for alcohol and drugs. Can you imagine if everybody followed these rules? Everyone who worked for the welfare department would lose their jobs!!! Christians have no compassion!!! In addition, Christian children constantly face the problem that they have no time to go out and rebel against society and its rules. They haven’t even the time to hook up and experience their first STD! These parents further harm their children by taking them to church and teaching them about Jesus who died for them. To make things worse, the kids constantly hear from adults that they are loved. Can you really feel good about yourself when you are told by an adult that they love you? Plus they are expected to hear this junk every night because Christian parents are never too drunk to pay attention. The next thing you know these kids grow up to become the same kind of terrorist that they lived with for so long. Then they have children and spouses to think about. Their low self esteem as children moves into adulthood since they are not free to have multiple affairs with other people. They don’t get drunk and rarely lose their jobs for laziness, poor attitudes, or dishonesty. Where’s the excitement in that kind of life? Can you imagine NEVER experiencing the thrill of laying drunk in someone’s apartment while your kids and spouse are at home wondering where you are or if you are coming back?

I am glad that society has finally realized that suicide bombers, child molesters, drunks, perverts, liars, theives, the lazy, the uncaring, and the irresponsible aren’t the real problem makers… Its those fundamental Christians!!!!

Even with this realization I cannot break my connection with Christ Jesus. So, I am resigned to preach the Word of God, pray to the God of the Word, follow the Bible to the end, and live with the saints in heaven for eternity. I will not give in to sin and I will teach my children to resist the devil. I won’t let them experience the freedom of ruining their lives, because I care too much. I will let them make everyday mistakes, but I will also let them suffer the consequences. They will learn to “pull their own weight” by carrying rocks, digging holes, painting the carport, working for the elderly for free, and attending to the needs of the church. I will be there right beside them through it all. When the world is crashing around them, they will have each other, and the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Father in heaven. In the end we will all share the glories of heaven while remembering the joy of living a clean, holy, submitted, chaste, and modest life. If you have a problem with that then you can sue, slander, shout, suppress, shoot, and slaughter. It makes no difference for I will never compromise. I will never stop… I am a Christian!

As my good brother reported on the gcmwatch blog GCMBLOG, Kirk Talley, (who came out of the closet after a man, who Kirk had sent a nude picture of himself, threatened blackmail), has frequented the sodomite and lesbian congregation of Open Door Community Church near Little Rock, Arkansas several times in the past. Curious to who else may have shared fellowship with the church, I did some surfing. What I found wasn’t surprising to me, but it was disappointing. Back in 2006 Kirk “Is he Gay or not” Talley shared the Open Door stage with Joyce Martin of the Martins. Can’t believe it? Here is a link with pictures of the touching event. Pics Unless the sodomites rush to take down the pictures, you will see Kirk and Joyce lovingly ministering and fellowshipping with both sodomites and lesbians. For those of you who will throw up the whole “but Joyce is too anointed to be wrong” argument, let me remind you that the anointing of God is neither charisma nor talent. The anointing argument is often used to exclude the person from any scrutiny or rebuke. Listen to what the book of 1 John says about an anointing from God:

1Jn 2:26-27 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

No lies, no rebellion to truth allowed! Scripture itself teaches you that whoever would fellowship with sodomites and lesbians are enemies of God.

James 4:4-10 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Co 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

1Co 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
(Notice verse 11 allows for redemption from this lifestyle, but total submission and repentance is necessary)

Now, to get to the verse I know some of you are waiting to throw at me.

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

The Bible clearly directs this passage to those who are in the fellowship of the church. The Bible places these heroes of the stage outside of that fellowship. (1 Cor 5:9-12 see above)

Lets bring in one more favorite story of redemption before we get to Kirk’s testimony at Open Door (of which this blogger has obtained a copy!). A few years back the Bishop family split up without any explanation. It was rumored that Kenny was in trouble. Years and a divorce later, Kenny admitted to his bar-hopping ways. Now, I can’t condemn him for something of which he claims repentance. However, just like Kirk, Kenny’s road to recovery led right through a gay spot near old Little Rock. On April 26, 2005, Kenny shared the stage at Open Door. In attendance that day was no other than Dr. Tony Campolo and Marsha “won’t Bill Gaither give me one more hug” Stevens. Its no wonder that Kirk and Kenny have some common dates this year, since they share the same crowd! For those who don’t know either, they are both pro-homosexual “ministers”. The openly lesbian Marsha Stevens is best known for her songwriting. One of her most famous songs is the theologically incorrect “For Those Tears I Died”. Marsha is also the founder of BALM – (Born Again Lesbian Music). See the GCMBLOG for more info on Stevens (hint: search Mark Lowery)

Back to the superstar of this story. Recently, those in the know (this blogger) has personally been in contact with those who are scheduled to host Mr. Talley. When asked about Kirk’s upcoming date with Evangelicals Concerned, ECWR Kirk defended himself to them by saying that he was only going to give his testimony. Another church was given the excuse that is only a business engagement and that they weren’t going to limit what he said. When you read the summary of his “testimony” you will see why a militant gay group would agree to these terms. They’re not in bed with the enemy, Kirk’s an old friend of their cause. In our scoop Link (go to speakers and scroll down to Kirk Talley, 4/06) of the “testimony’ of Kirk Talley, we see a very arrogant response to the whole situation. I know this is going to sound much different than what you have heard, but remember Kirk’s among friends at the Open Door church.

The first thing that I noticed was Kirk’s familiarity with the church. He was no stranger to the crowd. He has been in this hole before! He begins by giving an overview of the entire story. One thing that was new to me was the admission that homosexuality had broken up his marriage. This was way back in the 80′s. Now, this revelation came to his family at this time. Roger and Deb (His brother and sister in law. The three comprised the Talley Trio Talleys corrected 3/29) knew that Kirk was gay for almost 20 years before the scandal broke. An interesting bit is that he has one sister who is bold enough to obey the Bible and stop fellowship. Kirk claims that he hasn’t spoken to her since 86. If Roger had been so bold, we would have been saved 20 years of deception! Anyway, he went from the family story to the scandal. In vivid detail he describes how his world fell apart when the Knoxville News Sentinel broke the story. He was suicidal because he was going to lose everything. He made it sound like “everything” was his spot in the industry. No regrets of homosexuality breaking up his marriage, driving away his sister, or causing his lifelong depression. Man, I hate to lose my place in the charts due to everybody hatin’ me!!! Not once did he say that his sin had caused this fall. He blamed his church, his High School friends (I went to Middle School in the same building), his family, and the extortionist. Evidently he’s not responsible for his own actions (maybe he was born that way?). Matter of fact he spent exactly 37 minutes and 21 seconds blaming everyone else for the pain he had gone through. By his own admission, 2004 was the worst year of his life. He lost money, singing dates, received mean emails, etc. The whole time I’m listening to him complain, I’m thinking of Numbers 32:22-23 “And the land be subdued before the LORD: then afterward ye shall return, and be guiltless before the LORD, and before Israel; and this land shall be your possession before the LORD. But if ye will not do so, behold, ye have sinned against the LORD: and be sure your sin will find you out.” I tried to hold out hope that he was going to swing this thing around and rebuke the spirit of sodomy. All hope fell when he invoked the name of the lesbian gospel saviorette, Marsha Stevens. He related her rejection by the church with his own. Hmmm. Kirk she’s a lesbian, what are you driving at? After some time, he brought up his process of redemption. Funny, his redemption didn’t include admittance of sin nor repentance. He stated that his 6 member advisory board had asked him to sit down because he was “emotionally unfit to talk to anyone.” I thought it was because he was contacting gay men with pornographic pictures of himself in order to “discuss” his hidden gay desires! In testimony language meeting gay men online with lewd photographs of oneself in order to act upon his sodomite urges while you continue to deceive the church is translated as, “finding someone to talk to.” Anyway, when this board finally saw that not singing was leaving him in a worse state, they let him sing again. One of early concerts was at The Potter’s House Fellowship in Miami. He said that he went there and experienced a move of God more powerful than he had ever experienced in any type of church. He told the Open Door crowd that The Potter’s House was “a wonderful, loving church like this one.” For those of you who are wondering it is also a sodomite & lesbian church, just like Open Door. He went on to brag about the way that church ministered and worshiped god. Kirk, is worshiping the god of this world really that great? The next day he said one of the 6 ministers called him to ask about where he had been. When he answered that he had been at a gay church, his spiritual advisor asked him, “aren’t you afraid to sing there?” Kirk arrogantly replies, “When he said that I just kinda… I just kinda snapped, (crowd laughs) I said, ‘LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, I’ve sung to gay people all my life’ I said, ‘They’ve just been hid, in your congregation, and on your staff, and on, and in your choir, no I’m not afraid to sing there.’ I said, ‘how inconsistent would it be of my testimony if I said, “no I can’t go and sing” (homosexual crowd claps). Evidently the conversation shifts to money and Kirk basically tells him that the homosexual church took care of him while a nearby straight church wouldn’t even pay for his hotel room. Its an industry baby… gotta have that money thing happening in order to be right! The rest of the story is littered with his prideful account of how GQ treated him better than the Christian media. Ok, he said a lot, to be fair go listen for yourself.

If you decide to go to the site and listen, here are a few words and phrases that you will fail to hear: repent, sin, I take responsibility, deliverance, abomination, hell, I’m sorry, I deserve the fruit of my sin, I beg forgiveness. If you contact Kirk, don’t expect a straight answer (no pun intended). He will tell you whatever it takes to get in bed with your congregation. If you have him for a concert, expect tears, pity, blame, and bitterness. Don’t expect repentance. Don’t expect a saved, sanctified, submitted, saint. If you are a spirit-filled child of God, don’t be surprised if your spirit and mouth echo the words of the apostle Paul in Acts 13:9-10 “Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?”

I encourage you to demand an end to this promotion of this abomination. Earlier this year I street preached at the Super Bowl’s Gospel Celebration. The headliner was the pro-homosexual Patti Labelle. Get some boldness, don’t let this vile, nasty spirit into the church or your heart. Mark my words, the silent church will be the lost church!

Rev 2:18 And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass;
Rev 2:19 I know thy works, and charity, and service, and faith, and thy patience, and thy works; and the last to be more than the first.
Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
Rev 2:21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
Rev 2:25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
Please feel free to comment. Watch for further blogs about the music industry’s secrets in the future.

Open Door Homosexual Church – http://www.www.sherwoodopendoor.org

w/pics of Martin & Talley – http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/talleymartinconcert.html

list of guest speakers and performers w/audio files – http://www.sherwoodopendoor.org/downloads.html

Psa 128:2  For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.

I can’t be too hard on the government, the church has instituted a pork program of spiritual welfare.  Millions “live” off of this system.  Fed by the blasphemies of a broken succession of spiritual social workers, they march through for their apportioned “dose” of sustenance.   You see, welfare was intentioned to be a program that lifts you to a better position in life.  The church originally covered this task for the spiritual needs of the individual.  However, this ability to lift was eradicated when the church left Biblical teaching.  To replace a system which provided growth and maturity took some innovation.  Decades have passed and the church now has a plethora of options to fill your tummy.  Prosperity, fellowship centered, purpose driven, seeker friendly, politically active, music centered, activity crazy, or whatever you desire, the church has a flavor that will get you addicted to a workless experience.  The average church goer never hears of sanctification, holiness, separation, sinlessness, and submission.  We want the blessing of the experience without the experience.  Simeon’s dream of an on demand god has come to fruition.  The sad thing is that we don’t even see it.

I  don’t how the politicians can fix welfare.  I’m not expecting a solution too soon.  I understand that this monster is hard to kill.  However, I do have an answer for the church welfare state.  Return to the Bible, repent and preach the Word.

I’ve heard this preached many many times. It has been a standard for the message of faith. I could always count on the church to provide me the instruction that led me to be just like Elijah. Encouragement was never an issue. After all, A Great and Mighty Fortress is Our God, Right? Today, the church has released itself into several roles, none of which identify with the spirit of the prophet. Biblical encouragement and approach to life situations aren’t palatable enough for the average Christian. The call to claim blessings is one that is wrapped in submission, sacrifice, and humility. Notice that the prophet didn’t promise the widow meat, milk, dates, figs, etc. He promised meal and oil. Even with this she still had to gather sticks for the fire. The contemporary call, “come as you are – leave as you came” has filled the church with milk-sucking individuals. The problem arises when these unsaved hearers become sick from the milk. They then call for gentler sustenance. Out pops the soy-milk gospel. It promises abundance without sacrifice, grace without repentance, and self-esteem in place of humility. The Epicurean (see Acts 17:18) call has reached the church! We have traded the spirit of the prophet for the spirit of the poor. Prosperity doctrine, moral relativism, self-help, and repentless gospel are all fatalistic in nature. This may seem impossible, but think about it. The Epicureans and Stoics promoted high living because of their eventual death. “Eat, drink, and be merry because tomorrow you may die” was the clarion call of this movement. The church today has become its own enemy. We call for happiness, materialistic blessings, abundance, and earthly power in lieu of Biblical humility, power, and blessing. The Son of Man had no place to lay His head, but we can measure our spirituality by the thread count of our sheets? Egyptian cotton is no substitute for Holy Ghost Fruit! Our promises are not temporal in nature. Sure, God will bless and provide for us, but those blessings are for His benefit, not ours. We live for one reason, that he may be exalted! This heresy is a crisis for the American Church. Its time that we drop the fatalism and regain the spirit of the prophet. Jeremiah preached and they beat him. He cried to God and threatened to leave the vocation. However, the call and submission had been dealt with. The Word was like a fire in his bones (Jeremiah 20:9). He could not leave the call because he was a prophet. He received, obeyed, delivered, and lived the Word of God. Could you imagine the modern implication of his situation. He would be told that he needed to plant a seed, just believe, claim it, or laugh his way through the persecution. After all, why should he suffer… He was going to die anyway… Just like Elijah’s widow. Friends, I don’t fear the first death, its the second that scares the Hell away from me.